Conrad Black defends Obama’s indefensible defense cuts, discredits himself

Over the last few years, many previously respectable columnists, journalists, and media outlets discredited themselves by either writing articles calling for (or rationalizing) defense cuts or publishing such articles written by others.

The latest person among these people is NRO columnist Conrad Black. Writing on the NRO website, Black says of Obama’s latest defense cuts, “they may be defensible”, and claims that:

“It would be unfair to dismiss the administration’s latest assault on the U.S.’s defense capability as the folly and cowardice some commentators are already alleging. Without a worldwide rival of comparable strength threatening all American strategic interests, it is certainly possible to retrench gradually and support regional forces of stability and, preferably, moderation.”

No, Mr Black, it is not possible (nor wise) to retrench. This would not only be seen by America’s enemies as a sign of weakness, it would also mean cutting (and gutting) the US military. That is unacceptable. And where are those supposed “regional forces for stability and moderation”? They don’t exist. Even if they did, there is NO substitute for a strong US military. Regional allies and surrogates will not do. Which also refutes his claim (in bold letters) that:

“In these circumstances, full advantage can be taken of steadily more precise and efficient defense technology, and the steady proliferation of more capable secondary powers, eager to preserve and reinforce their independence, in every theater.“

Moreover, how is the DOD going to buy modern military technology if it won’t have enough money to do that? Bombers, ICBMs, submarines, missile interceptors, lasers, railguns, fighters, tankers, cargoplanes, and helicopters cost. A lot.

Black dismisses the threats to the US easily, while comparing them to Nazi Germany (whom the US defeated during WW2) and the Soviet Union (whom the US defeated during the Cold War):

“There is no such threat now. Terrorism is a dreadful nuisance, but it lacks central direction and a great and powerful host country devoted altogether to its conduct, and it is incapable of attracting the intellectual and moral support of more than a few homicidal psychopaths and genocidists.”

Note that this paragraph doesn’t even mention state-enemies such as China, Russia, NK, Iran, or Venezuela. Moreover, it is factually wrong. Not only are China and Russia threats comparable to the Soviet Union, terrorism IS sponsored by states hostile to the US, such as Iran (the world’s largest sponsor of terrorism), Syria, and Venezuela (does FARC ring any bells?). In fact, there is no such phenomenon as “stateless terrorism” or “stateless terrorists”. Every terrorist organization in the world is supported by some country: Hamas and Hezbollah by Iran, FARC by Venezuela, etc.

Then, Black wrote utter garbage that:

“The alarms being set off now about the Chinese navy are a little hard to take seriously. An improvised aircraft carrier, plans for catamaran aircraft carriers (an insane concept), and new anti-ship surface-to surface missiles should not overawe the United States Navy. The Chinese are never going to exchange fire with the U.S. Navy anyway, and the idea that they will keep U.S. heavy units out of the South China Sea or the Straits of Formosa with this sort of saber-rattling is eyewash.”

He provides no proof for that – because no evidence for that exists. The alarms about the Chinese navy are fully justified and must be taken seriously. Not only has China renovated an aircraft carrier, not only does it have naval aircraft (and is training naval pilots) to operate from it, not only does it have a much larger navy (and a larger submarine fleet) than the US, not only does it have anti-ship ballistic missiles and cruise missiles, it also has secret underground bases in Sanya (Hainan) and Qingdao. China’s submarines with AIP propulsion systems are undetectable for the US Navy, while the USN’s ASW skills and aircraft fleet have atrophied. China is a real threat to, and a peer competitor for, the US.

Black then continued to blather nonsense:

“China’s neighbors, led by India, Japan, South Korea, and Indonesia, are well able to ensure a satisfactory regional correlation of forces, especially as the first appearance of plausible forces of democratization surface in Russia to discourage Putin’s maverick, compulsive trouble-making.”

Wrong. Japan, South Korea, and Indonesia are military weak, and utterly unable to confront the Chinese juggernaut, even collectively. As for Russia, despite recent protests, it will never become democratic (or pro-American) anytime soon and Putin’s regime will not crumble anytime soon.

Black then went on to paint an extremely rosy, completely fictitious picture of the world where there are no serious threats to the US beyond the Middle East:

“The Far East and South Asia can manage with minimal American attention; most of Latin America is progressing well and there are no dangerous extra-hemispheric influences, despite Ahmadinejad’s ludicrous trans-cultural minuet with Chávez. There is no threat to Western or Central Europe, and Africa has never really been a strategic theater, or one where extra-territorial interventions yielded much of a dividend (after the slave trade was abolished).”

This is utter garbage, like most of his article. The Far East and South Asia (i.e. the Pacific Rim) CANNOT manage with “minimal American attention”; they are threatened by the Chinese juggernaut and its North Korean ally. It needs not only a great deal of American attention, it needs American military protection (and intervention if need be). Latin America is NOT progressing well (unless by “progressing” Black means the establishment of socialist anti-American regimes on the continent and their pursuit of socialist policies), and IS being poisoned by dangerous extra-hemispheric influences – namely, Russian and Chinese policies as well as Iranian meddling, including the ongoing construction of a base for Iranian IRBMs in Venezuela, which would allow the Iranians to target the Southern and Southwestern US with nuclear weapons. Africa remains highly unstable, Somalia is a safe haven and a base for pirates, and its Red Sea coast is the area where maritime piracy is ubiquitous. In short, the world is much more dangerous than it was during the entire Cold War, except the Cuban Missile Crisis.

Conrad Black concedes that we defense conservatives know Obama’s TRUE motivations in cutting the defense budget and the size of the US military:

“But the fear flourishes, rooted in a knowledge of the administration’s naïveté and half-baked notions of wealth redistribution, that the defense-spending cuts are intended not as a response to strategic realities but as a substitute for entitlement reform. Certainly, trimming the military to feed welfare bloat is one of the litmus tests of a civilization in decline.”

