Obama to cut “tens of thousands of ground troops” from military
posted at 9:20 am on January 5, 2012 by Ed Morrissey
The last time the US did this, we at least had the illusion of a “peace dividend” and unrivaled supremacy as the world’s only superpower. Now we’re fighting a tough war in Afghanistan, and China’s expanding its military might, if not its belligerence yet. According to Reuters, Barack Obama will unveil plans to downsize ground troops by “tens of thousands” while investing more in air and naval power:
The Obama administration will unveil a “more realistic” vision for the military on Thursday, with plans to cut tens of thousands of ground troops and invest more in air and sea power at a time of fiscal restraint, officials familiar with the plans said on Wednesday.
The strategic review of U.S. security interests will also emphasize an American presence in Asia, with less attention overall to Europe, Africa and Latin America alongside slower growth in the Pentagon’s budget, the officials said.
Though specific budget cut and troop reduction figures are not set to be announced on Thursday, officials confirmed to Reuters they would amount to a 10-15 percent decline in Army and Marine Corps numbers over the next decade, translating to tens of thousands of troops.
The most profound shift in the strategic review is an acceptance that the United States, even with the world’s largest military budget, cannot afford to maintain the ground troops to fight more than one major war at once. That is a move away from the “win-win” strategy that has dominated Pentagon funding decisions for decades.
This is a curious direction to take while our troops are still in Afghanistan. Obama increased the commitment there by “tens of thousands,” a good call, but an escalation that isn’t due to reverse until two years from now. One would expect that the US would want to make clear that we retain the ability to maintain those troop levels and could extend our commitment at any time if we so choose, so as not to embolden our enemies and make them think that our ability to wage war has been degraded.
It’s also curious because of the complaint often heard from Democrats during the Bush administration of overextending troop deployments through stop-loss, and the overuse of National Guard forces in Afghanistan and Iraq. The reason for both was that the current level of funding for troops was not high enough to support two extended, small-to-medium sized conflicts at the same time while keeping our security commitments around the world. That’s not even the “win-win,” two-major-simultaneous-wars paradigm that “dominated Pentagon funding decisions” during the Cold War, but ended during Bill Clinton’s presidency. The rapid redeployment schedules used in the last decade showed that we may not be prepared to fight one major ground war, let alone two, for an extended period of time.
Of course, we avoid those wars through the use of our dominating naval and air power, and China has become a long-term threat in the Pacific to the former. We do need to invest in bolstering our Pacific fleet, and we should reconsider our security arrangements with western Europe, which can and should shoulder the costs of their own security. Those are healthy areas for consideration, but cutting tens of thousands of troops sounds like a dangerous direction for the US at this time.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 Next »
Don’t worry, most of them will self-destruct when Ron Paul shuffles back into obscurity and we can pick off the rest at our leisure.
Trafalgar on January 5, 2012 at 12:13 PM
This move is imbecilic. We have troops in 3 and four EXTENDED tours is afghanistan now. They are streched too thin as it is. We all know that, so why is this brainless fool doing this?
dogsoldier on January 5, 2012 at 12:13 PM
This:
And this:
Obama believes that American influence in the world has been destructive, and he means to permanently alter the balance of power by undercutting our ability to control facts on the ground with boots on the ground. This intention he cloaks in terms of altered strategic policy and economic necessities. He fully intends to gut our military power across the board even as he claims to be modernizing both strategies and means. Unfortunately, many take his false narrative at face value, and believe in its efficacy as policy. They are deceived regarding his motivations, and delusional regarding effective policy.
We are in for a tough year. Obama will do everything in his power to implement his destructive visions (foreign and domestic), and his pace will quicken if and as he becomes aware that his time in power is coming to an end.
How much damage can he do before we rid ourselves of the first post-American president?
novaculus on January 5, 2012 at 12:17 PM
By the way, these troop reductions are scheduled to take place over a ten year period.
Which is to say, there is little reason to believe they will happen, as with other “cuts” that are scheduled over a ten year period.
Dextrous on January 5, 2012 at 12:19 PM
Welcome back to the age of Douhet and Mitchell. It’s only been 90 years and what’s old is new again.
ReaganWasRight on January 5, 2012 at 12:20 PM
DoD just released the new Strategic Guidance.
