The author, at the very beginning, flatly denies that Ron Paul is an isolationist, a Blame America First loon, or an anti-defense politician, but utterly fails to provide any evidence whatsoever to back these false claims up (it’s hard to defend lies, after all). He claims:

“There exists persistent misinformation and misunderstanding perpetuated against Dr. Ron Paul’s foreign and defense-military policy in order to marginalize him and his candidacy. He is neither an isolationist nor an apologist for terrorists or dictators nor anti-defense politician as portrayed by his detractors.”

No, Mr Kamura, there is no misinformation and misunderstanding being perpetuated against Paul and his insane policies. He is every bit the isolationist, the terrorist apologist, and the anti-defense politician that he is portrayed to be. No one has fabricated anything he has said or done. It’s all proven by his own words and actions. In other words, your beloved Ron Paul has no one to blame but himself.

Let’s now deal with Kamura’s particular claims. They can be grouped into four themes:

1) “Ron Paul is not an isolationist, merely a noninterventionist, and this is the policy that the Founding Fathers advocated and practiced.”

2) “The US is to blame for the 20th and 21st century’s wars and their consequences, and they wouldn’t have been so bad if the US had minded its business.”

3) “Ron Paul is not anti-defense; he actually supports a strong defense; but the US military needs to be prepared against terrorists, not nation-states.”

4) “The Constitution and the Bill of Rights require a noninterventionist, neutralist foreign policy, and a strong defense is a Big Government program.”

Let’s now respond to each of these ridiculous claims in turn.

1) Ron Paul IS an isolationist in every sense of the world. Not only does he support a complete renunciation of any wars beyond America’s borders and a termination of all alliances and a total withdrawal of all US commitments to all allies (i.e. pulling the rug from underneath them) and turning a blind eye to the threats beyond America’s borders, he also opposes any free trade agreements, which means he’s a protectionist. That is the classical definition of an isolationist. (It is also the same policy that pre- and post-WW2 isolationist like Sen. Gerald Nye supported.)

In any case, “noninterventionism” is nothing more than a politically-correct euphemism for “isolationism”.

Despite Kemura’s false claims that “Ron Paul’s foreign policy is completely in line with that of Thomas Paine, Thomas Jefferson, and George Washington. He is not an isolationist; he is a neutralist”; and “The Founders and Framers of the United States expressly argued against Pax Romana and insisted on political neutrality”; and “Dr. Paul is not an isolationist. He is a neutralist in the distinguished tradition of George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and other Founders”, most of the Founding Fathers were NOT isolationists or even neutralists. With the sole exception of George Washington, they were sympathetic to, and many of them advocated aiding, either Britain (Federalists) or France (Anti-Federalists). During  the Adams years, the US was drawn into an undeclared naval war with France; during the Jefferson years, the US, in response to bad behavior by Britain and France, instituted a trade embargo against the whole world (is that a model that Ron Paul wants to replicate?), and then replaced it with a trade embargo against these two belligerents (Macon’s Act Nr. 2). Under James Madison (Jefferson’s protege), the nation, with Jefferson’s approval, embarked on an ambitious, overly-interventionist, adventure to conquer Canada (1812). That harebrained scheme, for which the US was not prepared, almost resulted in the destruction of the Republic, yet both Madison and Jefferson supported it. (Jefferson promised that the conquest of Canada would be “mere matters of marching.”) Madison’s successor, James Monroe, earmarked half of the entire planet for US intervention and influence under the Monroe Doctrine, while promising not to interfere in EUROPE’s affairs – Europe being a minority part of the world, both in terms of surface and population.

And of course, Jefferson intervened, without Congressional authorization (but for a good reason), against the Berbery Pirates who had been harrassing American ships for decades (and European ships for centuries). And guess what? Kemura claims it was a mistake! He says:

“In this regard, Thomas Jefferson made an error by committing troops to the Barbary Wars of the early 1800s (1801 – 1805), setting a wrong precedence for global protection and cost externalization. For, his action, however well-intended and successful, was the government intervening with the activities of private American businesses that should be responsible for their own decisions and actions.”

