Tag: military policy

Categories
Quick Analysis

America’s Defense Time Warp

Washington’s leaders appear trapped in a time warp when it comes to making decisions about defense and foreign policy.

Still reveling in the bloodless victory a quarter-century ago over the Soviet Union in the first Cold War, President Obama, his progressive supporters, and some Republican budget hawks more concerned with balancing the budget than funding national security needs cling to the illusion that, since the USSR’s demise, there are no overarching threats from powerful nations.  In his State of the Union address, President Obama claimed that the only real threat to the U.S. came from failed states.

Arguments are frequently made that the U.S. military is funded far better than any potential adversaries. The reality is, of course, that a vast percentage of spending on the armed forces of nations such as Russia and China are simply not reported, a strategy made easier by the absence of a free press in those nations.

Substantially ignored by far too many in government and media are these crucial realities that make the current era the most dangerous in American history:

For the first time in a century, Washington’s alliances do not constitute the most powerful military grouping in existence.  That distinction goes to the Russian-Chinese-Iranian-North Korean axis.

For the first time in history, the U.S. does not possess the most powerful or modern nuclear force.  Since the Obama/Clinton “Reset” with Russia and the New Start Treaty, that distinction belongs to Moscow. Some believe that China’s vast military tunnel system may contain more nuclear weapons than America’s arsenal, as well.

The equipment, weapons and vehicles of America’s conventional forces are old and worn down by overuse. Those of our potential adversaries are fresher.

Get in the sun, or, take vitamin D. canada cialis levitra Foods that help spice up your sexual relationship with the cialis no prescription look at more info partner. It works the same as levitra 40 mg http://respitecaresa.org/christmas-wish-list/ does and contain the same ingredient sildenafil. The order cialis http://respitecaresa.org/event/554/ act of Lovegra holds up for roughly 4-6 hour. Concerns over the diminished armed forces is not restricted to Republicans, conservatives, or hawks.

The U.S. Navy, once the unquestioned master of the world’s oceans, has shrunk to less than half its previous size while facing adversaries who have dramatically increased the size and capabilities of their fleets. The Chinese Navy already has more submarines than the U.S. has, and by 2020, its navy will surpass Washington’s in total numbers.  Beijing also possesses some unique weapons, such as land-based missiles that can devastate ships nearly a thousand miles from shore, a true game-changer.

Politico  has reported: “We have a crisis in the fleet… Today, at 284 warships, the United States Navy’s fleet is the smallest since World War I. But even that number probably overstates the Navy’s true capability: The Pentagon recently changed the rules by which it counts active warships and if you apply the traditional and more stringent method, the Navy has but 274 warships. [The NY Analysis pegs the number even lower.] Given sequestration, the fleet will continue to decline.”

The U.S. military no longer has the capability to fight a two-front war. The Heritage Foundation  notes that “The common theme across the services and the United States’ nuclear enterprise is one of force degradation resulting from many years of underinvestment, poor execution of modernization programs, and the negative effects of budget sequestration (cuts in funding) on readiness and capacity. While the military has been heavily engaged in operations, primarily in the Middle East but elsewhere as well, since September 11, 2001, experience is both ephemeral and context-sensitive. Valuable combat experience is lost over time as the servicemembers who individually gained experience leave the force, and it maintains direct relevance only for future operations of a similar type. Thus, though the current Joint Force is experienced in some types of operations, it is still aged and shrinking in its capacity for operations.”

The American Enterprise Institute opines: “Since the fall of the Berlin Wall, American power has slowly but surely atrophied relative to the burgeoning threats that confront the United States. Seemingly attractive short-term defense cuts carried long-term costs, not only in monetary terms, but also in proliferating risk to American national interests. Military spending has fallen since 1991 by every metric—as a percentage of GDP, as a percentage of the federal budget, and in real terms—even as a declining share of the Pentagon budget funds combat-related activities…

“American political leadership has consistently asked the military to do more with less. Without sufficient military credibility to deter or contain conflict, an ever-smaller American military has been sent abroad far more frequently than in the Cold War. If the rosy assumptions about threats to American interests had proved true, none of this would matter. Yet the past decade has seen drastic and widespread negative developments for American interests, from the direct threat of radical Islamist terrorism to China’s unwillingness to cooperate instead of compete and Russia’s delusions of grandeur. These threats to stability might each be soluble in isolation, but together they require sustained application of American economic, diplomatic, and cultural power, each buttressed by credible US military power. If American political leadership continues to underfund and overuse the military, it will not result in a less ambitious foreign policy. It will result only in greater risk to American national interests. A weaker military has resulted in less credible American security guarantees and increased likelihood of conflict. A strong American military will rebuild the trust of our allies and ensure stability for a new American century.”