And that’s exactly what Obama is doing. That is his true intent.

Amazingly, Black recognizes that:

“Defense is the most effective and valuable form of economic stimulus, especially in high technology, and the country’s most effective form of continuing education, as well as the only source of national security.”

Yet he gives ammo to defense cutters, saying that “Resources allocated to national defense should be cut back only for the right reasons. There is definitely room for hope, but this administration’s record, despite the fact that Robert Gates and Leon Panetta are both competent defense secretaries, does not inspire confidence.”

There are never any “right reasons” to cut defense spending. There is never any reason to cut it. And there is no reason to hope that the Administration will cut the defense budget carefully. As for Robert Gates – no, he was not a competent defense secretary. Quite the contrary, he was one of the most incompetent, most servile, and worst defense secretary in American history. As for Leon Panetta – we shall see whether he’s a competent SECDEF or not.

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/287661/obama-s-defense-cuts-conrad-black?pg=2

Using problems to solve problems

ActionAmerica.org Editor John Gaver has invented a novel concept: using problems to solve problems. He has shown how this works on the example of the illegal immigrant problem:

“Let’s use problems to solve problems.

Everyone seems to be focusing on the problems we’re having in this country, rather than on solutions.

For example, they worry about things like Illegal immigration, rebuilding New Orleans and wild animals attacking humans in Florida. So, let’s see how we can use these three problems to solve these same three problems.

It’s as simple as 1-2-3. The result is a win-win-win situation:

1. Dig a moat the length of the Mexican border.
2. Use the dirt to raise the levies in New Orleans.
3. Put the Florida alligators in the moat.

No problems.”

This method can also be used on nuclear waste. You see, America also has three other problems:

1) The US nuclear arsenal is too small and inadequate to protect America.

2) There are currently 75,000 metric tons of solid nuclear waste in the US and the federal government hasn’t found any way to dispose of it.

3) Demand for nuclear fuel is growing as a result of the Nuclear Renaissance, and so are the costs of uranium ore and nuclear fuel.

Let’s see if we can solve these problems using them:

1) Recycle all of the recycleable nuclear fuel, using the uranium from this spent fuel as nuclear fuel and the plutonium from spent fuel for nuclear weapon production.

2) Dispose of all nonrecycleable nuclear fuel by dumping it in the Marianas Trench, the deepest sea trench in the world.

See? All three problems solved!

The conservative credo

Libertarian liars like Jack Hunter claim that if you support robust defense spending and oppose defense cuts, you are not a conservative. They’re wrong. It is the supporters of defense cuts who are not conservatives. Personally, I have conservative credentials which, I believe, are unquestionable.

Here’s what I believe in:

I believe in traditional Judeo-Christian values.

I believe human life begins at conception, and all unborn children deserve legal protection, and that the Fourteenth Amendment does protect their right to life.

I believe experimentation on human embryos is impermissible.

I believe marriage is between a man and a woman and should be legally recognized that way – with a Constitutional Amendment if necessary.

I believe, like the Founding Fathers did, that governments are created to secure our inalienable rights; that some kind of government is necessary, but governments exist only for limited purposes, not to manage every aspect of your life.

I believe that, therefore, taxation should be limited to the amount necessary to fund the necessary functions of government.

I believe that every society needs some laws, but these laws must not be oppressive, and, whatever they pertain to, they must be fair, egalitarian, short, predictable, and easy to understand.

I believe that the citizen should be strong vis-a-vis the state; that if arrested, he must always have the right to legal counsel, to Habeas Corpus, to be told why he’s been arrested, to a speedy public trial, to confront his accusers, to a cross-examination of witnesses, and to obtain witnesses in his favor.

I believe that foreign terrorists deserve none of the rights to which American citizens are entitled.

I believe that civil liberties must never be surrendered, not even in the name of “fighting terrorism”.

I believe that the Constitution means what it says and says what it means; and that it should be interpreted in accordance with its original meaning as stated in the Federalist Papers, which I believe to be the most authoritative explanations of the Constitution’s meaning.

I believe that the Constitution does give the federal government several legitimate functions, but that it authorizes only a limited government – that is, limited in terms of what it is allowed to do.

I believe that the people whom the American people elect to public office are debtors who have been loaned a sum greater than any money can be – public trust – and whenever that public trust is breached, these officials should be impeached and removed from office, whichever branch of the federal government they are members of.

I believe that every dollar the federal government spends needs to be spent wisely or not at all, because it was hard earned by a taxpayer, who had to work hard and sweat to earn it.

I believe in capitalism: free markets, low taxes, low regulation, no government diktats, and no bailouts.

I believe that capitalism means opportunity, but also responsibility.

I believe that the government should not create or support any dependency classes, and should assist only those who are truly downtrodden.

I believe in states rights – but not at the expense of individual rights. I believe states rights are no excuse for trampling personal liberties, whether with individual insurance purchase mandates, bans on using cell phones in people’s private cars, smoking bans, slavery, segregation, or whatnot.

I believe in the right of every American to possess and keep firearms, and deem it supreme to states’ rights. I believe in the Castle Doctrine.

I believe that America’s borders must be secure and must be controlled; that illegal immigration should be disincentivized and punished; that a country that doesn’t protect its borders is not sovereign; but that a healthy dose of legal immigration is both acceptable and needed. I believe America is both a country of immigrants and a country of laws.

I believe that energy is the lifeblood of the US economy, and in line with capitalism, a system of opportunities AND responsibilities, the government should not subsidize nor penalize any source of energy. I believe the government should allow (but not mandate) free unlimited use of all energy resources and leave it to the free market to determine which ones are the most economical ones. Once that happens, I’m confident the free market will choose the most efficient ones.

I believe that governments should not impose any radical environmentalist measures.

I believe that providing, and adequately funding, a strong national defense is not just a Constitutional prerogative, but a Constitiutional DUTY of the federal government, and any defense cuts or other measures to weaken America’s defense (such as disarmament treaties) constitute a dereliction of that duty. I believe that defense should be funded adequately and robustly. I believe that strategies and defense needs should drive budgets, not the other way around.