<a href="http://www.defense.gov/news/Defense_Strategic_Guidance.pdf
They actually use the term "Smart Defense".
SoonerMarine on January 5, 2012 at 12:20 PM
Seems to me this reflects the strategy Obama has already been employing (Afghanistan notwithstanding): less reliance on troops, more reliance on technology.
There is something to be said for a more flexible military, but that isn’t really the issue here. Nobody is ever going to accuse Obama of having the military experience or knowledge to make that kind of determination.
What this is really about is establishing a military model that allows the US to conduct remote operations against countries (Libya) groups (Al Qaeda) and individuals (Bin Laden, Al Awlaki) abroad without getting bogged down in that “messy, democratic” stuff involved in getting Congressional approval for “hostilities”. Forget about “10 days” and “60 days”, by the time a drone strike is news it’s over.
This is essentially a scheme to allow the President to keep small numbers of troops and military technology deployed and active at the President’s discretion with no Congressional involvement. It suits Obama to a “tee” because as we all know by now, he is above all incapable of working with, much less persuading, Congress. But whatever the benefits of quick-strike tactics may be, it is an extraordinarily dangerous power for the President to have if left unchecked.
UnrepentantCurmudgeon on January 5, 2012 at 12:20 PM
I would Love to cut the military. However its not possible in the world we live in. To preserve our country and the free world we HAVE to be able to project power and a lot of it when needed.
gerrym51 on January 5, 2012 at 12:20 PM
Ahem…….where did Obama receive his military strategy training? I think he should provide his credentials in from, say, the Army War College or even friggin’ bootcamp before he formulates military doctrine, strategy, and force structure.
Remember folks, this is the guy who thought we had “corpsemen” in the Navy.
BobMbx on January 5, 2012 at 12:22 PM
I think we forget that a major ground troop reduction has been thrown around since basically the first day Rummy took office. Gates was also in favor.
Now that we’re only in one theatre of war in Afghanistan, it makes sense. Reduce our ground troop size, start reinvesting in air and naval presence.
We’re never going to outmarch China or North Korea in a ground game. Just not happening. But we have air and naval supremacy. Turn that into total dominance and we win.
Is this a political stunt for Obama? Yes. But that doesn’t mean it’s entirely a bad idea.
Hostile Gospel on January 5, 2012 at 12:25 PM
Perhaps if this was proposed by someone other than the megalomaniac SCOAMF occupying the white house I could find something positive about this. But alas, I can not.
By the way, other words and phrases I never want to hear again:
Let me be clear
Pass this bill
Unexpectedly
I won!
Working Americans (what about the unemployed?)
We need to
FLconservative on January 5, 2012 at 12:27 PM
Hey everyone….
… I have a great idea.
Let us elect Barack Hussein Obowma as President of the United States…!
… Who’s with me?
/
Seven Percent Solution on January 5, 2012 at 12:29 PM
See that wasn’t so hard was it guys? We save the planet, find a sustainable use for our excess Chevy Volt supply, honor Mother Gaia, and defend our shores with one simple plan.
If they only let girls run wars, everything would be all hunky dory.
Lily on January 5, 2012 at 12:29 PM
It’s not just the number of troops that will be cut, but their experience which will be lost. Ten years ago the US military had only a handful of special forces soldiers with experience in urban warfare; today there are tens of thousands, or more.
Leon Panetta is a politician, not a strategic thinker. So pay no attention to the reassurances he will offer.
J Baustian on January 5, 2012 at 12:29 PM
Good heavens, I completely missed this aspect. You’re absolutely right. This is the groundwork for a President to take out ‘terrorists’ so fast that there’s no time for Clowngress to interfere…or the public to object.
All he or she has to do is call out a drone, and if all goes well in under a day the target(s) is a smoking crater. Mission Accomplished.
Combine that with some acts that have been passed recently and you have a wicked soup brewing.
MelonCollie on January 5, 2012 at 12:30 PM
Don’t forget, everyone…
Herr Doktor wants to not only ‘cut’ the military – but gut it.
And all to pay for social welfare and entitlements.
catmman on January 5, 2012 at 12:30 PM
Liar.