No, Mr Kemura, Jefferson did not make an error on this issue. He was right to commit troops and thereby defend American ships. The reason why the US became involved in this was because Berbery Pirates were constantly harrassing defenseless American merchant ships. Until 1801, the US was paying huge ransoms to the pirates, at a much higher price than what building a strong navy would’ve cost. And no, this was not a government intervention in the activities of private American businesses. It was a case of the federal government doing its #1 Constitutional duty: defending the country and its citizens against foreign aggressors. The federal government was not telling private businesses (in this case, merchants) how to run their operations. The American merchant fleet was not capable of providing for its own defense, nor was it its job – that was the duty of the federal government. But according to Kemura and Paul, the federal government has no legitimate functions and the US should not respond, and not even lift a finger, even if it is attacked itself. That is a radically un-conservative, un-American belief completely at odds with the beliefs of all Founding Fathers.

2) America is NOT to blame for 9/11 nor for the vast majority of the world’s wars and hateful sentiments. Kemura claims that:

“An argument can be made that the United States’ joining the wars under the pretext of strategic alliances and national self-defense/self-interest turned regional wars in Europe and Asia into two World Wars, the ending of which did not make the world more peaceful at all.”

This is a blatant lie. The two World Wars became global wars well before the US joined them. In WW1, Japan captured German colonies in the Far East, while Britain and France captured the German colonies in Africa, in the beginning of the war, long before 1917; meanwhile, Germany attacked Belgium, France, and Russia. Meanwhile, the German and British navies sparred in 1914 in the Falklands, in the South Pacific, while Canada, Australia, and New Zealand fought the war in Europe on Britain’s side. (The Germans, the Turks, and the ANZACs also fought in Turkey and in Palestine long before 1917.)

During WW2, Japan invaded half of Asia, the Soviets sparred with the Japanese in the Far East, and Germany invaded almost all of Europe and sent large numbers of troops (the Afrika Korps) to Africa long before the first Japanese planes struck Pearl Harbor.

And the US didn’t really “join” these wars in the strict sense of the word. The US was dragged, kicking and screaming, into both of them. In WW1, the US was forced to declare war on Germany after repeated sinkings of civilian ships with large numbers of US citizens onboard – which were not only unprovoked acts of aggression, but also violations of international treaties. The Germans knew very well they would be provoking the US to respond, and yet they did so, waging an unlimited undersea war. After WW1, the problem wasn’t that they weren’t punished. The problem was that they weren’ t punished harshly enough.

As for WW2, Japan – Kemura’s ancestral (or perhaps even current) country caused it and turned it into a global war (together with Germany and Italy), and drew the United States into it. Don’t claim, Mr Kemura, that it was the actions of the FDR Administration that forced Japan to go to war with the US. Prime Minister Hideki Tojo wanted war with the US and was itching for it. And he got what he wanted. With Tojo as Japan’s Prime Minister, war was inevitable.

Kemura also falsely claims that “For instance, the siding with Stalin against Hitler resulted in the Cold War; or the supporting of Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden for short-term political reasons resulted, in part, in creating two monstrous US antagonists in the so-called “war on terror.”” The fact is that the US did not create, and never supported, Osama bin Laden (whose assassination Paul supported, by the way, in contrast to the vast majority of the American people).

Kemura also claims that “Politicians speak of our allies such as Israel and strategic alliance with them but they do not seem to be cognizant of the fact that the ideas of alliances or global protection or national (i.e., state’s) self-interest are more a cause of war than of peace.”

This is gibberish, just like the rest of his article. Alliances backed by a strong defense do not cause war. They safeguard peace. It is isolationism, pacifism, and weak-defense policies that cause war. Whenever the US has stood steadfastly with its allies and kept its defense strong, peace has been safeguarded and all participants emerged stronger and safer than before. Vide NATO, which won the Cold War with the Soviet Union without firing a shot, ended genocide in the Balkans, and still safeguards peace in Europe to this day. Vide America’s post-WW2 alliances with Japan, South Korea, the Philippines, and Australia, which have kept these countries (and the US) safe since their formation and which have made all members more peaceful, safer, stronger, and more prosperous than ever. All of these countries have remained staunch US allies ever since, with the Phillippines even modelling its government on that of the US.

