GAFFNEY: Obama’s defeatist ‘strategy’

Defense cuts will leave U.S. unprepared for growing threats

Question of the Day

Is it still considered bad form to talk politics during a social gathering?

View results

Listening to President Obama laying out what he  calls his new defense strategy, my first reaction was, “Here we go again.” Having basically written off the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, Mr. Obama is falling prey to a temptation that several of his predecessors found irresistible in peacetime: Cut defense expenditures. Shrink the military. Hope the rest of the world will neither notice nor take advantage of our weakness. Something is decidedly different, however. This is the first time in memory that a president has voluntarily eviscerated the armed forces of the United States and redeployed what remains so as to create acute vacuums of power in a time of war. I am referring not just to the war in Afghanistan that we continue to wage, for the time being at least.

There is also the war developing as what might best be described as “Shariah Spring” metasta- sizes into grave perils for America’s allies and interests in the Middle East, North Africa and beyond. All other things being equal, “beyond” may in-clude: the Far East, where China and North Korea are responding to domestic turmoil with outward truculence; Russia, where Vladimir Putin has blamed Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton for demonstrations against his kleptocracy; and our own hemisphere, where a dying Venezuelan dictator blames us for his cancer and is working feverishly with our adversaries in Latin America and the rest of the world to turn our front yard into a staging area for a greatly expanded “axis of evil.”

Under such circumstances, Mr. Obama’s “revised defense strategy” is a formula for disaster. If even the defense reductions, downsizing and disen-gagement that it envisions come to pass  let alone those in prospect if the cuts associated with the pending sequestration legislation are imposed  the United States will not simply expose its people, allies and vital interests to attack. It will invite such attack.

While the details of the Obama unilateral disarmament program remain to be fully fleshed out, the broad outlines are bad enough:

  • Our military will be cut sharply in size.
  • It will be denied vital modernization programs  the absence of which ensures the remaining force will be ill-equipped to contend with present dangers, not to mention those in the offing.
  • The retrofitting of existing equipment, much of it badly degraded in the course of a decade of war, will be stretched out or abandoned. This will exacerbate the risks associated with the Obama failure to modernize the armed forces’ kit.
  • The United States will no longer be present in the places and/or numbers necessary to safeguard our interests around the world. It is predictable that the resulting power vacuum will be filled as such “peace dividend”-induced vacuums have in the past: at our expense and to our detriment.
  • The administration risks breaking faith with the men and women in uniform by reneging on commitments made in the way of health care, pensions and other benefits. When combined with other assaults on the culture of the military, pursued in furtherance of the administration’s domestic political agenda (and without regard for the impact on readiness, recruitment or retention), these changes may make a continued reliance on an all-volunteer force unsustainable.
  • The nation’s nuclear forces will be allowed to atrophy further through 1) a failure to modernize, test and properly maintain them, and 2) as a result of further cuts in their numbers. The latter probably will include the elimin-ation of an entire “leg” of the strategic triad. The result will be not the president’s publicly stated goal, namely of “ridding the world of nuclear weapons.” Rather, it will simply be to rid the United States of its deterrent forces at a time when they are likely to be needed more than ever before.
  • This potentially disastrous aspect of the Obama program for unilateral disarmament is compounded by one other phenomenon: the president’s continuing and deeply ideological hostility toward missile defenses that might mitigate the danger posed by ballistic missiles now proliferating among states  and even terrorist groups such as Hezbollah  that are virulently hostile to this country and our friends. Worse yet, the administration reportedly is determined to flout a statute governing the sharing with the Russians information and technology related to missile defense. In the process, the Obama administration almost surely will compromise what little there is of our capabilities to provide defenses against missiles delivering an electromagnetic pulse and other weapons of mass destruction.

We shouldn’t kid ourselves. We can walk away from conflicts, but that does not mean they are over. We can hollow out our military, but that does not mean that others won’t see it as an invitation to pursue their interests  at our expense.

In the past, our “peace dividends” have proved illusory, and we paid not just in national treasure but lives. We literally can’t afford to do that again.

The American people and their elected representatives  and those who seek to represent them  must categorically reject the plan for unilateral U.S. disarmament espoused last week by Mr. Obama. If ever there were a time for “peace through strength,” this is it.

Frank J. Gaffney Jr. is president of the Center for Security Policy (SecureFreedom.org), a columnist for The Washington Times and host of Secure Freedom Radio, heard in Washington weeknights at 9 p.m. on 1260 AM.

About the Author

Frank J. Gaffney Jr.

Frank J. Gaffney Jr. is president of the Center for Security Policy (SecureFreedom.org), a columnist for The Washington Times and host of Secure Freedom Radio, heard in Washington weeknights at 9 p.m. on 1260 AM.

Latest Stories

Comments
blog comments powered by Disqus
TWT Video Picks
You Might Also Like
  • Maureen McDonnell looks on as her husband, former Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell, made a statement on Tuesday after the couple was indicted on corruption charges. (associated press)

    PRUDEN: Where have the big-time grifters gone?

  • This photo taken Jan. 9, 2014,  shows New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie gesturing as he answers a question during a news conference  at the Statehouse in Trenton.  Christie will propose extending the public school calendar and lengthening the school day in a speech he hopes will help him rebound from an apparent political payback scheme orchestrated by key aides. The early front-runner for the 2016 Republican presidential nomination will make a case Tuesday Jan. 14, 2014, that children who spend more time in school graduate better prepared academically, according to excerpts of his State of the State address obtained by The Associated Press. (AP Photo/Mel Evans)

    BRUCE: Bombastic arrogance or humble determination? Chris Christie’s choice

  • ** FILE ** Secretary of State Hillary Rodham testifies on Capitol Hill in Washington, Wednesday, Jan. 23, 2013, before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing on the deadly September attack on the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya, that killed Ambassador J. Chris Stevens and three other Americans. (AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais, File)

    PRUDEN: The question to haunt the West

  • Get Breaking Alerts