2014 Senate race update

As the 2014 Senate elections draw closer, it’s clear that, thanks partially to the Tea Party and partially to other factors, Republicans’ dreams of retaking the Senate next year are pure moonshine, just like I have said previously. (Note to all readers: take seriously what I write. I am seldom wrong.)

Many Republicans and even many independent analysts delude themselves that Republicans can pick-up at least 6 Senate seats from supposedly “vulnerable” Democratic incumbents running in “red” states. But as we shall see, those seats aren’t so red, those Democratic incumbents aren’t so vulnerable, and defeating an incumbent – or even wrestling a Senate seat from a retiring Senator’s party – is very hard and seldom happens.

In the last 14 years (i.e. in the Senate elections since and including those of 2000), incumbent Senators running for reelection won in more than 80% of cases. That means an incumbent Senator has an least least 80% chance of winning reelection. But even if an incumbent retires, his party has an almost 66% chance of retaining his seat: in the 47 “open seat” Senate elections since 2000, not counting those triggered by death or resignation, the retiring Senator’s party held the seat in 30 elections, i.e. almost 66%.

In 2014, all election predictors will likely be proven wrong, except one: incumbents usually win.

It’s clear that the only Senate seats Republicans have a realistic chance of picking up are those in WV, SD, MT, AK, AR, and MI. While that is 6 seats in total – the GOP is highly unlikely to win all of them, and can win them only if it nominates the right candidates AND they overtake their Democratic rivals AND of the state of the country (including the economy and Obama’s popularity) are bad in 2014. And Republicans may very well lose a seat in Georgia.

Let’s look at each state which is, or at least was, realistically in play.

In Iowa, a grand opportunity to win a seat which retiring Sen. Tom Harkin (D) plans to vacate has been squandered. Rep. Tom Latham, a good and electable conservative who represents most of Iowa’s 99 counties, has decided against getting into a primary fight with fellow Republican Steve King, who has never represented anything beyond his deeply-red district. King is an extremist social conservative and a firebreather in the mold of Todd Akin (whom he defended last year). Polls show that he would quite literally be trashed by the Democratic nominee-in-waiting Bruce Brayley.

In Georgia, Republicans have likewise chased out staunch, but electable conservative Sen. Saxby Chambliss. Who are the leading Republican contenders to replace him? Two firebreathers: Rep. Phil Gingrey, who defended Todd Akin last year, and Rep. Paul Broun, who says that the evolution theory and Big Bang are “lies straight from the pit of hell”. Remember: Claire McCaskill was projected by polls to lose the 2012 MO Senate election miserably… until Todd Akin won the GOP primary and opened his mouth about abortion. Republicans’ only hope of retaining this seat is blocking Gingrey and Broun from winning the GOP nomination and praying that Max Cleland does not run or win the Dem nomination, because if he does, he’ll win easily.

In North Carolina, the incumbent Senator, Kay Hagan, while not being well-known and not having a high job approval rating, still leads all potential Republican challengers by a margin of at least 10 pp. Moreover, there are so many potential GOP candidates there that NC Republicans may get into a nasty primary fight, which would only benefit Hagan. In any event, Hagan is virtually guaranteed reelection with that kind of lead over all potential GOP challengers.

In Louisiana, likewise, incumbent Senator Mary Landrieu has a 9 pp lead over all potential GOP challengers, and has outraised the best-funded of them, Rep. Bill Cassidy, by $500,000. And Landrieu is the incumbent Senator, for goodness sake! This seat is SAFELY DEMOCRATIC.

In Michigan, incumbent Sen. Carl Levin has just announced he’s retiring. But whether Republicans can snatch this seat depends on whom they nominate. If it’s someone popular, such as Rep. Mike Rogers (the chairman of the House Intel Committee) or a Romney family member, they have a realistic chance (Rogers trails the virtually certain Dem nominee, former Gov. Jennifer Granholm, by only 3 pp). If it’s a libertarian nut like Rep. Justin Amash, who has never won anything beyond his gerrymandered district, another winnable seat will be thrown away.

In Arkansas, incumbent Senator Mark Pryor won 80% of the vote during his last election, in 2008. That was a very Democratic year, and Republicans might still find a credible challenger for him – like conservative Rep. Tom Cotton – but Pryor is an incumbent, and that alone gives him a huge headstart. Besides, some potential Republican candidates have already refused to challenge Pryor.