Dunedainn on January 5, 2012 at 12:30 PM
Which means it ain’t.
CPT. Charles on January 5, 2012 at 12:34 PM
I suggest you concentrate on the what the man who is president is doing right now and quit frothing over what someone who won’t be president might do.
MelonCollie on January 5, 2012 at 12:36 PM
Translation from Newspeak:
Oceania is now at peace with Eurasia and at war with Eastasia and doesn’t care about Southwestasia. FiveSideHouse shall beat its swords into plowshares. Peace be unto Big Brother.
– Minitrue
Steve Z on January 5, 2012 at 12:36 PM
I suspect he got the recipe from his masters… the ones on the other side of his Blackberry. / (sorta)
CPT. Charles on January 5, 2012 at 12:37 PM
Bait and switch time. The ground troops are to be cut now, with air and sea power funding later. Later will never come wrt to the Ar Force and Navy.
The money will simply be swallowed up by social program spending. The msm will remain studiously silent, and it won’t be until the balloon goes up that the public will be prompted to ask “he did what?”
Parabellum on January 5, 2012 at 12:39 PM
IMO he’s merely acting out the fantasies of his Marxist-worshiping Harvard days (assuming he actually went there), with the eager help of people like Sore-os.
MelonCollie on January 5, 2012 at 12:40 PM
Damng, I like your comments. If I could express myself in as few a words and still make the point half as well, I’d be a happy camper.
hawkdriver on January 5, 2012 at 12:40 PM
This.
Anyone that thinks we are forward deployed for the sole purpose of defending other nations has an incredibly simplistic view of defense in the modern world. Similarly, anyone that believes it requires a direct attack on American soil or our forces to damage the U.S. is foolish. All you have to do is point to the recent hyper-ventilating about the Iranian threat to close the Straits of Hormuz. Using their “missiles in a box” (sold to them by the Russians, thank you very much) they could punch some holes in a few tankers and presto, between 20 and 30 percent of the worlds oil ceases to flow. What do you think that would do to our economy?
The reason they don’t is because we have a military that poses a very real and dangerous threat to them on an almost immediate basis. And, we’ve demonstrated the potential to invade and depose leadership in countries in the region, not just drop a few bombs. That amount to a guarantee that Iran would not close the strait. They might. There is always the human element that does not act rationally. Why didn’t Saddam leave Kuwait in 91? Why didn’t he allow the inspectors access in 03? Those were the rational moves. And, the Iranians are crazy as outhouse rats. I would not count on them to act rationally. Therefore, you better have a military that’s equipped, trained and ready to follow through.
SoonerMarine on January 5, 2012 at 12:43 PM
A frothing Paultard lecturing others about ‘frothing’.
I love your comment though, how soon you guys try to distance yourself from your Messiah.
But you are right, I should have put the OT tag on the post.
catmman on January 5, 2012 at 12:45 PM
I think I understand. Keeping worthless government employees is an absolute necessity. Defending the country not so much.
pat on January 5, 2012 at 12:50 PM
I see the Paultards are out in force today on a troop-cutting thread (on the side of our leftist pres) as well as on a pot thread in the headlines.
Walk tall, boys.
stefanite on January 5, 2012 at 12:53 PM
Oh, he did that in Afghanistan, too, right out of the gate. Just after he was elected, drone strikes in AfPak went up sharply, IIRC, and he dithered for many months on increasing ground troops. When he did, he gave his generals a fraction of their request.
Christien on January 5, 2012 at 12:57 PM
We don’t choose history. History chooses us.
The only government employees the Dems know how to cut are men and women in uniform.
That’s really clever until history comes a-knockin’.
We’ve done this many times in the past, and each time the geniuses are surprised that, lo and behold, we really DID need a viable military. Then we pay a hellish price for our under-preparedness.
In a few years we’ll be needing all of those trained men and women that we’ve let go. Again, we’ve done this many times in the past, and it looks like we’re determined to do it again.
Abelard on January 5, 2012 at 12:57 PM
This doesn’t change the fact that it is immoral to seize our money by force and use it on foreign governments and their people, no matter how good you think your intentions are.
Dante on January 5, 2012 at 1:04 PM
It is again clear BHO does not have a clue. He dispises the military and we dispise him (and Mischelle). Hell of a CinC eh?