Paul, as a fanatical isolationist, would dump all of these allies and leave them fending for themselves, thus leaving them as an easy prey for potential aggressors such as China and North Korea. This is a recipe for war, aggression, danger, and death.

Yet, this has not prevented Kemura from lying that:

“Today we stand upon the history of ceaseless foreign wars since the Spanish-American War of 1898, and upon the intricately interwoven consequences of extensive and violent interventions by the US government in the affairs of foreign nations throughout the 20th and 21st centuries.”

This is utter garbage, and it’s insulting. Firstly, the US has NOT been involved in “ceaseless foreign wars” since 1898; the US has actually enjoyed peace throughout most of that time: from the end of the Spanish-American War to 1914 and from 1914 to 1917; from 1918 (the end of WW1) to 1941 (the attack on PH); from 1945 to 1950; from 1953 to 1965 (when the first large US combat troops arrived in Vietnam); from 1973 to 1979; from the end of the Iranian hostage crisis to 1991 (Operation Desert Storm), and throughout the vast majority of the 1990s. Wars have been exceptions in this period, not the rule.

The claim that these wars have been “interventions by the US government in the affairs of other nations” is also a blatant lie, like the rest of the article. What Kemura calls “the affairs of other nations” were actually the Spanish genocide in Cuba; the German aggression against half of Europe and the sinking of defenseless civilian ships carrying US citizens; the German, Italian, and Japanese aggression against dozens of countries in Europe and Asia; the vast German and Japanese war crimes committed on those continents against tens of millions of people (including, but not solely, the Holocaust and the Japanese genocide of millions of Filipinos, Chinese, Koreans, and others – German and Japanese war crimes were more extensive than that and included bombings of civilian populations and of refugees, deportations, mass summary executions, the burning of entire cities like Warsaw, destroying centuries’ worth cultural heritage of entire nations like the Poles, razing entire towns such as Oradour-sur-Glane in France and Lidice in Bohemia, medical experimentations, and using millions of people as slave laborers). Of course, for Kemura and Paul, these war crimes were mere “internal affairs of other nations” and they would prefer (as Paul has told his staffers, and as Kemura has stated publicly) that the US had not “interfered” with these actions… i.e. they would prefer the US had not interfered with Germans gassing the Jews and the Japanese gassing the Chinese. “Don’t worry, Mr Hitler and Mr Tojo, we will not interfere with you gassing the Jews and the Chinese, this is none of America’s business!” is what Paul would’ve said if he were President at the time.

By the way, this shows that the Paulite policy of “noninterventionism, non-interference and neutralism” is not just suicidal and wrong in practical terms; it’s also immoral. And for C4P to publish an article calling for the adoption of such a policy is not just wrong, it’s downright despicable. Indeed, if Sarah Palin wants to save whatever few shreds of credibility she might retain yet, she should immediately disown these people and condemn that article.

3) Ron Paul, as proven by both his words and his actions, is stridently and fanatically anti-defense, no matter how hard Kemura will try to deny that fact. Ron Paul has always opposed (and continues to oppose) strong defense policies (including robust funding for defense as well as particular defense programs) and has always advocated (and continues to advocate) for deep defense cuts, including deep cuts in funding, modernization, operation & maintenance programs, base infrastructure (in the US and abroad), personnel, force structure, and R&D programs.

He does not merely support an immediate, precipitous withdrawal of US troops from Afghanistan and all other countries, he supports deep cuts to the meat and bone of the US military – the people, the training, the O&M programs, the weapons, the R&D programs, the industrial base, and the base infrastructure.

He opposed Reagan’s defense budgets and the Gipper’s particular defense programs (including the B-1 bomber) in the 1980s. He left the GOP in 1987 in part because of Reagan’s strong defense policies (and in part because of his assertive foreign policy). He opposed Bush’s defense budgets as well. He has repeatedly introduced proposals of deep defense cuts. In 2010, he teamed up with Barney Frank and Ron Wyden (strident liberals) to convene a “task force” of George-Soros-funded “analysts” who recommended defense cuts to the tune of $1 trillion – and then endorsed these cuts. Frank explained that these cuts were to be used not to cut the budget deficit, but to pay for entitlement programs.