I believe that providing any amount of money for defense is Constitutionally authorized and justified, and does not constitute a Big Government program.

I believe that it is much better to spend some money on defense (and therefore on preventing war) now than to spend more money later on rebuilding defense and fighting a war provoked by military weakness.

I believe in building a strong national defense to prevent war, not to start one.

I believe peace can be safeguarded only with a strong national defense.

I believe military interventions are sometimes justified, but only when there is a real threat that cannot be deterred, the objectives are clear, the government is fully committed to winning, and the Congress – the Nation’s elected legislature supports it.

I believe America has many allies around the world, and they deserve to be respected and protected, not dumped unceremoniously to retrench cowardly behind oceans.

I believe that America is the greatest country in the world, and is not to blame for the world’s problems.

That is what I, Zbigniew Mazurak, a staunch conservative, believe in.

Why a strong defense is always needed, as illustrated by history lessons

The opponents of a strong defense continue to advocate deep defense cuts. They are reckless and irresponsible. They believe America doesn’t need a strong defense and that it can afford to deeply cut defense spending and not suffer any consequences. They’re wrong.

A strong, large military is ALWAYS needed, as is robust defense spending, which is needed to fund such a military. There is never a time when it is not needed.

The Founding Fathers understood this. George Washington has said that “timely disbursements to prepare for danger frequently prevent much greater disbursements to repel it” and warned the public and the Congress against “the uncertainty of procuring a warlike apparatus at the moment of public danger.” James Madison famously asked, “How could a readiness for war in time of peace be safely prohibited, unless we could prohibit, in like manner, the preparations and establishments of every hostile nation?” For his part, in 1788, Alexander Hamilton noted in Federalist #24:

Though a wide ocean separates the United States from Europe, yet there are various considerations that warn us against an excess of confidence or security. On one side of us, and stretching far into our rear, are growing settlements subject to the dominion of Britain. On the other side, and extending to meet the British settlements, are colonies and establishments subject to the dominion of Spain. This situation and the vicinity of the West India Islands, belonging to these two powers create between them, in respect to their American possessions and in relation to us, a common interest. The savage tribes on our Western frontier ought to be regarded as our natural enemies, their natural allies, because they have most to fear from us, and most to hope from them. The improvements in the art of navigation have, as to the facility of communication, rendered distant nations, in a great measure, neighbors. Britain and Spain are among the principal maritime powers of Europe. A future concert of views between these nations ought not to be regarded as improbable. The increasing remoteness of consanguinity is every day diminishing the force of the family compact between France and Spain. And politicians have ever with great reason considered the ties of blood as feeble and precarious links of political connection. These circumstances combined, admonish us not to be too sanguine in considering ourselves as entirely out of the reach of danger.

Today, I’ll explain on just one example why a strong military is needed: the example of the Barbary Wars.

The Continental Navy was disbanded in 1785 and all of its ships were sold or scrapped, while the Continental Army was reduced to just 600 men. America was left completely defenseless. The US soon learned, the hard way, that a strong military is always needed.

In 1794, after the US signed the Jay Treaty with Britain, the French considered that a treachery and began to harrass, assault, and confiscate American merchant ships. (There was no US Navy at the time.) So the Congress passed, and President Washington signed, the Naval Act of 1794, authorizing the creation of a US Navy, a US Marine Corps, and the construction of six warships (the US Navy’s original six frigates, including the USS Constitution). The six frigates were not completed, however, until 1797, and in 1798, a Department of the Navy was created to administer the Navy and the Marine Corps.

President Adams (1797-1801) said in 1798, “France is at war with us, but we are not at war with her.” This was about the Quasi-War with France. During that war, the US Navy captured 80 French ships (including one previously captured by the French). It proved its mettle. The French sued for peace by 1800.

But Britain considered signing the peace treaty with France to be an act of betrayal by the US and turned hostile against America. As long as the US was at a de-facto war with France, the Royal Navy protected American ships against both the French and the Moors (Barbary pirates). In 1800, America lost that protection.

The Barbary pirates have been harrassing American merchant ships since the 1780s. Until the US took military action, America’s response was always to appease them and to pay them the ransom they demanded. Weakness provoked aggression. Barbary pirates understood that they could push American merchants and politicians around; that they could demand anything, perpetrate any aggression, and America’s response would be appeasement and ransom payment. Payments in ransom and tribute to the privateering states amounted to 20% of the U.S. government’s annual revenues in 1800. Fully one fifth! Imagine what could’ve been done if that money had been devoted to defense instead!

Or, as the Wikipedia entry on the subject says:

The war stemmed from the Barbary pirates’ attacks upon American merchant shipping in an attempt to extort ransom for the lives of captured sailors, and ultimately tribute from the United States to avoid further attacks, much like their standard operating procedure with the various European states. Before the Treaty of Paris, which granted America’s independence from Great Britain, American shipping was protected by France during the Revolutionary years under the Treaty of Alliance (1778–83). Although the treaty does not mention the Barbary States in name, it refers to common enemies between both the U.S. and France, which would include the Barbary States or pirates in general. As such, piracy against American shipping only began to occur after the end of the American Revolution, when the U.S. government lost its protection under the Treaty of Alliance.