In New Hampshire, incumbent Senator Jeanne Shaheen has only $300,000 cash on hand, but leads a “Generic Republican” and former Sen. John Sununu by wide margins, and Republicans don’t have a deep bench in NH, so this seat is SAFELY DEMOCRATIC.

In Montana, incumbent Senator Max Baucus is likely to lose to fellow Democrat Brian Schweitzer, who himself will be an even stronger general election candidate than Baucus would be – and the only Republican who can defeat Schweitzer is Marc Racicot. Even Racicot leads Schweitzer in polls by only 1 pp, and he hasn’t even said yet whether he’s going to run.

In Alaska, Republicans theoretically have a deep bench, but the best potential candidate – Gov. Sean Parnell – has instead decided to run for reelection in 2014. Still, Lt. Gov. Mead Treadwell might still defeat incumbent Sen. Mark Begich – if he closes the current 4 pp gap in the polls, outraises Begich, and does not face a primary rival.

The only seats Republicans currently have a realistic chance of winning in 2014 are those in WV and SD, currently held by retiring Sen. Jay Rockefeller and Sen. Tim Johnson, who has not yet announced what he’ll do.

But two seats are not even close to enough to retake the Senate. Republicans need six.

That is why, as I have said, retaking the Senate in 2014 is pure moonshine.

2012 in review: A report on my blog

The WordPress.com stats helper monkeys prepared a 2012 annual report for this blog.

Here’s an excerpt:

4,329 films were submitted to the 2012 Cannes Film Festival. This blog had 19,000 views in 2012. If each view were a film, this blog would power 4 Film Festivals

Click here to see the complete report.

Rebuttal of Veronique de Rugy’s repeated lies about sequestration

The French libertarian Veronique de Rugy, who now lives in the US and spends time writing garbage for the Mercatus Center, has written yet more garbage about sequestration, garbage which, sadly, has been reproduced by a local newspaper in Virginia, the Virginia Business.

De Rugy again falsely claims that “adjusted for inflation, defense spending under the first year of sequestration would revert to its 2007 level.”

But that’s not true, because sequestration would cut the base defense budget from $535 bn today down to $469 bn in FY2013 (the first year of sequestration). This would be the lowest level of defense spending since FY2003, i.e. it means setting defense spending by an entire decade. The FY2004 defense budget was $473 bn, and the FY2007 budget was ca. $493 bn, in today’s money.

De Rugy further falsely claims that:

“With sequestration, she says, core Pentagon spending would fall to $492 billion in FY2013 (which began Oct. 1), rebound to $502 billion in 2014, rise to $549 billion by 2018 and reach to $590 billion in FY2021. If sequestration is avoided, the base budget will rise to $541 billion in the next 12 months, return to $560 billion in 2015 and reach almost $640 billion in 2021. ”

In support of her blatant lies, De Rugy is propagating a completely fabricated chart, which she admits she made herself.

But the chart is a complete forgery, and De Rugy’s claims are blatant lies. Here’s a CORRECT chart, produced by the CBO, which shows what would REALLY happen to defense spending with and without sequestration:

As you can see from the graph, defense spending would see a deep cut under sequestration and not recover for the remainder of the decade (or even long afterwards). Even without sequestration, however, defense spending would be effectively frozen in the first 5 years and resume modest growth thereafter.

The CBO’s July 2012 report on sequestration, which provides detailed, specific numbers on how deeply defense spending will be cut under the Budget Control Act, is available here.

Table 1-4 of the report, which is on page 11, says that under sequestration, defense spending will be cut to $469 bn in FY2013, and not reach $502 bn (let alone today’s level of $535 bn) for the remainder of the entire “Sequestration Decade” – a stark contrast to De Rugy’s lie that it would “rebound to $502 bn” in FY2014. It would never rebound to $502 bn. In fact, under sequestration, defense spending would be below that level, at $493 bn, in FY2022, in the last year of the sequestration decade.

So under sequestration, defense spending would be cut so deeply that it wouldn’t rebound to today’s level at least for an entire decade, and probably much longer than that.

By FY2018 and FY2021, despite de Rugy’s lies, it wouldn’t even be close to $549 bn or $590 bn; it would be at barely $483 bn and $489 bn, respectively. So De Rugy’s claims are such blatant lies that they’re off the mark by over $100 bn in the latter case.