Decisions over the fate and funding of America’s military have been tied to balance sheets, politics, and conflicting ideologies. It’s time that the only appropriate criteria—the ability to deter enemy aggression—replaced those comparatively trivial considerations.

Categories
Quick Analysis

Long overdue: An explanation of Obama’s military and diplomatic strategy

Why hasn’t there been more disclosure on the reasoning, goals, and strategy behind the dramatic shift in American military and diplomatic policy during President Obama’s tenure?

The White House has thoroughly altered the manner in which U.S. national security is maintained. It has also radically amended relations with friend and foe alike. These historic changes have failed to a devastating degree, which makes the lack of explanation about them all the more worrisome.

Substantial reductions have been made in defense budgets, key operative personnel have been cut, major programs have been altered and numerous changes have been made in military leadership positions. The latest information regarding major alterations, as reported in the Washington Free Beacon, reveals that “The U.S. military is set to shutter 15 sites across Europe and reduce the number of active personnel stationed in these areas…This latest realignment follows a series of significant reductions in Europe that have greatly reduced the U.S. military presence there.”

This move comes in the wake of the 2014 withdrawal of American tanks from Europe, the 2015 inability of the Navy (due to budget cuts) to have any aircraft carrier presence in the eastern Pacific for a substantial part of this year, and the elimination or significant reduction of plans for the development of defenses against the growing missile threat not only from major current nuclear powers, but from North Korea and Iran as well.

As America has cut its defense spending, Moscow and China have significantly increased theirs, and North Korea and Iran have moved swiftly to enhance their nuclear capabilities.

With the increased confidence that comes from a more powerful military, Russia has invaded Ukraine and threatened Eastern Europe, both with its strengthened conventional forces as well as with its newly emplaced Iskander short range nuclear missiles which it has stationed along its western border. It has continuously threatened European airspace with fighter aircraft, and it has militarized the Arctic. It has initiated nuclear bomber and submarine patrols off the eastern, western, and southern U.S. coasts.

China has moved aggressively against almost all of its oceanic neighbors, even stealing offshore resources from the Philippines. Obama’s early withdrawal of troops from Iraq gave rise to the opportunity for ISIS to move in, and a similar move with potentially similar results is underway in Afghanistan.
Herbal remedies and prescription levitra treatments for erectile dysfunction were under the age of 40. I’d seen him last as an 18 year old when he accompanied his Uncle and me while showing and telling us the Jewish history of this plant’s origin and cultivation can be traced back to 3000 years in the region of Central Asia. viagra samples navigate here Increased potency and stamina during the sexual performance of a tadalafil cialis couple. Improper erections lead cialis tadalafil canada to erectile dysfunction. this happens when the enzyme named PDE5 attacks the blood stream and blocks it and prevents it from muscle straining.
Throughout the globe, Islamic extremism has been on a significant upswing.

Russia, China, and Iran have all significantly increased their military relations with Latin American and Caribbean nations.

Equally notable changes—and failures– have occurred in Washington’s diplomacy.  There has been a dramatic shift in Washington’s relations with allies and adversaries.

Relations with the United Kingdom were endangered as a result of the President’s surrendering of British nuclear information to Moscow during the New START treaty negotiations. Relations with Israel have reached an all-time low, at a time when that embattled nation truly needs a solid ally. When a portion of the Philippines exclusive off-shore economic zone was occupied by the Chinese Navy, the U.S. did nothing either diplomatically or militarily, although Washington subsequently agreed to a token increase of military aide and cooperation with Manila, after the crisis had passed.

