Wednesday, January 4, 2012

Armed Farces



While the mainstream media was waiting with baited breath to see which of the Republican presidential candidates was most appealing to "too white, too evangelical, too rural" corn farmers, and Barack Obama was sneaking back from Hawaii to begin the serious and vital work of planning his next vacation, some actual news occurred which - of course - didn't get much attention.

Specifically, word came out that Defense Secretary Leon Panetta will soon be announcing a radical downgrade in our nation's military capabilities owing to the automatic budget cuts imposed by no-budget Democrats, a no-show president, and a no-clue supercommittee.


Breaking with longheld national security policy, America will no longer have the capacity to fight wars on two fronts at the same time. Meaning that America's enemies are simply going to have to learn to take a number and get in line before they can fight with us, or risk getting a scathing official tweet from the United Nations.

Included in the huge cuts that Secretary Panetta is being forced to make will be reductions in the number of troops as well as reduced benefits to those who serve in uniform. Conveniently, the money saved will allow politicians to avoid reductions in their own ranks and actually increase benefits to themselves.


While some Americans might be concerned about our new inability to defend on multiple fronts while Iran, Russia, China, and North Korea are rattling their swords, we can at least take comfort from the decreased threats coming from the MidEast now that Barack Obama's "Lead-from-Behind Arab Spring of Peaceful Coexistence and Harmonious Islamo-Democracy" has been solidly established in Egypt, Libya, and Syria and is working so splendidly. Granted, Iraq looks pretty shakey - but since the networks and newspapers don't report on it anymore, who really cares?

Considering the serious longterm implications of this new cut-rate defense policy, one might well ask why the military is willing to go along with the budget cuts when no one else in Washington takes budgets seriously? And the answer is that they have to, because they're required to follow orders or face serious punishment.

Too bad our politicians are still refusing to recognize that voters are giving them orders and not just suggestions.



As troops are cut back, the military will rely on less expensive drone aircraft.
-

23 comments:

drjim said...

C'MON NOVEMBER!

Emmentaler Limburger said...

@DrJim: November is too late. This jackass and his cadre need to be removed from office before more irreparable harm is done to our country. The supposedly conservative house should be drawing up articles of impeachment whether or not they expect them to succeed. Are they? Of course not - you missed the "supposedly" part. No-one is willing to hold this person up to the duties he is sworn to perform.

Pete (Detroit) said...

If flipping Boehner will not take charge, HE should be removed and replaced w/ someone who WILL

CenTexTim said...

Also included in the proposed cuts are reductions in benefits for already-retired veterans. That would be akin to cutting pension and healthcare benefits for retired union members, and we've all seen what a ruckus that raised.

Somehow I doubt that military veterans will occupy congress like the Wisconsin union tools did in that state, but I'd sure love to see it.

Angry Hoosier Dad said...

@Emmentaler Limburger...
I am absolutely confident that no Democrat President, or cheap imitation thereof, will be impeached in the foreseeable future. The Clenis has seen to that. Even if he hadn't, the Republicans in Both the House and Senate can barely count ten functioning testicles among the lot of them. Few stones in that bunch of pants-wetting cowards. We have no choice but to wait for November and pray to hold out. While we are on our knees we might also pray for a conservative candidate. That one may take divine intervention.

John the Econ said...

The annual interest we pay to China alone for the money we are borrowing from them to subsidize Congress's spendthrift ways will soon be an amount greater than what we spend annually on our military.

Disturbing.

Stilton Jarlsberg said...

@Readers- I agree that November seems depressingly distant when looking at the urgent need for change now (and I also agree that impeachment would be lovely, but that Washington's "no balls" zone precludes the possibility). Which is why I'd at least like to see bold, idea-driven legislation created and passed by the Republican House, even if it's sure to be shot down in the Senate or by presidential veto, just so voters can clearly see who is standing in the way of genuine reform - and what will be in reach if we elect a supermajority.

Regarding cuts in benefits to service members, I consider it an outrage that there have been no cuts in benefits to politicians first.

Finally, John the Econ's point is a good one: we're fast reaching the point that we can have wild spending or a credible military but not both. And there's a reason that History doesn't record the names of any long-lasting defenseless debtor nations.

Pete (Detroit) said...

John the E - as has been pointed out here previously, the amount we're paying Shina in interest rapidly approaches what THEY spend on military. So, we DO have a military force, we just don't control it.

Mike Porter said...

The TSA has wormed its way beyond airports and is now spreading across the transportation sector like a virus. It won't be long until there are checkpoints on major roads and at state lines. Then Obama will finally have his coveted brownshirts (not to mention full employment). Problem is, how many soldiers does it take to crush a squad of civilian thugs in official clothing? Probably not many. You may not be able to get the military on your side, but you can sure starve it of funding and spread it so thin that it can no longer effectively muster in country. Perhaps I'm just being paranoid, but the third time you awaken to your crazy girlfriend silently standing over you with a knife, it's probably not paranoid to consider the possibility that she just might kill you in your sleep. These evil bastards give me that same creepy feeling, and we're way beyond the third time here.

SC said...

Those pinheads in Washington; one thing the Govt is supposed to do is provide for the common defense. So they cut spending to the military to invest in solar panel companies, high-speed rail, electric cars and the like. It’s so broken. DC continues to get further & further away from what it is supposed to be doing.

Proof said...

Well, it's not like the world was really dangerous or anything!