But even without sequestration, defense spending would still be cut to $521 bn in FY2013 and not return to its current level ($535 bn) until FY2021. By FY2022, it would still be at $539 bn (all figures here are in real-term FY2013 dollars, i.e. they’re adjusted for inflation; if you don’t adjust for inflation, the FY2022 defense budget would be at $632 bn without sequestration, closer, but not matching, de Rugy’s false claims).

De Rugy also has made further false claims:

“The Pentagon’s core budget currently is on track to rise about 2 percent every year through 2021, or a total of $5.27 trillion, according to de Rugy. If sequestration cuts are fully enacted — which de Rugy doubts will ever happen — the budget still would increase by an annual average of about 1 percent to $4.84 trillion.”

Again, blatant lies. Even without sequestration, the defense budget will be cut in real terms during the next 5 years as a whole (and in 3 out of 5 individual FYs of the next 5 year window, FY2013-FY2017), and will need 9 fiscal years to recover to its current level of 535 bn. So there will be ZERO growth in real terms through FY2021.

Under sequestration, defense spending will not increase at all, and as already mentioned, and as proven irrefutably by the CBO’s July report (see Table 1-4 on page 11 of the report), it will still be way below today’s level, at 493 bn (42 lower than today), in FY2022, at the end of the sequestration decade. There will be no net growth in defense spending; sequestration would represent a deep real term cut from which defense spending would not recover for a decade (and probably longer than that).

De Rugy’s claim that sequestration is doubtful to ever happen is just as ridiculous and foolish as her other false claims. As things stand today, sequestration is the law of the land, and Congress has less than 3 months to overturn it (if it wants to). If it doesn’t do so within less than 3 months, it will kick in.

But overturning sequestration would require this divided, hyperpartisan Congress (whose members are more interested in pandering to their base than in doing something meaningful), and specifically, a majority of Republicans and Democrats alike, to reach a compromise, which means both sides would have to give away some ground.

Yet, Congressional Republicans and Democrats have so far been unable to agree on almost anything besides kicking the can down the road. In April 2011, they nearly caused a government shutdown, averting it just days before it was to happen. In August 2011, they nearly caused America to default on its obligations for the first time ever, averting it just hours before high noon. They are still held hostage by their respective bases, which will view any compromise and any ceding of ground as betrayal (just ask Sen. Richard Lugar). Even defense cuts supporters such as Winslow Wheeler admit that “sequestration is virtually inevitable.”

Sequestration may still be averted, but the odds of that are low.

De Rugy further lies that:

“Defense spending has almost doubled in the past decade in current dollar terms and will continue to grow in spite of automatic cuts set by the BCA.”

VB’s Tim Loughran also falsely claims that:

“For the next decade annual increases in Pentagon spending will shrink to between 2 and 3 percent, down from an average of about 10 percent during the past 10 years.”

Again, those are blatant lies. Defense spending has not doubled in the past decade. Not even close. In real terms, the base defense budget has grown from 390 bn in FY2001 (the nominal dollar amount was 291.1 bn) to 535 bn today; and the total military budget has grown to 645 bn today. This represents growth of 35% and 65%, respectively. So no, even the total military budget has not “almost doubled” in the last decade. Not even close. Given that this growth occurred over 11 years, it was modest.

And, as proven above, under sequestration, it will not grow at all – it will be cut deeply below today’s level and stay there for over a decade – and even without sequestration, it will not return to its current level until FY2021.

De Rugy further lies that:

“Clarifying these figures reveals that sequester cuts do not warrant the fears of policymakers who warn about ‘savage cuts’ to the defense budget.”

That’s another blatant lie. The sequester’s cuts would be savage, and they do fully warrant the fears of policymakers who warn about them. Not only would these cuts be deep in monetary terms (as proven above), these deep budget cuts would result in crippling cuts to capabilities, making the DOD:

• Cancel all except the most basic upgrades for F-15s and F-16s while cutting the fighter fleet by 35%;
• Eliminate the ICBM leg of the nuclear triad completely while cutting the bomber fleet by 2/3 and cancelling the bomber replacement program (also needed for conventional penetration strike);
• Delay the SSBN replacement program;
• Cut the USN’s ship fleet to 230 vessels, the smallest size since 1915, and vastly inadequate (independent studies say the Navy needs 346 ships);
• Forego the deployment of any missile defense system abroad;
• Cut the Army to its smallest size since 1940;
• Cancel virtually all Army modernization programs;
• Cut the Marines down to just 145,000 personnel (which, according to the USMC’s Commandant, would make the USMC “unable to handle even one major contingency”; in other words, if big trouble flares up, don’t bother calling the Marines);
• Cutting Israeli cooperative missile defense programs;
• Cut personnel benefits programs to such depth that it would break faith with them (e.g. massive cuts in DOD health programs and retirement benefits), thus discouraging people from joining the military or reenlisting.