Paul also supports all of the defense cuts called for by the debt ceiling deal, including the sequestration mechanism, which would cut defense spending by $1.087 trillion and thus gut the military, requiring draconian cuts in all categories of defense spending, including modernization, R&D, O&M, and the force structure, as well as breaking faith with the members of the military. His plan calls for total elimination of the DOE (including its defense-related programs) and for cutting defense spending down to $501 bn in FY2013. Assuming that the DOE’s defense-related programs were to be crowded into such a small, inadequate budget, it would effectively mean cutting it even further, down to $17 bn.

Ron Paul does not support a strong defense; he wants a weak defense. Ron Paul is every beat the weak-defense-politician we, his critics, say he is.

4) The fourth theme of Kemura’s pathetic screed is that he repeatedly claims that “noninterventionism, noninterference, neutralism” is a foreign policy required by the Constitution. He claims that:

“Is their approach not more consistent with the fundamental principle of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, of which Ron Paul is an acknowledged champion?”

and claims he wants to see America

“Returning to the original neutralism, and restoring the original constitutional principles as applied to foreign policy”.

This is a blatant lie. There is NOTHING, repeat, NOTHING, in the Constitution (including the Bill of Rights, which, by the way, is an integral part of the Constitution) that requires a foreign policy of ”noninterventionism, noninterference, neutralism” or even dictates any kind of foreign policy at all. There is no part of the Constitution which says the US must refrain from interventions abroad, not interfere with “other nations’ affairs”, refrain from entering alliances, or remain neutral forever. Nothing.

Here’s my challenge for Kemura: find me one part of the Constitution, just one, which requires a foreign policy of ”noninterventionism, noninterference, neutralism”.

You can’t. Because there is none.

The Constitution merely says who has the prerogative to make what decisions on foreign policy. Congress has the biggest prerogatives here: it provides funding and all other necessary resources to the military, writes its code of justice (the UCMJ), declares wars, ratifies treaties, confirms federal officials, generals, and ambassadors, and provides for the punishment of piracy and offenses against the Law of Nations. The President nominates people for offices and serves as the Commander-in-Chief of the military.

Kemura also seems to be propagating the well-known (and already refuted) Paulbot lie that a strong defense and a non-isolationist foreign policy are somehow Big Government policies:

“(By the way, even for those conservatives who advocate a constitutional government, when it comes to foreign and military policy, the Bill of Rights seems to stop at the border.)”

This is utter garbage, as repeatedly refuted on this website, and earlier than that, refuted here. To wit:

“One of the tenets of conservative ideology is adherence to the Constitution.  What does the Supreme Law of the land say?

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Art. I, Sec. 8 of the Constitution lists 18 prerogatives of the Congress, nine (i.e., 50%) of which are related to military affairs, including “to raise Armies,” “to provide and maintain a Navy,” to regulate captures on land and water, to declare war, and to make regulations for the military.  As Ernest Istook of the Heritage Foundation has observed, “National defense receives unique and elevated emphasis under the Constitution. It is not ‘just’ another duty of the federal government.”

Finally, Art. IV, Sec. 4 of the Constitution obligates the federal government to provide for the common defense:

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion[.]

Thus, providing for the common defense is not an option; it’s a constitutional obligation of the federal government.  It’s a function that the government must, not merely may, perform — unlike, for example, bankruptcy laws, which the Congress may pass, but doesn’t have to and didn’t bother to enact until the late 19^th century.”

Kemura also falsely claims that war is always bad for all involved, always immoral, always unjustifiable, and always destructive even for winners. He writes that:

“If we reflect upon our history fraught with wars and violence, it becomes evident that no perceived temporary gains from war victory are really ever worth the lives lost and the destructions incurred. (…) War, which is whole sale destruction, is in the final analysis never good either for the winner or for the loser. (…) We must come to our senses and realize that war, which is the act of humans killing other humans with impunity, is utter mass insanity.”