StevC on January 5, 2012 at 1:05 PM
I don’t want them to have nukes, but they are sovereign nations and have every right to them. This is where diplomacy instead of force and threat of force eould be useful.
Dante on January 5, 2012 at 1:08 PM
Oh good, you’re back. About those countries we’ve had diplomatic and trade relationships with that have since disappeared? You are a student of history right?
Trafalgar on January 5, 2012 at 1:09 PM
Thanks, hawk. My uncle was 17 when he stormed Normandy.
John the Libertarian on January 5, 2012 at 1:10 PM
wow…..this truly is “Jimmy Carter’s second term”. I remember how Carter hallowed out the military…..it wasn’t pretty. My hunch is that this will ultimately energize conservatives more than it will Obama’s liberal base.
olesparkie on January 5, 2012 at 1:11 PM
“Protect and Defend” my a**. A treasonous communist, but congress is weak and clueless.
ultracon on January 5, 2012 at 1:14 PM
Even though you know they want to use them against you and could prevent it, you’d adopt a sort of “Speak softly but ditch the stick” approach? That should work well.
Trafalgar on January 5, 2012 at 1:16 PM
This is to pay for Obamacare… Absolutely disgraceful…
Pest on January 5, 2012 at 1:17 PM
Is that Could be.
could /kʊd; unstressed kəd/ Show Spelled[kood; unstressed kuhd] Show IPA
verb
1. a simple past tense of can
Example: Could you pretty please with a cherry on top not nuke Israel.
D-fusit on January 5, 2012 at 1:18 PM
The United States still being in Afcrapistan, and with almost 100,000 troops, after more than 10 years is anti-American, anti-troops and anti-sanity.
VorDaj on January 5, 2012 at 1:19 PM
So you’re moral on one hand and immoral on the other, or else this is some strange version of “My morals are better than your morals”…or…or you are suborning one moral to another.
I’d like a universal definition of morality from you since we are apparently supposed to conduct our national business according to an unshakable moral code.
Bishop on January 5, 2012 at 1:20 PM
It was a terrible “call” unless you have lots of stock in companies that make artificial limbs.
VorDaj on January 5, 2012 at 1:21 PM
No, actually, they don’t, and should not be allowed to have them, for the same reason we don’t allow 3 year olds to play with matches or firecrackers.
dogsoldier on January 5, 2012 at 1:24 PM
VorDaj on January 5, 2012 at 1:24 PM
Here comes DA future MaOchurian Candidate’s civilian military preplans so he can weaken our military. What happened to “The Good War” in Afghanistan he wanted to wage?
Now you know why he wanted the “military” (his personal civilian military like Hitler, Saddam, Stalin, etc) to hold people indefinitely without charges when they don’t agree with him or Holder.
Chicago Dictator Gestapo Government at work.
The Seer.
stefanslaw on January 5, 2012 at 1:25 PM
The people of Kaboomistan would like to know what a garage is. Or a car…or indoor plumbing…
Hard Right on January 5, 2012 at 1:25 PM
Please refer to section 5A of the official Hot Air Purity Test ™.
John the Libertarian on January 5, 2012 at 1:26 PM
What do you think we have SAC for? Air shows on the 4th of July?
VorDaj on January 5, 2012 at 1:26 PM
You’re killing germs man, gerrrrms!
Hard Right on January 5, 2012 at 1:27 PM
And another move by Oblockhead to kill more jobs. Not even the military is important to Odumba.
stukinIL4now on January 5, 2012 at 1:29 PM
Dangerous for who? Afghan corruptocrats? If tens of thousands of ground troops are “layed off”, maybe under the next President they can join the United States Border Patrol.
VorDaj on January 5, 2012 at 1:29 PM
SAC hasn’t been around since 1992.