For why such cuts would be disastrous, see here.

De Rugy further shamelessly lies that:

“Congress can blunt the effects of sequestration by adjusting the amount of money going to war funding (OCO), which is not subject to most of the restrictions facing the base Pentagon budget. Congress can set the level of OCO spending above and beyond what is needed in anticipation of the impact of the sequester and caps on defense spending.”

But Congress cannot do that (short of cancelling sequestration itself), because contrary to the claims made by de Rugy, OCO spending IS subject to sequestration (as confirmed by the DOD) and will therefore be cut, and capped at a lower level, just like base defense spending. So no, Congress cannot increase OCO spending under sequestration – whether to make up for cuts to the base budget or for any other reason.

The Virginia Business, which has published de Rugy’s blatant lies, also falsely claims that:

“In addition to using war funding money to relieve pressure on the core defense budget, another tactic would be to alter the definition of certain funding categories in the budget. Cuts are slated to affect spending at the “program, project and activities level.” Congress simply would change the identification of certain types of spending to give itself more flexibility, U.S. Rep. C.W. Young, a Florida Republican, told CQ Weekly.”

But changing the “definitions” of certain funding categories would do nothing to relieve pressure, since the BCA requires that the ENTIRE DOD budget, except personnel spending, be cut. Changing definitions changes NOTHING here, since everything, by whatever name it’s called, is to be cut, except personnel.

Virginia Business also invokes “reprogramming” as a fix, but it’s no solution at all. “Reprogramming” is allowed only for a limited amount of money (a few hundred million dollars per program at most), so it’s like putting a bandaid on a huge, bleeding wound, and it can never occur without Congressional legislation, because the Congress controls the purse.

VB also says the BCA allows the President to submit an alternative deficit reduction plan to avoid sequestration. But the President doesn’t need the BCA to do that; pre-BCA, there was nothing precluding him from doing so. Yet, to date, President Obama has submitted no such plan.

In short, De Rugy’s and VB’s claims are blatant lies, and once again, they have been utterly disproven.

http://forthecommondefense.org/2012/10/01/peering-over-the-fiscal-cliff/

Reflections on 9/11/2001 and Secretary Rumsfeld’s warning

In the morning of September 11th, 2001, then-Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld was having a meeting at the Pentagon building with key members of Congress regarding the defense cuts of the 1990s and the continued underfunding of defense. He reminded them that such deep cuts have always made America militarily weak, and that, in turn, has always emboldened aggressors to attack America.

How prophetic his words were.

Today, the US military is once again set to be gutted – this time at an amazing speed, with deep, across-the-board defense budget cuts set to occur less than 4 months from now. Politicians have clearly learned nothing since 9/11.

BTW, DOD acquisition chief Frank Kendall has recently admitted that sequestration would gut the military and that “There really aren’t many (programs) left to go after” that are not essential. So much for the lie that the defense budget still contains a “wish-list” of unneeded weapon programs designed only to make defense contractors rich.

Once again, Obama is NOT leading Romney in polls

The myth that Barack Obama is “leading” Romney in polls and enjoys a “decisive advantage” over the Governor in polling is still being propagated by the media – including by outlets which aspire to be conservative.

Case in point is a ridiculous blogpost on the American Thinker website, written of course by well-known garbage peddler Rick Moran, with whom I have quarreled, and whom I have corrected, many times (and believe me, he’s as arrogant as he’s ignorant). Moran writes:

“With less than 100 days to go before the election, President Obama has a decisive advantage in 12 swing states that would give him a comfortable margin of victory in the electoral college if the election were held today.

The Hill:

The crucial battleground states number about a dozen: Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Missouri, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia and Wisconsin.