This lapse of protection by a European power led to the first American merchant shipping seized after the Treaty of Paris. On October 11, 1784, Moroccan pirates seized the brigantine Betsey. This first act of piracy against the U.S. ended in a positive light, as the Spanish government negotiated the freedom of the captured ship and crew; however, Spain offered advice to the United States over how to deal with the Barbary States. The advice was to offer tribute to prevent further attacks against merchant ships. The US Minister to France, Thomas Jefferson, decided to send envoys to Morocco and Algeria to try to purchase treaties and the freedoms of the captured sailors held by Algeria. Morocco was the first Barbary Coast state to sign a treaty with the U.S. on June 23, 1786. This treaty formally ended all Moroccan piracy against American shipping interests. Specifically, Article 6 of the treaty states that if any captured Americans, be it done by Moroccans or by other Barbary Coast states dock at a Moroccan city, said Americans would be set free and be under the protection of the Moroccan state. American diplomatic action with Algeria, the other major Barbary Coast state, was much less successful than with Morocco. Algeria began piracy against the U.S. on July 25, 1785 with the capture of the schooner Maria and the Dauphin a week later. All four Barbary Coast states demanded a sum of $660,000 compared to the limited allocated budget of $40,000 given to the envoys to achieve peace. Diplomatic talks to achieve a reasonable sum for tribute or for the ransom of the captured sailors struggled to reach any headway. The crews of the Maria and Dauphin remained in captivity for over a decade, and soon were joined by other ships captured by the Barbary States. In 1795, Algeria came to an agreement with the U.S. that resulted in the release of 115 sailors they held, at the cost of over $1 million. This amount totaled about ¹⁄₆ of the entire U.S. budget, and this amount was demanded as tribute by the Barbary States to prevent further piracy. The continuing demand for tribute ultimately led to the formation of the United States Department of the Navy, founded in 1798 in order to prevent further piracy attacks upon American shipping as well as to end the extremely large demand for tribute from the Barbary States.

Various letters and testimonies by captured sailors described their captivity as a form of slavery, even though Barbary Coast imprisonment was different from slavery practiced by the U.S. and European powers of the time. Barbary Coast prisoners were able to obtain wealth and property, along with achieving status beyond that of a slave. One such example was James Leander Cathcart, who rose to the highest position a Christian slave could achieve in Algeria, ending up as an adviser to the Algerian Dey, or king. Even so, most captives were pressed into hard labor in the service of the Barbary pirates, and struggled under extremely poor conditions that exposed them to vermin and disease. As word of the poor treatment reached back to the U.S., through freed captives’ narratives or letters, American civilians were pushing for direct action by the government to stop the piracy against U.S. ships.

(…) Jefferson reported the conversation to Secretary of Foreign Affairs John Jay, who submitted the Ambassador’s comments and offer to Congress. Jefferson argued that paying tribute would encourage more attacks. Although John Adams agreed with Jefferson, he believed that circumstances forced the U.S. to pay tribute until an adequate navy could be built. The U.S. had just fought an exhausting war, which put the nation deep in debt. Federalist and Anti-Federalist forces argued over the needs of the country and the burden of taxation. Jefferson’s own Democratic-Republicans and anti-navalists believed that the future of the country lay in westward expansion, with Atlantic trade threatening to siphon money and energy away from the new nation on useless wars in the Old World. The U.S. paid Algiers the ransom, and continued to pay up to $1 million per year over the next 15 years for the safe passage of American ships or the return of American hostages. Payments in ransom and tribute to the privateering states amounted to 20% of the U.S. government’s annual revenues in 1800.

America was weak and defenseless, so it was an easy target for aggressors.

But once President Jefferson decided to use the US Navy’s ships (including its six frigates) and the Marines, and deploy them to Tripoli, the game changed. America fought the two Barbary Wars (1801 to 1805 and 1805 to 1809) and defeated Berbery rulers, thus freeing itself from the duty to pay any ransom to them. The Berbery threat was eliminated.

The moral of this story is that: 1) weakness (e.g. a weak defense, or no defense at all) provoke aggressors and cause wars, while a strong defense prevents wars by deterring aggressors and defeats those few who are undeterrable; 2) America ALWAYS needs a strong military and can never afford to cut it.

The lies of US News

In a hilarious post, ridiculously titled ”Mitt Romney’s Lies”, the liberal US News magazine accuses Romney of lying about several issues, including President Obama’s disastrous defense cuts and his apologies for America to the rest of the world:

Defense cuts. In an October speech on national security, Romney promised to “reverse President Obama’s massive defense cuts.” One problem: Pentagon spending has gone up under Obama, from $594 billion in 2008 to $666 billion. The 2011 request was for $739 billion. As Rick Perry would say, “Oops.”

[Read the U.S. News debate: Are Cuts to the Defense Budget Necessary?]

No apologies. Romney has said that Obama “went around the world and apologized for America.” This is part of the conservative, dog-whistle meme that Obama is un-American (and possibly even a foreigner!). While the notion of an international apology tour is a staple of the conservative case against Obama, it is also fictitious. The Washington Post’s fact-checker concluded that “the claim that Obama repeatedly has apologized for the United States is not borne out by the facts, especially if his full quotes are viewed in context.” Don’t hold your breath waiting for an apology from Romney on this one.

Let’s start with US News’ first lie: that President Obama hasn’t cut defense and that DOD spending has increased under President Obama by as much as they claim.

While the core defense budget and the total DOD budget did peak in Obama’s first year, at $563 bn and $700.19 bn, respectively (in inflation-adjusted dollars), they have been constantly shrinking since then. The DOD’s budget for FY2011 was $671 bn (of which the core defense budget was just $528.9 bn). The core defense budget has now shrunk to $526 bn, the GWOT (OCO) budget to $118 bn, and the total defense budget to $644 bn, a cut of $27 bn. The GWOT (OCO) budget is scheduled to shrink annually and eventually zero out by FY2015 (when the last American troops return home from Afghanistan), and as for the core defense budget, Obama plans to cut it by almost $500 bn ($487 bn, to be exact) over the next 10 years, i.e. $48.7 on average.

In FY2008, the core defense budget was $481.4 bn and there was also a GWOT budget of $145.2 bn, for a total DOD budget of $626.6 bn in NOMINAL DOLLARS (not adjusted for inflation). In inflation-adjusted dollars, the FY2008 core defense budget was $525.25 bn, i.e. roughly as much as today ($526 bn), and the GWOT supplemental budget was $158.43 bn in FY2012 dollars, for a total DOD budget of $683.68 bn in today’s money. So the total DOD budget has SHRUNK SIGNIFICANTLY since FY2008 and the core defense budget is now of the same size as it was in FY2008.