Pete(Detroit) said...

MIke - true story. Was dating a woman who was a bit 'odd' and when I decided that it was time to end it, it (fortunately) occurred to me that it 'should' be "her" idea.
Six months later, "Fatal Attraction" came out, and I saw it on a date (different woman). Walking out, I was apparently noticeably pale. She asked if I was ok, and I kind of stammered "I used to DATE her!"

Unfortunately, getting the psychos in DC to divorce our wallets will NOT be so "easy"...

John the Econ said...

Fundamentally Transforming America: So far, the efforts to convert us to a European-style socialist democracy has been highly successful. This is just another sign.

If you look at the recent history of Europe post WWII, you'll see that as their socialist states have expanded, their willingness and ability to pay for their own defense has diminished proportionally. Given the choice between a seemingly easy life and the promise of more goodies, the dependent class will choose the former over national security. Plus, we were always there, ready and willing to do the job.

Who will be there to do it for us now that we're giving up the responsibility for our own security?

Pete(Detroit) said...

Why, the Chinese, of course, and their shiny new navy...

Angry Hoosier Dad said...

As long as voting is still recognized, we can deal with the government, bit by bit, and we can take our country back if we have the will. The ones who should fear for their lives are the Obama-lickers in the media. Once the people realize that they've been had, there will be hell to pay.
I suspect that "I was only reporting the news" will become the modern equivalent of "I was only following orders".

John the Econ said...

@Angry Hoosier Dad said "As long as voting is still recognized, we can deal with the government, bit by bit, and we can take our country back if we have the will."

I wish I could believe that and be so optimistic. But I can't, for several reasons:

A) The very integrity of our "voting" is in question. We are currently actually debating the notion that people should be required to identify themselves as citizens and eligible to vote in our elections. That this is even a debate is simply absurd.

Also absurd is the explicit policy of the current administration that declares that Black Panthers wielding weapons outside of voting places does not constitute "voter intimidation", but somehow requiring proper ID (that everyone is supposed to possess anyway) is.

We've had several elections simply stolen by liberals. They almost got Bush in 2000. They succeeded with the governor in Washington State in 2004, and with Al Franken in 2008. There are many others. The tactic is simple; conduct "recounts" until they finally get the result they want and declare victory. Rock-Paper-Scissors would be more honest.

Do you not know that our elections as they are conducted today do not even conform to UN standards?

B) Once in place, displacing a government bureaucracy is all but impossible. On January 21st, 2013, Ron Paul could be inaugurated and immediately issue all kinds of executive orders slashing government excess. Nothing would happen; he'd spend the next 4 years in court. Government would probably grow in the meantime.

The only way to stop the government is to defund it. Under normal circumstances, that simply will not happen. They only way that will happen is via a total collapse. (Think Roman Empire) Even then, they will fight it to the very end.

Angry Hoosier Dad said...

@ John the Econ:
Not conforming to UN standards is a feature, not a bug. As for your pessimism, it is honest and well-founded, but many of us cling to optimism because of our belief that God has a better plan for us than the progressive heathens running things right now, and...
despair can lead to terrible acts like armed rebellion and I don't think we are prepared for that right now. I can see us getting there. I just don't see us there yet.

Stilton Jarlsberg said...

@Readers- Per the points in your comments above, the question comes down to whether or not our country still holds enough voters who might plausibly come around to our way of thinking: to realize the gravity of our nation's problems, and the need for huge systemic changes and personal sacrifice on a truly significant level.

Sadly, I'm not optimistic that there are that many people who can be swayed...especially since there is such a huge and powerful campaign (headed by Barack Obama) to push people into an entitlement mindset and hunger for class warfare that can (and is meant to) destroy our country.

That sounds pessimistic, and it is. BUT...I believe in fighting the battles which are immediately before us in hopes that unseen (and perhaps unimagined) reforcements are on the way. The path to victory doesn't need to be either clear or certain to understand the importance of the fight.

And right now, the fight is for the hearts and minds of voters (and not just for election day, but in the way we live our lives). To promote and popularize a clear pro-American, pro-freedom message that can still inspire and motivate.

John the Econ said...

@Angry Hoosier Dad, I bring up UN election standards as a measure of how mediocre our standards actually are. The fact that Afghanistan can conduct an election with more integrity than we can is quite telling.

@Stilton is right; it's imperative that we do all we can to educate those around us of the perils of collectivism. Those perils include the fact that it has never worked, and for it to even have a chance at working means abandoning the concepts that liberals proclaim to hold dear, like rights to privacy, and whatever personal non-economic freedoms we have left.

I like asking liberals this: Would you want every detail of your life to be dictated by a George Bush, Dick Cheney or some religious/fascist caliphate? Because under totalitarianism, that is what will ultimately happen, sooner or later.

Jazz said...

re: Voting

"You know, comrades," says Stalin, "that I think in regard to this: I consider it completely unimportant who in the party will vote, or how; but what is extraordinarily important is this — who will count the votes, and how."

Stan da Man said...

Jazz - Word UP!

Stilton Jarlsberg said...

@Jazz- great quote (and frighteningly true)!

Damian said...

Those pinheads in Washington; one thing the Govt is supposed to do is provide for the common defense. So they cut spending to the military to invest in solar panel companies, high-speed rail, electric cars and the like. It’s so broken. DC continues to get further & further away from what it is supposed to be doing.