ReaganWasRight on January 5, 2012 at 1:32 PM
I will admit upfront that as a long-term defense contractor (after my Air force time) I’m biased on this issue. I’ve seen the results of soldiers being deployed 3 (or more) years out their 4 year enlistment, and cutting the size of the military force only makes that worse – unless we eliminate overseas deployments. But it takes months to deploy a major unit overseas – which is why we have forward deployed forces. It’s also better to fight the enemy – any enemy – somewhere else instead of on our own soil. We also have a lot of military locations around the world that are little more than satellite/missile tracking and/or up/downlinks. We could not function in space, and hence anywhere else in the world without them – so TOTAL pull back of ALL deployed military forces would be insane. However, in my 28 years in this business I can tell you there is a lot of wasted money. Government contracting (and not just DoD) is horribly bureaucratic, creating tons of red tape, inefficient decisions – and therefore higher cost overall than is really necessary. Millions, if not billions of $$ could be saved by using more common sense and less bureaucracy. But the reality is, of the major spending areas of the federal budget, defense is the only one that is truly a Constitutional responsibility of the federal government – and it’s not even our biggest expense.
dentarthurdent on January 5, 2012 at 1:32 PM
Mexico and for many years. Some may not want to call it an attack, but it certainly is an invasion.
VorDaj on January 5, 2012 at 1:33 PM
Well no wonder things are so f-ed up.
VorDaj on January 5, 2012 at 1:34 PM
“Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”
Obama’s dislike for the study of history is well known. Santayana presumed that if one remembered past events, or, presumably, had studied them, one could learn from them. Obama has made no secret of his dislike for the study of history, and frequently by misstatement displays his ignorance. His notions are powered by his personal vision of the world, uninformed by the lessons of history. In his case, this confidence in the power of his own mighty intellect is not merely misplaced, it approaches delusional megalomania.
But he is not alone. Many modern progressives and socialists have little respect for history or its lessons. Standing on the shoulders of those who have gone before, they mistake the view from higher ground as a sign that they themselves are better and wiser than their forebears, even as they misinterpret what they see.
novaculus on January 5, 2012 at 1:34 PM
The defense industry is also the largest employer (or one of the largest) of high-tech engineers and scientists in this country. Many of the most significant technology breakthroughs originated from the defense industry. When the defense budget is cut significantly, we put a lot of those highly educated and well-paid people on unemployment. When that happens kids see no value in pursuing careers in math/science/engineering – so they go for the easy majors – and we fall further behind other countries in those areas. That is not good for the future of our nation. If we keep going in that direction, we’ll be nothing more than a nation welfare administrators with english lit and wymyn’s studies degrees.
dentarthurdent on January 5, 2012 at 1:37 PM
The United States should not commit its forces to military action overseas unless the cause is vital to our national interest. If the decision is made to commit our forces to combat abroad, it must be done with the clear intent and support needed to win. It should not be a halfway or tentative commitment, and there must be clearly defined and realistic objectives. Before we commit our troops to combat, there must be reasonable assurance that the cause we are fighting for and the actions we take will have the support of the American people and Congress. Even after all these other tests are met, our troops should be committed to combat abroad only as a last resort, when no other choice is available.
VorDaj on January 5, 2012 at 1:37 PM
How is that relevant? Why are you stuck on attacks by a foreign nation? Do you not understand the reality of transnational organizations like al queda?
Our strong defense capabilities are what have prevented direct attack by other nations. reducing those capabilities invites the possibility of an attack. But even as a former “cold war” military officer, I don’t believe other nations are necessarily our biggest threat – see above.
dentarthurdent on January 5, 2012 at 1:41 PM
Bingo!
dentarthurdent on January 5, 2012 at 1:43 PM
Well if we are going to deploy our Chevy Volt forces against them, perhaps we need to first introduce them to magical wall outlets and the mystical, clean, non-polluting electrons, that flow through them.
But no matter. Obviously, they are too far away from us and too backward to cause us any difficulty whatsoever. What are they to us besides fellow human beings who live lives of low-carbon-footprinted bliss? Surely, we can safely ignore them in their undeveloped, and planet friendly splendor.
Lily on January 5, 2012 at 1:45 PM
What was SAC was renamed as a numbered Air Force as the Air Force component folded under US Strategic Command. It was recently reorganized as Global Strike Command.
dentarthurdent on January 5, 2012 at 1:47 PM
Prussia, for one.