The $594 bn figure for FY2008 is false. In nominal dollars, the total DOD budget was $626 bn in FY2008; in inflation-adjusted dollars, it was $683.68 bn.

Furthermore, their claim that the DOD’s budget request for FY2011 was $739 bn is a blatant lie. The DOD has never requested that amount of money for any fiscal year, including FY2011. For that FY, it requested $708 bn, and got only $671 bn. That’s much less than the $739 bn that US News claimed.

Of course, Obama’s defense spending cuts is probably not the only issue Romney meant. Romney also talked about other Obama defense cuts during that speech: the closure of over 50 crucial weapon programs in FY2010 and FY2011 (which meant cutting $330 bn out of the DOD’s accounts and spending plans), the unilateral US nuclear arsenal cuts conducted under the New START treaty, and Obama’s cuts and cancellations of numerous missile defense programs. So YES, Obama HAS cut defense – both defense spending AND defense programs (including modernization programs and missile defense projects). Romney didn’t lie; US News lied.

Oops, indeed, US News – but you are the one who is lying!

The second lie that I will refute in this post is their denial that Obama has engaged in apologies for America abroad. Obama HAS apologized for America, and repeatedly so. For example, in April 2009, in France, during a press conference with French President Nicolas Sarkozy, he apologized for America, claiming that instead of celebrating the EU, the US has been “arrogant” and “dismissive”. And last year, as the anniversary of the nuclear bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki approached, Obama offered the Japanese government a public apology in these cities by himself, a story reported by the Investors’ Business Daily among others.

So no, Mitt Romney wasn’t lying. US News and WaPo’s so-called “fact-checker” were lying.

Hey, US News fools, you are owned!

Why significant defense spending cuts cannot be done safely

These days, many politicians propose deep defense spending cuts, while claiming that the US can make them safely and still remain safe, or even remain the world’s strongest military player. Sec. Leon Panetta and Gen. Martin Dempsey, for example, are now propagating such blatant lies in defense of their boss’s indefensible, massive $500 bn defense cuts. Ron Paul proposes even deeper defense cuts, down to a defense budget of just $484 bn i.e. a microscopic 3.3% of GDP) in FY2012. Yet, they lie to the public that this can be done safely without jeopardizing America’s national security.

Don’t believe them. They’re lying.

The truth is that no significant defense spending cuts can be done safely (i.e. without jeopardizing national security).

The defense budget is not a mere book or set of spending numbers. It is not a mere warchest of money. It is not a slush fund that the DOD can use for any purpose. No, the defense budget is something quite different: a collection of defense programs that the nation wishes to pursue, and fund for the given fiscal year, with their total cost being added up (this is the defense budget topline, e.g. $526 bn for FY2012).

Behind all the numbers in the defense budget are the troops, troop health & benefit programs, installations, operation & maintenance programs, spare parts, weapon inventories, modernization programs, missile defense programs, and DOD administrative agencies needed to protect America.

Any significant defense spending cuts would mean cutting (significantly) troop numbers, weapon inventories, installations, modernization programs, missile defense programs, spare parts, O&M programs, and/or troops’ health & benefit programs, which, depending on which of these cuts would be made would mean either weakening the military (thus imperiling America) and/or breaking faith with the troops and thus discouraging them from serving.

The deeper the defense budget cuts, the deeper these programmatic and/or inventory cuts would have to be. Therefore, the more the military would be weakened, and the less secure America would be. Those are unavoidable realities. Those are facts.

All defense spending cuts have serious consequences. If someone tells you otherwise, that person is either ignorant or lying to you.

Let me illustrate for you what specific consequences would defense budget cuts entail.

For example, President Obama’s newest round of defense spending cuts (to the tune of $500 bn) will have to mean, for example, dramatic cuts to troops’ benefit programs (thus breaking faith with them), significant cuts in orders for spare parts, deep cuts in America’s already-inadequate nuclear arsenal, and/or deep cuts in missile defense programs. And that’s just one example.

Mitt Romney tries to dodge the Tampa GOP debate

As has been reported by the media, Mitt Romney is trying to dodge the upcoming Tampa GOP presidential debate, which will be held before the Florida GOP presidential primary on January 31st.

Why is Romney trying to avoid it? Because he doesn’t want to debate with Newt Gingrich. And why doesn’t the Massachusetts RINO want to debate with him? Because he’s too afraid of him. In fact, he’s scared to death of him. Gingrich is an excellent debater and can take on anyone, while Romney is a lousy discussion partner who gets angry and discomfortable whenever he’s challenged, criticized, or asked a difficult question.

But if he can’t debate Newt Gingrich, how can he take on Barack Obama?

The answer is: he can’t.

Republicans must not nominate this proven RINO loser. If he were to win the GOP nomination, Obama would have a field day with him.

Response to the garbage ReasonTV defense cuts video (which is a litany of blatant lies)

There is a video by the liberal ReasonTV channel circulating around the web, which is a litany of blatant lies about defense spending and challenges Republicans and conservatives to “prove they are serious about their own limited government philosophy” by pushing for deep defense cuts:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=byVNw3rfiy8

Utter garbage. Any significant defense cuts WILL weaken the military and make America less safe. That’s because all defense cuts of any serious magnitude mean cuts in the numbers of troops, weapon inventories, modernization programs, O&M programs, spare part purchases, fuel, troop health & benefits programs, and/or military infrastructure. That is a reality of life.

There is some waste in the budget of the DOD (as there is in the budget of every government agency), but there isn’t enough waste in it to pay for $100 bn or $500 bn cuts. Not even close.