Taking the polling averages used by Nate Silver in the New York Times, the president is ahead in 10 of the 12 vital states. If those polls were borne out on Election Day, Obama would coast to victory with 332 electoral college votes. Only 270 votes are needed to win the presidency.”

Which is utter garbage.

The only way one can come to such conclusion is 1) to look at all polls and treat them equally (or even give those that show Obama “leading” more weight than those that show Romney “leading”); and 2) to treat every state where Obama leads (even by a margin within a poll’s MOE) as “won” by Obama.

But if you actually look at the polls, you’ll see that in almost all swing states, in most polls, Obama doesn’t lead in the polls at all or leads only by a small margin within the polls’ own MOE. Wikipedia has a listing of all state polls here.

Don’t take my word for it. Go to Wikipedia. Look.

Let’s review the latest polls state-by-state:

1) Colorado: Obama leads Romney by 1 pp, MOE=4 pp;

2) Florida: Obama leads Romney by 1 pp, MOE=3.3 pp; all other polls from July except one show either Obama or Romney leading within the polls’ own MOE;

3) Indiana: Romney leads Obama by significant margins beyond the polls’ MOE;

4) Iowa: the latest poll, by a Democratic pollster (PPP), purports to show Obama “leading” Romney by 5 pp, but one poll from June shows him leading only by 1 pp, and one other poll from June gives Romney a 1 pp lead;

5) Michigan: the latest poll gives Romney a 1 pp lead;

6) Missouri: polls show Romney leading by comfortable margins;

7) Nevada: Obama leads Romney by margins beyond the polls’ MOE;

8) New Hampshire: the two latest polls give Obama leads that are within these polls’ own MOE;

9) New Mexico: the latest poll, by PPP no less, gives Obama an only 5 pp lead, compared to the double digit leads he enjoyed less than a month ago;

10) North Carolina: most recent polls show Romney leading Obama, sometimes by a margin that is beyond the polls’ own MOE;

11) Ohio: A We Ask America poll gives Obama a 7.6 pp lead, but most other polls give Obama much smaller leads;

12) Virginia: the results of the three latest polls are, respectively: a 1 pp lead, a tie, and a 2 pp lead for Obama, within the polls’ own MOE;

12a) Wisconsin: Obama’s leads here are beyond the polls’ MOE.

For the purposes of this brief analysis, Oregon and Pennsylvania are not counted as swing states. Oregon is safely Democratic and PA has not voted Republican since 1988.

Nevertheless, in all swing states listed here except Nevada and Wisconsin (and sometimes Ohio), Obama doesn’t lead Romney at all (IN, MO, NC in most polls) or leads him only by margins that are within the polls’ own MOE.

And this is the “decisive advantage” that Moran and the NY Slimes claim that Obama enjoys over Romney?

How can one claim that Obama enjoys ANY advantage over Romney, when his leads over Romney (when he attains them at all) are within the polling MOE in most swing states (all except NV, WI, and sometimes OH)?

To find out what that would mean for the result of the election, visit the 270towin.com website, whose interactive map allows you to predict who would win what state.

If Romney wins all the swing states where he’s currently leading (IN, MO, NC) or trailing Obama only by the polling MOE (CO, NH, VA, FL, IA), how can one claim that Obama is “leading” Romney, let alone enjoying “a decisive advantage”, when he might not be leading Romney at all?

Why are conservative media outlets such as the American Thinker and the Washington Times spreading false claims, defeatism, and pessimism among Republicans? Why are they doing the Dems’ bidding?

And why should polls that show Obama leading be given more credit than those showing Romney leading?

The truth is that, as I’ve been saying for a long time, polls are NOT showing Obama leading any more than they’re showing Romney leading. All that they prove is that the race is too close to call and won’t be decided until the American people actually step into voting booths and cast their votes. For reasons that I’ve stated before, I believe most voters in most swing states will vote for Romney.

Happy Diamond Jubilee!

Best wishes to Queen Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom, who celebrates a Diamond Jubilee today, only the second monarch in British history (after Queen Victoria) to do so.

God save the Queen!

30,000 visitors!

Yesterday, this blog reached a milestone: welcoming the 30,000th visitor! Thank you, Dear Readers, for visiting my blo, and please come more frequently!

CNN can’t even get Panetta’s title right! ROTFL!