Dante on January 5, 2012 at 1:49 PM
Diplomacy without the threat of force (military, economic, etc) is empty rhetoric and therefore, useless.
catmman on January 5, 2012 at 1:52 PM
Reducing troops is fine, if it’s done the right way. But it won’t be. Ideally we’d have a much more comprehensive reserve system, where we can have a large, better trained citizen soldier force. More initial training, more yearly training, etc…
However, with this generation of flip-flop and pajama bottom wearing, smart phone addicted xbox heroes that won’t work well.
I wonder if Barry’s closest advisors are in the Navy and Air Force. Maybe it’s Panetta’s influence and he thinks we can fight wars with drones.
reaganaut on January 5, 2012 at 1:55 PM
War is not rare. Throughout the history of the world, war has been the norm. Peace is what is rare. Any country that does not recognize and prepare for this is doomed. Wars are fought over resources. No one country controls all the resources (especially for modern living) so nations will compete. Some will use force to get what they want. So we either need a robust military to ensure our access to world resources or we can build our own Maginot Line as long as we agree that we are willing to nuke a country (and probably end human life on the planet) over accesses to resources and trade.
This is not the way I want it to be, but the way it is. Here’s a list of wars U.S. troops have been involved in. It pales in comparison to other nations that have been world powers.
ReaganWasRight on January 5, 2012 at 1:56 PM
Who said anything about ditching the stick? And I do not believe they would use them against us. That would be suicide and they know it.
Dante on January 5, 2012 at 1:56 PM
So ReaganWasRight thinks Reagan was wrong.
VorDaj on January 5, 2012 at 1:58 PM
Lets go whole hog here….why not outsource our military acquisitions to China? We could reduce our entire R&D budget to ZERO by purchasing Chinese arms as COTS. We could probably negotiate warranties, too. Using an existing supply chain via Wal-Mart would negate the need to develop a similar system.
Think of it….the Military Industrial Complex – GONE!. DoD contractor fraud – GONE!
Don’t worry….since we’ll be buying the same equipment we would face in a conflict with China, the battlefield would be level…you know…it would be a fair fight.
BobMbx on January 5, 2012 at 1:59 PM
I guess air raiding villages is an acquired taste. Now that The One has done it a few times, he’s discovered he likes it. A lot.
BobMbx on January 5, 2012 at 2:02 PM
I’m curious as too what your philosophy is then. Your prior comments seem to indicate (to me and some others anyway) a somewhat extreme isolationist view – similar to that expressed by Rand Paul, with little or no need for military forces With that kind of approach, and if our military forces are cut significantly enough, then other countries or terrorist organizations would no longer view attacking us as suicidal. If I’m wrong about that, can you please elaborate?
dentarthurdent on January 5, 2012 at 2:03 PM
Meanwhile Drudge has an article up that US TAXPAYERS lost another 65 million on a wood to ethanol plant that went bust and Georgia taxpayers are going to pay another 6 million on top of that.
How about our government gets out of business investments and just takes care of our military needs? HMMMMM, sounds like a plan to me.
journeyintothewhirlwind on January 5, 2012 at 2:04 PM
The guy that massively built up the military to end the Cold War. The guy that bombed a country for setting off a bomb in a disco. How many overseas bases did Reagan shut down?
ReaganWasRight on January 5, 2012 at 2:04 PM
http://www.ajc.com/business/georgia-ethanol-plant-sold-1289567.html
journeyintothewhirlwind on January 5, 2012 at 2:06 PM
Was there an implied sarc tag on that or do you misunderstand what I said?
dentarthurdent on January 5, 2012 at 2:06 PM
“Our experience in Lebanon led to the adoption by the administration of a set of principles to guide America in the application of military force abroad, and I would recommend it to future Presidents. The policy we adopted included these principles:
1. The United States should not commit its forces to military action overseas unless the cause is vital to our national interest.
2. If the decision is made to commit our forces to combat abroad, it must be done with the clear intent and support needed to win. It should not be a halfway or tentative commitment, and there must be clearly defined and realistic objectives.
3. Before we commit our troops to combat, there must be reasonable assurance that the cause we are fighting for and the actions we take will have the support of the American people and Congress.
4. Even after all these other tests are met, our troops should be committed to combat abroad only as a last resort, when no other choice is available.” – Ronald Reagan
VorDaj on January 5, 2012 at 2:08 PM
Anyone who calls himself ReaganWasRight should recognize such important words from … … … Ronald Reagan.