The Navy jet fuel deal is cost prohibitive, but:
1) It was not voluntarily accepted or sought by the Navy. It was imposed on it from on high by Obama and his politically-appointed SECNAV Ray Mabus.
2) Its cost, while significant, will still be measured in millions, not billions, of dollars, and would therefore be insufficient to pay for any significant defense spending cuts.

The entire video is a litany of blatant lies. The liberal speaker in the video falsely claims that most conservatives/Republicans claim that defense spending should not be cut and should in fact be increased. Who, besides me, is saying so?

Certainly none of the presidential candidates other than Romney. Santorum and Perry merely want to protect defense spending from cuts. Gingrich, Huntsman, and Paul all support deep defense spending cuts.

The first “reason” given by the liberal speaker in the video – that “the war is over” – is no reason to cut defense spending. The Iraqi war may be over, and the Afghan war will end in 2014, but that is NO EXCUSE to cut defense spending. It has nothing to do with how high America’s defense spending should be. The mission of the US military is to prevent war and to keep the country safe AT ALL TIMES. Investments in preventing war (i.e. in a strong defense) prevent war, and therefore prevent much higher expenditures to fight it.

It would be far better to invest adequately in defense now to prevent the eruption of a preventable war (and its associated costs, both fiscal ahd human) than to fight, later on, a costly war that could be avoided.

The OCO budget is shrinking annually, and it will zero out in FY2015 when the last American troops come back home. But cuts to the defense budget are unacceptable.

The liberal speaker claims that “at the end of WW2, the Korean War, and the Vietnam War, defense spending got cut, as it should.” No, it should NOT have been cut. The dramatic, draconian defense cuts implemented after the war gutted the military (by the admission of top US military leaders and government officials), thus ENCOURARING aggressors to perpetrate actions they would otherwise refrain from, causing war, and causing high costs in both money and blood – costs that would’ve been avoided had the US kept a strong defense and refrained from defense cuts.

The liberal speaker also falsely claims that America’s military spending has grown by 91% over the last decade, thus “almost doubling”. Again, that is a blatant lie. Total US military spending grew from $390 bn in inflation-adjusted dollars in FY2001 to $688 bn in FY2011, which represents growth of only 76% over a decade (for those who think it’s still a staggering percentage, I’ll repeat: OVER A DECADE). The military budget for the current FY (FY2012) is $662 bn, which is only 69% higher than it was in FY2001, and again that is growth over an entire decade, not over one FY. Moreover, what the speaker conveniently admitted is that America’s defense budget in FY2001 was pathetically small and woefully inadequate, and was recognized as such by both the right (e.g. HASC Chairman Floyd Spence) and the left (e.g. the CSIS), as well as by such prominent DOD critics as John Kasich. In FY2001, defense spending was so low that tank units had to practice tank tactics using golf carts instead of tanks.

And yet, America’s military spending is still modest. It amounts to just 4.51% of GDP (lower than it was throughout the entire Cold War except FY1948), and the core defense budget amounts to only 3.59% of GDP (again, lower than it was throughout the entire CW except FY1948). Those are microscopic percentages. Military spending amounts to just 19% of the total federal budget, whereas its share was much higher than that throughout the entire Cold War (again, excepting FY1948).

The speaker spoke of terrorist organizations, but conveniently omitted all other threats, such as China, Russia, North Korea, Iran, and Venezuela, all of which are much more deadly and technologically sophisticated than terrorist organizations.

He also lied that the US is responsible for 45% of the world’s military spending and spends more on its military than the next 14 countries combined. Again, blatant lies. In fact, according to the SIPRI, the US accounts for only 42.8% of the world total and the next 12 countries combined spend more than the US. Moreover, how much other countries spend on their militaries is IRRELEVANT to how much the US should spent on its defense. It should be determined SOLELY by America’s own defense needs – the threats facing the country and how much it will cost to fend off these threats.

The video denounces the waste in the budgets of the DOD and the DHS. Waste in any government department is inexcusable, but so are defense cuts. As for the DHS, it is separate from, and has nothing to do with, the DOD. It is not a part of America’s defense nor of the US military (except the Coast Guard).

As for the third false reason given in the video – “it’s a Republican virtue and good politics” – that’s also a lie. Cutting defense spending and weakening defense is not a virtue, it’s a vice, and it has been long considered such by mainstream Republicans.

Dwight Eisenhower, who has been misused by the speaker, did NOT clamor for any defense cuts in his Farewell Address. He merely warned against giving the “military-industrial complex” influence on the American political system and process. In fact, in the same Farewell Address, he called the military establishment “a vital element in keeping the peace” and claimed that “our arms must be mighty, ready for constant action, so that no aggressor may be tempted to risk his own destruction.” (Here’s a full transcript of his Farewell Address.) Under Eisenhower, defense spending amounted to a full 10% of GDP and the majority of the total federal budget. By the speaker’s standards, Eisenhower would’ve been classified as a supporter of a “bloated” DOD budget today, and the speaker would’ve been calling on Eisenhower to cut defense spending.

The speaker also called the US military and the DOD “a cancer on the society”, which they aren’t and have never been, and which Eisenhower would’ve never called them.

The speaker also invoked the American people, but the fact is that the vast majority of Americans (57% according to the most recent polling on the subject) opposes any defense cuts, and 82% opposed any defense cuts by the Super Committee. Politicians are  “out of touch” with average Americans indeed – and so is the speaker (and ReasonTV) ! They continue to clamor for ever-deeper defense cuts while a majority of the electorate opposes them.

The speaker claims that Republicans must push for deep defense cuts if they want to cut entitlement programs. It is unconservative, ridiculous, against the Constitution, and plain wrong to equate these two kinds of spending. Defense is not only a legitimate government function, it is the #1 DUTY of the federal government. Entitlements are utterly unconstitutional, utterly wasteful, breed a dependency class, take money from hard-working folks to people who didn’t earn it, and are much bigger than the military budget.