The CNN, like other liberal TV channels, love to pound on the DOD and to portray it in the worst light possible, but it can’t even get the Pentagon chief’s job title right. Here’s an excerpt from the CNN article about the USS Kidd’s rescue of Iranian fishermen from the hands of Somalian pirates:

“Secretary of State Leon Panetta called the USS Stennis later Friday to congratulate the strike group commander, Rear Adm. Craig Faller, and his team on a “well executed effort,” the Pentagon said.”

Leon Panetta is NOT the Secretary of State. He’s the Secretary of Defense. Can’t the CNN get ANYTHING right?

Oh, and don’t get your hopes up on American-Iranian relations improving. The Iranians have simoultaneously announced that the Revolutionary Guards will stage exercises in the Persian Gulf soon. They love it when the US rescues their fishermen, but they also remain extremely hostile.

What to do about Iran

There is irrefutable evidence that Iran is working on nuclear weapons. Iran, as reported by the IAEA, is working on uranium deuteride, which has no civilian applications. Its only application is as a trigger for nuclear weapons. Furthermore, the latest IAEA report provides further evidence of Iran’s nuclear weapons program, including a number of centrifuges much higher than necessary for civilian enrichment purposes.

There is currently a debate about what to do about it ongoing in the Republican Party.

Ron Paul and his minions still deny that there is any evidence that Iran is working on nuclear weapons, despite all the evidence that exists, and they say that even if Iran obtains nuclear weapons, it would be justified in doing so and would not be a threat to the US nor Israel.

Conservatives, including Michele Bachmann, Rick Santorum, and some NRO columnists seem to believe that America’s only resort is to bomb Iran if it wants to be safe.

Both sides are wrong.

Conservative candidates’ plan (bombing Iran) is better than doing nothing (which is what Ron Paul advocates), but it’s still a risky option and whatever benefits it may accrue would be outweighed by the disadvantages. An attack on Iran would only delay the Iranian nuclear program by a few years. It would not prevent the eventual emergence of the outcome that we conservatives fear – a nuclear-armed theocratic Iran. It would cause Iran to close the Straits of Hormuz, choking the world’s oil supply and sending oil and gasoline prices into the stratosphere. It would also cause Iran to activate its hidden Hezbollah cells in the US and to retaliate against Israel, certainly with ballistic missiles and probably even with weapons of mass murder.

Ron Paul’s plan – doing nothing – is even worse. He would allow Iran to obtain nuclear weapons and he doesn’t mind if that happens. He believes that America brought this upon itself.

What if I told you that America does not have to choose between attacking Iran and leaving itself and Israel unprotected against an Iranian nuclear threat?

I’m asking because there is such a possibility.

My plan does not require bombing Iran, starting a new war in the Middle East, or choking the Strait of Hormuz. Specifically, I propose three paths which should be pursued concurrently:

1) Missile defense;

2) Nuclear deterrence; and

3) Covert actions to topple the Iranian regime.

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

I believe that a strong military offers a high chance that the US will never have to use it.

Firstly, missile defense. In the Middle Eastern region, the US should permanently deploy BMD-capable warships in the Persian Gulf; Airborne Laser planes in Turkey and Iraq; and PATRIOT and THAAD batteries in Qatar, Turkey (including at USAF bases), and in countries which might request such batteries. The US should also sell PATRIOT and THAAD systems to countries like the UAE which request them (the UAE have requested THAAD systems worth $7 bn). It should also encourage Israel to deploy a fourth Arrow battery and assist it financially if needed. In Europe, the US should deploy a radar, 10 ground-based interceptors, and BMD-capable ships in the Black Sea and the Med. In the long term, the US should also deploy BM interceptors in space, because all ballistic missiles except those of very short ranges have to travel through space. The MDA should therefore reactive Ronald Reagan’s Brilliant Pebbles program.

Missile defense doesn’t kill or threaten anyone. It only PROTECTS people. That’s its only purpose. It’s a purely defensive system. America’s goal should be to prevent any ballistic missiles from hitting any of its allies. Therefore, coverage must be comprehensive.

Then, as Herman Cain rightly said, the US could say to Ahmadinejad, “Make my day”.

Secondly, nuclear deterrence. The US should not only modernize and replace all three legs of its nuclear deterrent – and the nuclear warheads – it should also make it public and clear that it protects Israel as well as America’s Arab allies, and that any Iranian or terrorist nuclear attack will be met with a swift, devastating retaliation. Similarly, Israel should go public with its nuclear deterrent and promise retaliation if attacked. Both countries should simoultaneously pledge not to use nuclear weapons first.