This is utter garbage. War is surely tragic, bloody, painful, and difficult. Some wars are unjustifiable; some wars are. Some wars are worth waging, and some things are worth dying for. Some wars are even NECESSARY, and some are even FOISTED UPON YOU even you don’t want them – as was the case, for the United States, with both World Wars, as I noted above.

The claim that war is always bad for the victor is also false. What does not kill you only makes you STRONGER. This is always true. The US emerged from the Spanish-American War, from WW1, from WW2, and from the end of the Cold War stronger, safer, more prosperous, and more influential than before.

Kemura decries the casualties incurred by the US in Iraq. Sometimes sacrifice is necessary. Sometimes even the ultimate sacrifice. Some things and some causes are worth dying for. I’m sure the vast majority of American troops who fought during the Spanish-American War, both World Wars, the Korean War, and Afghan War would agree with me.

The casualties sustained in Iraq were light compared to the number of troops killed at Gettysburg, the Crater (in Virginia in 1864), on Okinawa, and on Iwo Jima. And those were only singular battles.

Regardless, sometimes the ultimate sacrifice is necessary, some wars are necessary, and sometimes, they’re foisted upon you.

Kemura believes that disarmament, isolationism (for which he uses the politically-correct euphemism “noninterventionism”), and pacifism bring about peace. They don’t. They only bring about war, death, danger, and destruction – the very outcomes Kemura claims he wants to avoid. He claims:

“It pains me deeply that 4,486 U.S. servicemen and women and 316 Allied soldiers were killed (based on official US Government Report), while over 150,726 Iraqis (out of which 103,536 to 113,125 were civilians) were killed (based on Iraq Body Count Project) in these eight and half years. These numbers may be relatively small compared to other wars but we must remember that all of these people are real people just like us with families and friends whom they loved and who were loved by them. (…) The United States must find a way to achieve internal freedom, prosperity, and peace again so that she can serves as an example, a beacon, which the sane majority of the rest of the world would want to emulate.”

Yet he advocates pacifism, isolationism, turning a blind eye to all of the world’s dictatorships, terrorist organizations, and genocides, and appeasement of America’s enemies – policies that would only bring about war, death, destruction, and danger, like they always did everytime they were tried by any country.

The US has repeatedly tried such foolish, suicidal policies – before WW1, before WW2, and before 9/11 – and each time they brought about only war and death.

The ONLY way to bring about (and keep) the peace and to keep America safe and prosperous is to build and always maintain a strong military and to keep America’s defense commitments to its allies. (At the same time, the allies must keep their commitments to the US. An alliance is a two-way street. Allies have to play, collectively, just as crucial a role as the US. As President Nixon said during his second Inaugural Address, in 1973, “we shall do our part (…) but we shall expect others to do their share.”)

When America’s enemies see the US keep its defense strong and continue to honor its commitments to its allies, they don’t commit aggression. They attack only when they see an opportunity to get away with it unpunished.

It is therefore utterly ridiculous, laughable, and foolish for Kemura to lecture us conservatives about “sanity” and to claim:

“Sanity must prevail over insanity. We must come to our senses and realize that war, which is the act of humans killing other humans with impunity, is utter mass insanity. For this reason, I reason that Ron Paul’s foreign and defense policies are the only sane and workable policies.”

Ron Paul’s foreign and defense policies are utterly insane (as is Ron Paul himself) and unworkable. They are the same policies that Kemura advocates, and as stated above, they would only lead to war, death, destruction, and danger. Furthermore, it is ridiculous to claim that

“I trust that Dr. Paul is prudent and practical enough to be able to guide the course of such restoration.”

Ron Paul is neither prudent nor practical. On the contrary, he’s a fanatical libertarian ideologue who is completely irrational, delusional, and certifiably insane. He’s completely immune to reason, logic, and facts, not to mention that even simple math completely eludes him.

