Obama's Military Budget Is Delusional

Tuesday, 25 Feb 2014 09:52 AM

By Rich Lowry

Share:
  Comment  |
   Contact Us  |
  Print  
|  A   A  
  Copy Shortlink
The Obama administration says that we need to end what it calls "the era of austerity" in Washington. Notably excluded from this admonition is the one department of government that is actually experiencing austerity worthy of the name.
 
Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel unveiled a military budget that will reduce the U.S. Army to pre-World War II levels. The spin is that this will be a smarter force better suited to 21st-century challenges, but everyone knows that it is all about accommodating the trillion dollars in defense cuts adopted during the recent Beltway budgetary wars.
 
Urgent: Do You Approve Or Disapprove of President Obama's Job Performance? Vote Now in Urgent Poll
 
The Pentagon has been a bipartisan target of opportunity. Democrats oppose defense spending because it's defense spending; Republicans oppose it because it is spending.
 
We obviously aren't at the same point as the British in the 19th century, when Bismarck scoffed that if the British army invaded, he'd have it arrested. But 570,000 troops were barely enough to fight the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, and the Hagel budget will take us to 450,000, or — if the defense sequester isn't further relaxed — even fewer.
 
Most defense secretaries aspire to be the next George Marshall. Secretary Hagel evidently wants to be the next Harold Brown, who presided over the Carter-era hollowed-out military.
 
It is not quite true that the cuts are undertaken without any strategic thought. The Obama administration's strategic thought is . . . that we need no strategic thought. It is said that the British acquired an empire through a fit of absent-mindedness. We are losing our global influence the same way. Because we can't be bothered.
 
Understandably, we don't want to fight another grinding ground war. But this doesn't mean we won't have to, or we won't experience other nasty surprises. It is an unfortunate part of the American tradition to convince ourselves, when we find it convenient, that the world is not a dangerous place that always demands our attention, or else.
 
In 1939, the United States had an Army of 185,000 men on the cusp of history's most cataclysmic war. We believed conflicts could always be worked out among nations, and that war served no one's interests, and so it was a thing of the past.
 
"It was odd," the late historian Stephen Ambrose writes, "that a nation that had come into existence through a victorious war, gained large portions of its territory through war, established its industrial revolution and national unity through a bloody civil war, and won a colonial empire through war, could believe that war profited no one."
 
But so it did. As soon as World War II ended, we embarked on a carelessly precipitous demobilization that junked one of the most fearsome Western armies ever assembled. Just having liberated Europe, we still managed to find ourselves unprepared for the onset of the Korean War.
 
Defenders of the current defense cuts say that we still spend more on our military than anyone else in the world. True, but we aren't a mere regional power. Unless we want to outsource patrolling the global sea lanes to China and the security of Europe to Russia, we will always have to spend substantially more than anyone else does.
 
Our allies aren't in any position to pick up the slack. When the French army wants to go anywhere, we have to fly it. The entire British navy is smaller than the fleet sent to take back the Falklands in the 1980s.
 
Urgent: Do You Approve Or Disapprove of President Obama's Job Performance? Vote Now in Urgent Poll
 
President Barack Obama is a devoted believer in the efficacy of government spending as government spending — on everything but defense. In 2009, it was $800 billion for stimulus but not a cent for defense. In his wisdom, he is perfectly content to slash a function of government that is indisputably constitutional, that is the basis of our freedom, and that is, relative to domestic entitlements, a drop in the budgetary bucket.
 
We may not regret it this year or the next. But regret it we will.
 
Rich Lowry is the editor of National Review and author of the best-seller “Lincoln Unbound: How an Ambitious Young Railsplitter Saved the American Dream — and How We Can Do It Again.” He has written for The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, and a variety of other publications. Read more reports from Rich Lowry — Click Here Now.
 
 
 

© King Features Syndicate

Share:
  Comment  |
   Contact Us  |
  Print  
  Copy Shortlink
Around the Web
Join the Newsmax Community
Please review Community Guidelines before posting a comment.
>> Register to share your comments with the community.
>> Login if you are already a member.
blog comments powered by Disqus
 
Email:
Retype Email:
Country
Zip Code:
Privacy: We never share your email.
 
Hot Topics
Follow Newsmax
Like us
on Facebook
Follow us
on Twitter
Add us
on Google Plus
Around the Web
Top Stories
You May Also Like

Warren Buffett Betrays America

Friday, 29 Aug 2014 08:29 AM

It must have been a bitter moment for President Barack Obama when he got the news that his favorite economic guru not on . . .

Decisive ISIS Action Needed

Tuesday, 26 Aug 2014 08:26 AM

ISIS is a force for evil that poses an imminent security threat to the United States, but please, let us get back to you . . .

Let Justice Take Its Course in Ferguson

Friday, 15 Aug 2014 11:41 AM

The Ferguson police have done themselves no favors in what is now, inevitably, a no-holds-barred public-relations war. . . .

Most Commented

Newsmax, Moneynews, and Independent. American. are registered trademarks of Newsmax Media, Inc. Newsmax TV, NewsmaxWorld, NewsmaxHealth, are trademarks of Newsmax Media, Inc.

 
NEWSMAX.COM
America's News Page
©  Newsmax Media, Inc.
All Rights Reserved