Thirdly, the US and Israel should continue all efforts to destabilize and topple the Iranian regime without war, including sanctions against the Iranian Central Bank, bans on gasoline exports, other sanctions, encouraging European countries to divest from and stop trading with Iran, encourage the EU to list Hezbollah as a terrorist organization (which will dry up this organization’s funding and render it a hollow shell), assassinations, cyber attacks, and aiding the Iranian opposition.

If the free world makes maximum effort to topple the Iranian regime, it will eventually collapse, just like the Soviet regime did, even though the USSR had much larger natural resources, a much stronger military, and a global empire. Ronald Reagan foresaw that the Soviet Union would eventually end up in the dustbin of history. The Iranian regime is also destined to end up there.

These three measures, if pursued in parallel, will keep America safe and will eventually bring about the collapse of the Iranian regime, even if it acquires nuclear weapons. And even if it does, America and its allies will be kept safe by missile defense and a modernized nuclear deterrent, so any Iranian ballistic missile will be intercepted.

Garbage about defense spending and modernization by Michael O’Hanlon and Duncan Currie

William Buckley’s nephew Brent Bozell has remarked that his uncle, if he were alive today, would’ve been ashamed of what the National Review has become.

He’s right. The NR is no longer a conservative magazine. Today, it’s a mere rag for anyone who claims to be a right-winger or a conservative to publish his/her screed, no matter how factually wrong, how poorly researched, and how un-conservative it is.

On Friday, December 23rd, the NRO published yet another garbage article that NRO editors didn’t even bother reviewing.

The author, who obviously knows nothing about defense issues and defers to other ignorant guys. Here’s what he wrote about defense spending:

“defense outlays could be trimmed without doing serious violence to national security. (Brookings Institution scholar Michael O’Hanlon has discussed how Washington could responsibly cut the military budget by $60 billion through “tighter resource management, smaller ground forces and more selective modernization efforts.”)”

That is utter garbage. No, large-scale defense cuts cannot be done without endangering the United States. That is a fact. To start with, defense spending is already at a historically low ebb – 3.59% of GDP (or 4.51% of GDP if you count spending on Afghanistan, which has nothing to do with defense, and the DOE’s defense-related programs). It amunts to less than 19% of the total federal budget.

Secondly, O’Hanlon is a strident liberal from a stridently leftist organization (the Brookings Institution, which is funded by George Soros), so what he says should not be taken seriously (he writes what George Soros pays him to write). The “study” by O’Hanlon that Currie cites here is an example why. O’Hanlon says “tighter resource management, smaller ground forces and more selective modernization efforts.”

1) As for efficiency, that is doable and necessary, but it won’t save $60 bn per year because there isn’t that much waste in the annual defense budget. Not even close.

2) Cutting America’s ground forces when they are already at their minimum needed size, and with 100,000 troops still fighting in Afghanistan, would be suicidal and irresponsible. Cutting them afterwards would also be suicidal and irresponsible – the US may have to fight a ground war again sometime, and has long borders to protect. Those troops are badly needed on the US-Mexican border.

3) Yet O’Hanlon’s most dangerous proposal is that of “selective modernization efforts”, by which he means cancelling dozens of crucial weapon programs and completely foregoing modernization in some areas and of some types of units and weapons – thus leaving America unprepared for many missions and several types of combat. This is foolish, irresponsible, and dangerous. The military is mostly using obsolete equipment from the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s (and in some cases, such as bombers and tankers, from the 1950s). All four Services have legitimate large modernization needs. All of their needs are equally important and all must be met. America can’t afford to fund only some of them and refuse to meet the other needs. That would be an attempt to avoid reality and to pretend that modernization of some units and weapons isn’t necessary when it is. The military needs a modernization ACROSS THE BOARD, not “selective modernization”, and an across the board replacement of obsolete military equipment is long overdue. Foregoing some modernization programs is like asking the military, “I’m going to cut your arm or your leg – which do you prefer?” O’Hanlon’s proposals should therefore be rejected.

The NRO should really be ashamed of itself for publishing this screed. William F. Buckley Jr. would’ve been ashamed of today’s NR.