Therefore, it was not merely arrogant, but also irrational, immoral, and leftist of Kemura to demand that:

“Even if Ron Paul is not nominated, and no matter who becomes the Republican nominee, he or she must incorporated Dr. Paul’s rational and constitutional approach and enroll his supporters in order to restore a free, prosperous, and peaceful country envisaged by the Founders-Framers…”

Quite the contrary. Whoever becomes the Republican nominee must completely and unequivocally reject Ron Paul’s completely irrational,  anti-Constitutional, pacifist, isolationist, suicidal foreign and defense policy that even most of the Founding Fathers did not agree with and did not practice. His policy is extremely leftist, extremely liberal, and has nothing to do with the Constitution or the wishes of the Founding Fathers. It would not lead to a free, prosperous, nor prosperous America, only to more war, deaths, and destruction, both in the US and around the world. As Edmund Burke rightly said, “all that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.”

America will be free, prosperous, and peaceful only if it maintains a strong defense and honors its defense commitments to its allies. Isolationism is NOT the solution.

Last but not least, I’d like to point out that it is immoral not only to spread lies and to advocate immoral policies, but also to deliver lectures on issues about which one is ignorant, like Kemura is on foreign and defense policy. Kemura should never again pontificate about these issues.

http://conservatives4palin.com/2012/01/in-defense-of-ron-pauls-defense-policy-by-a-palin-supporter.html

Yesterday, the DOD outlined its FY2013 budget request, consisting of core defense budget and OCO budget proposals, which will both require Congressional approval. Secretary Panetta was under an order from Congress to cut the defense budget by $450 bn over the next decade, and  under orders from Obama to cut it by$487 bn over a decade. In real terms, this means not only zero defense spending growth, it means real-term cuts both in the core defense budget and in the OCO budget.

There are many bad decisions contained in the defense budget request which will weaken America’s national defense, but here are the 10 most troubling ones:

• By Sec. Panetta’s own admission, personnel spending was “protected” from serious cuts, and will see only minor reductions, even though it already constitutes 33% of the entire defense budget and is projected to consume 100% by FY2039 unless reduced.
• The already-inadequate airlift aircraft fleet will be reduced further and deeply. Last year, under pressure from the Congress, the strategic airlift fleet was cut by 16 aircraft, from 316 to 300, and the public was told that this would be sufficient. Now it will be cut even further. And despite the DOD’s claims that “studies” supposedly show that there is “excess airlift capability”, the fact is that it is inadequate, as shown by REAL-LIFE PRACTICE. The USAF has had to rent Russian An-124 aircraft to fly troops, equipment, and supplies to Afghanistan, at a cost of at least $840 mn per year, because its airlift capability is inadequate. The Heritage Foundation also says that the airlift fleet is too small. The C-5A fleet will be cut by a whopping 27 planes and the C-130 fleet by 65 aircraft.
• Cuts in missile defense. The DOD admits that “Despite its importance, we were not able to protect all of the funding in this area. (…) We reduced spending and accepted some risk in deployable regional missile defense and will increase reliance on allies and partners in the future.”
• Reckless cuts in the Navy’s fleet. The Navy, despite its role to play in the world (including the Asia-Pacific region, whose importance was underlined in the Defense Strategy and the DOD’s other papers), will lose 7 Ticonderoga class cruisers (including one with BMD capability which was due for a refit), two Landing Dock Ships (LSDs), and a number of oilers and other fleet support vessels, while a Virginia class submarine will be pushed out of the Five Year Defense Plan and an LHA will be delayed by one year – further increasing the costs of these programs.
• A delay of the SSBNX (Ohio class replacement) program by two years, solely for budgetary reasons – and it will likely increase the program’s cost.
• While the Navy will be forced to retire a number of crucial surface ships and delay submarines and one LHA, the Littoral Combat Ship was not cut at all, let alone closed, despite its egregious cost overruns and delays and its lack of usability for any combat whatsoever, including light combat.
• The budget cuts the meat and bone of the US military instead of making European countries pay for their own defense. It does not withdraw a single Army brigade or Air Force wing from Europe. It will merely redeploy two Army brigades to the US while still rotating them to Europe, while the other two will remain on the continent.
• The budget does not make any reforms of the military’s retirement system whatsoever, instead calling for the establishment of a commission, and the DOD opposes any changes of the system for current members of the military and is willing to change it only for future recruits.
• While the budget does not cut the already-inadequate nuclear arsenal and the already-inadequate nuclear triad, it does leave the option of unilateral cuts of these arsenals in the near future. According to the DOD, the White House is currently conducting a “review” of whether or not to cut or change the nuclear deterrent.
• The two Army heavy brigades that will be withdrawn from Europe will not just be withdrawn, they will be eliminated. This means that the Army will lose TWO heavy brigades and their equipment. (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/jan/27/army-chief-lays-out-army-cuts-europe/)