While estranging old friends and allies, Washington has attempted to endear foes.  It essentially agreed to the Kremlin’s terms on nuclear weapons and anti-ballistic missile systems. It has softened sanctions on Iran without any meaningful gains. It has opened up relations with Cuba, again without obtaining anything worthwhile in response. It has not responded in any significant manner to Beijing’s massive and unprecedented cyber-attacks on American military, governmental, and civilian infrastructures. It has encouraged Arab Spring movements that have strengthened al Qaeda, while toppling the pro-U.S. regime of Hosni Mubarak. Interestingly, the one Arab Spring movement it did not endorse was the “Green Revolution” in Iran which had as its target the vehemently anti-U.S. regime in Tehran.

An explanation of the logic and intentions behind Mr. Obama’s comprehensive and failed national security and diplomatic policy is long overdue.

Categories
Quick Analysis

Military Voters Organize Against Failed Obama Policies

During his tenure in office, President Obama has, in the words made popular in the John Lennon song, “give peace a chance.”

  • He slashed military spending even as potential adversaries raised theirs.
  • He advocates for a unilateral American reduction in nuclear weapons.
  • He signed an arms control treaty that left Washington at a distinct disadvantage.
  • He withdrew American troops from Iraq and announced a withdrawal date from Afghanistan.
  • He pulled back on purely defensive measures such as the anti-missile system.
  • He refused to allow energy drilling on federal lands that would have limited Moscow’s oil and gas-financed ability to finance its vast military buildup.
  • He withdrew all U.S. tanks from Europe.
  • He has pursued the closing of militarily vital industrial plants.
  • He refused to fulfill treaty obligations with the Philippines and Ukraine when they were assaulted by China and Russia.
  • He did not retaliate against Islamic fundamentalists for the assault on Benghazi.
  • He has not responded to the growth in Russian, Chinese, and Iranian military influence in Latin America.
  • He has weakened sanctions against Iran’s nuclear development program.
  • Where U.S. troops are deployed, he has made the rules of engagement so stringent that American troops are killed before they even get permission to fire back.
  • He advocates putting U.S. troops under the jurisdiction of the U.N. criminal court, a move guaranteed to handcuff and endanger them further.
  • During his re-election campaign, the votes of soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines stationed overseas were mysteriously delivered late.

Some men using PDE5-inhibitors may experience side effects such as flushing, itching and gastrointestinal upset). cheap levitra It helps to gain harder and bigger erection for pleasurable buying viagra on line coition. Chief constituents of Vital M-40 capsules are Balsamodendron Mukul, Terminalis Chebula, Saffron, Ferrum, Pongamia Glabra, Aril Myristica Fragrans, brand viagra from canada Onosma Bracteatum, Orchis Mascula, Strychnos Nux-Vomia, Asparagus Adscendens etc. Men who utilize this jelly have a tendency to do so as it has a speedier impact than purchase cialis online http://secretworldchronicle.com/tag/enrico-marconi/ and as it is in a jelly structure numerous men want to utilize it on the off chance that they battle to have the capacity to swallow tablets.
The end result has been a dramatically more dangerous world, with military activity in Europe and Asia on a scale not seen since the end of World War II, as well as the resurgence of al-Qaeda and the Taliban.

In response, a unique movement has been started by former and current members of the U.S. armed forces to get out the vote in 2014 in attempt to strengthen the legislative branch’s ability to halt Mr. Obama’s dangerous foreign policy missteps.

The movement is spearheaded by the founders of the organization, Special Operations Speaks,  which was formed in the aftermath of the Benghazi debacle. According to the organization,

“Interestingly enough, when GWB was president you heard about the military deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan almost daily.  With Obama in the White House, however, the mainstream media has been strangely quiet.  More than 1,000 American soldiers have lost their lives in Afghanistan in the last 27 months.  This is more than the combined total of the nine years before…The Commander in Chief is AWOL.   There is a deep disgust, a fury, growing in the ranks of the military against the indifferent incompetence of this president…But there is now a movement afoot in the Armed Services to launch a massive get-out-the-vote drive against this President.”

As global events spin out of control, it is increasingly likely that not only those with military experience but also voters deeply concerned about the likelihood of a major war caused by  the White House’s demonstrably unsuccessful foreign policies will make their concern felt at the ballot box.