The speaker also claims that Republicans must cut defense spending deeply if they are serious about their limited government philosophy. But limited government philosophy means “a government limited to what the Constitution authorizes”, and as I stated above, defense is not only a legitimate government function, it is the #1 DUTY of the federal government. Limited government philosophy does NOT require defense cuts.

The Preamble to the Constitution states that one of the reasons the Constitution was written and ordained, and the federal government established, in the first place is to “provide for the common defense”, which means that the mission of the federal government is to provide for America’s defense, NOT to provide entitlement programs or other domestic social programs. Art. IV, Sec. 4 of the Constitution OBLIGATES the federal government to provide for the common defense and to guarantee a republican form of government to every state of the Union. Defense is therefore not only a legitimate government function, it’s a Constitutional DUTY of the federal government. Any policy that weakens the US military, including any significant defense cut, is a dereliction of that duty.

Last, but not least, let’s not forget that there have already been serious defense cuts. In fact, they have been occuring throughout the Obama Admin. In March 2009, just 2 months after he took office, Obama ordered then-SECDEF Robert Gates to cancel plans for the next generation bomber program, close the F-22 program, close other crucial weapon programs, and cut the defense budget request down to $534 bn. In April 2009, Gates announced a defense budget request that closed over 30 crucial weapon programs, thus cutting $330 bn out of the defense budget and from future defense spending plans; in FY2011, he closed further weapon programs, such as the next-gen cruiser and the EPX plane program. In January 2011, he devised further $178 bn defense budget cuts; and just a week ago, Obama announced his own plan to cut a FURTHER $500 bn out of the defense budget (in REAL-TERM BUDGET CUTS) over the next decade. How much more cuts does the video speaker want? I guess no amount of defense cuts would satisfy him and ReasonTV. In any case, the DOD can’t accept any further core defense budget cuts. That is a fact.

Sadly, a pseudoconservative website called “Conservative New Jersey” (www.conservativenewjersey.com) decided to post and endorse this video and to agree with its proposals of deep defense cuts. The ONLY thing that was saving that website’s reputation, and that of its admins, in the eyes of me and other conservatives was its stance on defense. Now that we know that CNJ is a pro-defense cuts site, and its admins are anti-defense, they’re utterly discredited. They have no right to call themselves conservatives, and it will be deeply insulting to every real conservative, including me, if they continue to do so. That website should no longer be called  “conservativenewjersey”, but rather “liberalnewjersey”. Boo to these guys.

Why Ron Paul is NOT a limited government conservative

Many Ron Paul fans and apologists, and even some non-supporters of his who don’t know any better, claim that he’s a “limited government” supporter. Even many of his critics claim that although his foreign policy is insane, he’s great on limited government policy.

The problem with that thinking is that it’s wrong. Ron Paul is NOT a supporter of limited government – merely a supporter of states’ rights, just like the Confederates and the Dixiecrats of the 1950s and the 1960s. He couldn’t care less about limited government and individual liberty.

He misreads the Constitution as giving the states the right to violate ANY individual liberties they want, and to institute any oppressive Big Government scheme they want, and that the average citizen is powerless versus his state. For him, the words “or to the people” don’t exist in the 10th Amendment, and he ignores the 14th Amendment and claims it plays no role vis-a-vis the states. Of course, it may be that as a stalwart supporter of the Confederacy’s war to defend slavery he believes the 14th Amendment to be illegitimate and invalid, as opposed to simply not understanding it.

For whatever reason, Ron Paul believes that your state government can do whatever it wants to do to you – even ban smoking, guns, and cell phones – and that your only choice is to either accept such outrageous violations of your liberties or leave the state. For him, Big Government is perfectly fine – as long as it’s at the state and local level, and not the federal level.

That is NOT a limited government policy.

A true limited government supporter would argue (like I do) that Big Government is unacceptable at all levels of government – federal, state, and local. A few bureaucreats in Washington, DC, cannot make good choices for people in Idaho, Virginia, or Texas, but likewise, Austin cannot always make good choices for San Antonio, Houston, or Dallas.

But don’t waste your breath telling that to Ron Paul and his supporters. They couldn’t care less about limited government, the Constitution, or conservatism. For them, Big Government is perfectly fine – as long as it’s at the state and local level, and not the federal level.

REJECT RON PAUL!

Sen. Rand Paul caught lying about defense, spending, and other issues

Recently, Rand Paul, the son of Congressman Ron Paul, has been caught lying to voters to get them to vote for his loathsome father. While falsely claiming that “national defense is the #1 priority for Ron Paul” (if I had a nickel for every time I heard that!), he claimed that the US can afford to cut military spending further by significant amounts, that military spending has doubled over the last decade, and that Ron Paul would “compromise with liberals” and “reach across the aisle” to get them to vote for his $1 trillion annual spending cuts.

As far as Ron Paul pledging to “compromise with liberals” in cutting military spending significantly, we can be sure of that. Ron Paul has repeatedly “reached across the aisle” to collaborate with liberals to cut defense spending (and only defense spending) and to gut America’s military. But all other claims of Sen. Rand Paul are false.

Firstly, military spending has NOT doubled over the last decade. Not even close. It has grown from $390 bn (in today’s money; $297 bn in FY2001 dollars) from FY2001 to $662 bn this FY (per the FY2012 National Defense Authorization Act). That is growth of merely 69% – not even close to doubling. While 69% might still sound like a staggering percentage, remember that this growth has occurred over a DECADE, not in one fiscal year. Measured over a decade, it is quite modest. And I’m counting the ENTIRE military budget here, not just the core defense budget. Total military spending has increased only slightly as a share of GDP, from 3.0% in FY2001 to 4.51% today.

Secondly, no, America cannot afford to cut its military spending any further by any significant amounts without harming its military and jeopardizing its national security. President Obama has already cut defense spending by hundreds of billions of dollars ($330 bn worth of cuts in FY2010 and FY2011 by closing over 50 weapon programs; $178 bn in cuts for FY2012-FY2016 announced by Sec. Gates in January 2011) and plans to cut it further by a whopping $487 bn, which WILL weaken the military (e.g. by dramatically cutting the US nuclear arsenal). Further cuts cannot be made without gutting the military. That is a fact.