The Heritage Foundation correctly criticizes these cuts as follows:

“The Wall Street Journal reports that, as part of the plan to cope with funding cuts and reduced troop levels, the U.S. military plans to increase the U.S. fleet of unmanned drones by 30 percent and increasingly rely on special-operations teams based around the globe. Unfortunately, that won’t be sufficient to manage America’s defense needs. The following facts are important to bear in mind as Panetta lays out the stripped-down strategy:

• We are returning to ground forces levels we had under Clinton when the Army strained and scrambled to execute smaller missions like Kosovo and Bosnia—let alone significant ground force operations.
• Special operations are a scalpel, not a Swiss army knife. They are not an “easy-button” substitute for the many security missions the United States undertakes worldwide.
• Special operations are most effective when launched with the backbone of support-providing conventional forces. The U.S. Navy’s presence was essential in Somalia, the Air Force’s support in the first phase of Afghanistan, and the Army’s muscle during the surge in Iraq. Special forces without robust conventional forces is like a wide receiver without a quarterback and a line. It’s a return to Desert One.
• Shrinking Army units and trimming capabilities are the classic hollowing-out techniques that led to the hollow and broken military of the Carter era.
• The problem with these cuts is that America’s enemies can count, and they’ll quickly determine that the United States won’t be able to cover its responsibilities worldwide.
• What’s not been discussed is the cutting of corners in maintenance and readiness that are bound to leave us with less capable forces.
• Fewer troops in all the services will be scrambling in a global shell game to mask the fact that the United States can’t defend all of its interests. The force will be even more stressed than at the height of Iraq and Afghanistan. Rushing two carriers to the Gulf rather than just stationing one there is first sign of the global shell game.
• By cutting the defense budget, the United States is undermining the responsiveness of its defense industrial base. In addition, without proper investments, the United States will lose technological advantages vis-à-vis its future strategic competitors.
• Spending on national defense, a core constitutional function of government, has declined significantly over time, despite wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Spending on the three major entitlements—Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid—has more than tripled.
• Defense accounts for less than 20 percent of the federal budget but already exceeds 50 percent of deficit-reduction efforts. And for every dollar the President hopes to save in domestic programs, he plans on saving $128 in defense.”

Obama’s defense cuts are reckless, unjustifiable, and irresponsible. Congress should reject them and find savings elsewhere.

There is, however, a difference between them.

The only error (albeit a big one) made by Sen. Lindsay Graham (R-SC) and HAC Chairman Bill Young (R-FL) in their respective opinion articles is that they, like almost all other members of Congress, have accepted the false premise that “defense spending has to be on the table” and that the US supposedly cannot solve its fiscal problems without including defense in talks and cutting defense spending. Graham even ridiculously claims in the title of his opinion piece that “the military can do more with less”.

Other than that, however, what Graham and Young wrote makes sense. Certain savings can be made (albeit they must be reinvested in military capabilities), and Graham has outlined ways to make them. Furthermore, Graham and Young are very clear about the need of avoiding cuts to the “muscle” of the US military – the tail. Furthermore, Young warns that:

“While nothing has changed over the past two years in relation to the threats to our national security or the continuing degradation of our military equipment from the 10-year global war on terrorism, our national defense budget faces a 25 percent cut should the supercommittee fail to reach an agreement. These arbitrary cuts are not based in reality, given the underlying threats to our nation and our military’s ability to counter them — threats that can be determined only by maintaining the most effective and accurate intelligence programs. (…)

As chairman of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, I will ensure the defense of our nation is based on the threats we face — not politics. We cannot allow our nation to repeat the mistakes from the past. (…)

Let’s make sure during this economic crisis — when every federal agency and every American is being asked to do more with less — we protect our nation smartly while recognizing the very real threats we face and not be influenced by political motives or concerns.”