VorDaj on January 5, 2012 at 2:10 PM
In my view you’re both right. Being fully prepared to respond to any threat is not the same thing as actually applying that force. Comprehensive preparation reduces the likelihood of actually having to apply the force in combat. But when and if we do, it should be according to Reagan’s principles as VorDaj stated.
dentarthurdent on January 5, 2012 at 2:14 PM
It is a common mistake, but like many others you are mistaking non-interventionism for isolationism. They are not synonymous. Neither Rand Paul nor his father, Ron, think there is no need for military forces. I don’t know Rand’s positions, but Ron Paul believes in a strong military to defend our borders, as do I.
Dante on January 5, 2012 at 2:20 PM
Bingo. Cutting ground troops drastically is a move much like Obama’s early-expressed determination to buy less of the new/improved combat systems that were in the procurement process when he took office. Both moves reduce the combat edge our forces have over potential enemies.
We can, in theory, always call up a very large army with a draft. But God help the unprepared troops we would have to throw into battle, if we substantially enlarged the percentage of them that we’d have to draft when there was already a war.
The principle of not “up-tooling” our forces is very similar. We can still fight if we have to, but it will be bloodier and more difficult for every system we decide NOT to improve our forces with. (The F-22 will be an obvious instance of this principle if we have to fight China. The F-35 simply won’t be as survivable against anti-air missile systems. But there are Army and Marine Corps systems we will miss too. Those who think we will never have to mount another amphibious invasion should remember that everyone except Churchill and a few mid-grade officers in the US Navy and Marine Corps was certain we would not need to mount one again back in 1935.)
I foresee Congress fighting this hard. It’s an ironic twist, considering that it was Congress that wanted to slash the US ground forces in 1940, and the progressive of progressives Franklin D. Roosevelt who was determined to keep it manned and equipped.
J.E. Dyer on January 5, 2012 at 2:23 PM
Ronald Reagan did not write that. It is the Weinberger Doctrine. It came more from our experiences in Vietnam. That was DoD policy, but I’m not sure how much weight the president but behind it. His secretary of state hated it.
But that is neither here nor there. Some how you are equating the shrinking of our military and the closing of overseas military installations with Reagan. How many times did he send the Navy through the “line of death” in Libya to ensure the right to open seas? In 1986 we shot down a Libyan fighter, blew up one of their ships and attacked a SAM site to prove we could sail anywhere we wanted.
My point is that we need a strong military so that we can protect our interests. Obviously Reagan believed this. We can bring everyone home, lock the doors and close the blinds, but it doesn’t mean the country is safe.
ReaganWasRight on January 5, 2012 at 2:27 PM
Not getting the attention it should… Obama giving SM-3 missile secrets to Russian Engineers.
Egfrow on January 5, 2012 at 2:33 PM
It was in his autobiography “An American Life”.
VorDaj on January 5, 2012 at 2:36 PM
Lebanon!
VorDaj on January 5, 2012 at 2:37 PM
It is simple narcissism. This action allows him to execise his dictatorship tendencies. He will take action anywhere and everywhere he is allowed (and many times according to his self-interpreted definition) that does not require Congress to confirm.
Expect much more of the same in the coming months. Heck, he might even be personally joysticking some of the drones in the near future.
Unchecked control and power. Our Supreme Leader.
Carnac on January 5, 2012 at 2:46 PM
Prussia? That’s it? That’s all you could come up with? I thought there were “some nations”?
Trafalgar on January 5, 2012 at 2:46 PM
You’re 100% right. Reagan didn’t write those words. They’re from the Weinberger Doctrine. They’re not a bad set of principles; the devil is always in the details.
George W. Bush would have said he was fully compliant with the Weinberger Doctrine, because deploying troops to invade Iraq was a last resort, invoked for a core security interest of the United States, and had the support of Congress and the people.
Disagreeing on whether he waited long enough (i.e., the invasion was truly a “last resort”) or whether the threat from Saddam affected core US security interests, is a disagreement on situational details, not on principles. Objectively, moreover, Bush had the support of Congress and a majority of the people.