That is because behind each defense cut hides a number of training hours, steaming hours, weapon inventories, modernization programs, units, troops, or benefits that would be cut or eliminated as a result, thus weakening the military and/or breaking faith with military personnel. Defense spending is not spending for the sole purpose of spending; it pays for the nation’s defense programs – training hours, fuel, operation and maintenance programs, the base infrastructure, weapon inventories, modernization, R&D, units, troops’ salaries, and benefits.

The US already spends only 4.51% of its GDP on the military, with the core defense budget constituting just 3.59% of GDP. It cannot afford to cut defense spending any further.

And let’s not fool ourselves: liberals will never accept any small defense cuts; they will accept only such that WOULD gut the military, because that’s their goal.

Sen. Paul claimed that “conservatives like Sen. Coburn and Sen. Demint support defense cuts and understand they’re necessary.” I’m not aware of Sen. Demint ever saying that. As for Coburn, he’s not a conservative, he’s an utterly-discredited anti-defense libertarian whose defense cuts proposals, if implemented, would totally gut the military (for detailed reasons why, see here and here). Moreover, if you support any defense cuts – let alone those of the $1 trillion magnitude that Sen. Coburn has proposed – YOU ARE NOT A CONSERVATIVE, PERIOD.

Thankfully, when Frank Luntz asked the audience whether they agreed with Sen. Paul, the vast majority said “no”. Good to know that there are still many Americans who reject defense cuts and are not fooled by Sen. Paul’s and Congressman Paul’s false promises.

Sen. Paul clearly thinks that “compromising with liberals” is a good idea. As a conservative, I reject that. I don’t want any compromise with liberals at all. It is neither needed nor acceptable. Not needed, because Republicans are projected to retain their sizeable House majority and retake the Senate (with up to 10 seats being up for grabs for Republicans according to Larry Sabato’s website), so the Democrats will not be needed at all. Not acceptable, because as I said, the Dems would accept only such defense cuts that would gut the military, and because of the GOP’s experience of compromising with liberals. What did Reagan’s compromises with the House and Senate Democrats of his day do? What did GOP compromises with Clinton do? What did GOP-Dem compromises such as McCain-Feingold, McCain-Kennedy, the FY2011 ConRes, and the August 2011 debt ceiling deal do? Nothing good, only damage. As Tim Durkin rightly points out, too many Republicans – including, as we now know, Sen. Paul and Congressman Paul, are too eager to compromise with liberals instead of fighting for conservative policies.

Sen. Paul claims that “everything has to be on the table, including military spending”, as if it had been off-the-table for now. That is false. Military spending has ALWAYS been on the table, as demonstrated by the cuts of FY2010, FY2011, and FY2012, as well as the New START treaty. Any claim that military spending has been off the table is a blatant lie.

And, as history (including the last 3 years) has shown, whenever military spending is put on the table, it quickly becomes the ONLY thing on the table.

And, as the Republican Study Committee and the Heritage Foundation have both shown, the federal budget can be balanced without defense cuts.

No surprise that Sen. Paul convinced only 2 people on defense and foreign issues, acknowledging that he still has a lot of work to do.

Paul also claimed that for his father, “national defense is the #1 issue”, yet he’s the one who has proposed and endorsed many deep defense cuts on every occassion, including the cuts proposed by Barney Frank and his “SDTF” in 2010 and the sequestration mechanism. Paul has even proposed defense cuts that would go deeper than the sequester!

No, for Ron Paul, national defense is not the #1 priority, merely an afterthough. He treats it even worse than entitlements. No wonder strident anti-defense liberals like Keith Olbermann and Jon Stewart support him for the GOP nomination.

He brought up Iran and likened the standoff with Iran to the Cuban missile crisis, then claimed that in foreign policy shouldn’t always be war. That’s a straw man claim. No Republican candidate wants war. Few Republican candidates want it. No Republican candidate, and no prominent Republican figure, is suggesting that America’s first choice on any issue – let alone Iran – should be war. What most Republicans are saying is that IF, and I repeat IF, Iran cannot be deterred and all non-war options fail, the US should bomb Iran to stop its nuclear weapons program.

As for the Cuban missile crisis, the story didn’t happen exactly as Sen. Paul narrated it. True, President Kennedy compromised with the Soviet Union and removed American missiles from Turkey and Britain, while the USSR removed its own missiles from Cuba. But before that, President Kennedy instituted a naval blockade (which would be considered an act of war) and warned the Kremlin that any missile launched from Cuba against any nation in the Western Hemisphere would be considered an attack by the Soviet Union on the United States, requiring a full and devastating retaliation against the Soviet Union. And he had a vast nuclear arsenal to back that up. THAT is what deterred the Russians and convinced them to compromise. Ron Paul would’ve never done that – he would’ve blamed America for the crisis and would’ve capitulated to the Russians.

As for Iran, deterrence might work with it, but only if it’s backed up by a credible, large, survivable nuclear deterrent. Yet, America’s nuclear arsenal is decaying through neglect, underfunding, and treaty- and Obama-Admin-whim-mandated cuts, and the Administration plans further unilateral cuts in it. And yet, Ron Paul proposes even further defense cuts, which would inevitably mean cuts in the nuclear arsenal. He supported such cuts in 2010, as did Barney Frank and Ron Wyden. He also supports the sequester, which would eliminate one leg of the nuclear triad (the ICBM leg) immediately and the other two legs over time through nonreplacement, as well as eliminating any plans for any new missile defense systems.

How the hell would Paul deter Iran without a credible nuclear deterrent and at least a modest missile defense system? He can’t. That is a fact.

http://www.libertarian-examiner.com/2012/01/rand-paul-ron-pauls-1-priority-is.html