Ron Paul has his definition of US security and interests, but it’s not the only one consistent with the Constitution. The Constitution doesn’t constrain the United States to sit inert inside our borders no matter what’s going on outside them, and no matter how it affects us, waiting for someone to cross our border with conventional force as defined in 1789. The Constitution provides for methods of decision-making, not for the substance of our security principles.
Reagan deployed a laundry list of forces overseas, acting on the principle that readiness to respond deters provocations from the unfriendly. He was proven right. The one serious error was putting troops in Lebanon without a clear mission. But whether he was driving Aegis cruisers into the Black Sea and northwest Pacific to challenge Soviet maritime claims, crossing Qaddhafi’s “Line of Death” at will, or setting up Pershing-II IRBMs in Europe, his use of US force overseas was robust and pointed — and effective.
J.E. Dyer on January 5, 2012 at 2:48 PM
Well it’s a good thing none of our enemies has a history of suicidal attacks against us isn’t it?
Trafalgar on January 5, 2012 at 2:48 PM
Oh. He did write that in his autobiography. So you’re right…he actually did write that down. However, it was Weinberger that actually developed the policy and introduced it at the National Press Club. I’ll agree with you that Reagan was a proponent, since it does say this in his autobiography.
At the same time, you still haven’t addresses Reagan’s actions after the introduction of this doctrine, nor explained what any of this has to do with reduction of military troops.
By the way, my alias (ReaganWasRight) does not mean that I agree with everything that Reagan believed. It is really geared toward right wing vs left wing. I disagreed with him on the elimination of nuclear weapons. It’s a wonderful dream, but it was not based in the real world. Nor did I like his amnesty for illegals.
ReaganWasRight on January 5, 2012 at 2:53 PM
Obama plans to inundate the unemployment lines with tens of thousands of people already being paid a meager wage in the military.
He figures paying unemployment benefits will spike the economy just before November, 2012.
Obama, we see through your sneaky shenanigans, you duffer.
timberline on January 5, 2012 at 2:56 PM
Who cares about the size of the armed forces? It’s diversity that counts.
November.
spiritof61 on January 5, 2012 at 2:58 PM
Recess appointments made even though the Senate wasn’t in recess. Reducing our military force.
Manchurian candidate? I think so.
Beware of the power grab. When he loses in November, he probably won’t leave the WH either.
Be afraid. Be very afraid.
COgirl on January 5, 2012 at 3:02 PM
Hello. Knock, knock. Is anybody home? Get his autobiography, “An American Life”.
VorDaj on January 5, 2012 at 3:02 PM
Diversity uber alles, per Army General Casey. And also remember former General Petraeus says to always respect the Holy Qur’an.
VorDaj on January 5, 2012 at 3:05 PM
No, the origins of the Weinberger Doctrine were in the lessons of Vietnam. Lebanon was a proximate debacle prompting the promulgation of the “Doctrine.” I was in the Navy when the Weinberger Doctrine was put out, and it was definitely a product of the post-Vietnam reassessment undertaken by a weary Department of Defense in the late-1970s. That’s why it was ready to hand after the Marine barracks attack in Beirut.
If you want to read a good contemporary summary of the “lessons of Vietnam” that were being taken to heart by the armed forces at the time Weinberger came out with the “Doctrine,” Col. Harry Summers’ book On Strategy: A Critical Analysis of the Vietnam War is an excellent place to start. The first edition came out in 1982. You will see exact echoes of the Weinberger Doctrine in it.
J.E. Dyer on January 5, 2012 at 3:10 PM
They’re not going to attack us directly. They’re going to attack our interests abroad and try to weaken us and take advantage of us.
How stupid do you think we are?
Wait, aren’t you a Ron Paul voter?
Never mind, then.
tom on January 5, 2012 at 3:35 PM
Try South Vietnam. And they exist no longer because we abandoned them to their fate, something you seem perfectly comfortable with in Korea.
Dunedainn on January 5, 2012 at 3:35 PM
Obama may have just given conservatives across the country who don’t like Romney a reason to hold their nose and vote for him anyway, if he actually becomes the nominee.
Of course, I’m still hoping it doesn’t get to that point.
tom on January 5, 2012 at 3:37 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 Next »