Politico also links to a Denver Post article wherein military veteran Mike Coffman, the Representative for Colorado’s 6th Congressional District, outlines the three reforms he deems necessary to cut DOD spending without hurting the military: shifting from a COIN strategy to a counterterrorist strategy, closing foreign bases and bringing thousands of American troops home, and expanding the National Guard and Reserve to save personnel costs, which, as Coffman acknowledged, are eating the defense budget alive, to borrow words from former Defense Secretary Robert Gates:

“Former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates repeatedly warned Congress that if the trajectory of personnel costs continues to rise, it will crowd out the acquisition budget for weapons and equipment, ultimately running the risk of turning our military into a hollow force. Gates likened this situation to our European NATO allies who have the personnel but lack the necessary weapons and modern equipment to be an effective fighting force.

1) Myth: Defense spending is too high and bloated.

Fact: Defense spending is NOT “high” nor “bloated” by any honest stanard. The entire US military budget for FY2012 ($662 bn under the FY2012 National Defense Authorization Act, $633 bn under the FY2012 Defense Appropriations Act) amounts to just 19% of the total federal budget and a paltry 4.51% of GDP ($14.66 trillion according to the CIA World Factbook). Throughout the entire Cold War except FY1948, the US spent more on its military. The core defense budget, a $526 bn sum, amounts to less than 15% of the total federal budget and just 3.59% of GDP. Entitlements are by far the largest part of the federal budget, consuming 63% of it.

2) Myth: We must cut defense spending to balance the federal budget.

Fact: No. It is not necessary, and would be unwise, to do. Cutting defense spending would weaken the military while producing only tiny “savings” that would not erase more than a fraction of the budget deficit. Even eliminating all military spending entirely would not even halve the annual budget deficit (which is ca. $1.4 trillion per year).

The fact is that military spending is such a small portion of the federal budget (just 19%) that the budget can be balanced without cutting it. How? The Republican Study Committee and the Heritage Foundation have both shown how. Both of them have devised budget proposals that would balance the federal budget by FY2020 without cutting defense spending by one dollar. (Last year, the Peter G. Peterson Foundation reviewed 6 different proposals to fix America’s debt problem at its 2011 Solutions Summit, and of all six proposals, the Heritage Foundation’s proposal reduces the national debt by the most and keeps federal spending and taxes at the lowest levels.) Moreover, GWOT spending is automatically scheduled to go down and eventually zero out when the last American troops return home from Afghanistan. So the claim that defense spending must be cut to balance the budget is a lie.

3) The US spends more on its military than the rest of the world combined, or almost as much.

Also wrong. According to the SIPRI, the US was, in FY/CY2011, responsible for only 42.8%-43% of the world’s total military spending – and that’s only if you accept SIPRI’s woefully understated estimates of China’s and Russia’s military budgets (which are significantly higher than what SIPRI, China, and Russia admit) at face value. (China’s real military budget in FY2011 was at least $150 bn.) Furthermore, according to the SIPRI, the 12 next countries on the list combined outspend the US.

4) Myth: We pay for the defense of Europe, Japan, and South Korea. If we were not defending these countries, we could afford to significantly cut our defense spending.

Fact: While the US does protect European countries (as well as helping Japan and South Korea defend themselves), it is not true that it could afford to significantly cut its defense spending if it were not defending foreign states. America spends as much on defense as she spends because the threats are so grave; America’s defense spending should be determied exclusively by the threats facing the US and its national interests. So even if the US were to defend only itself and leave all of its allies fending for themselves (a very foolish proposition) it would still need to spend as much on defense as it does now.

5) Myth: Our military budget is the biggest it has been since the end of WW2.

Fact: Only in raw dollar numbers, which are irrelevant, and only if the total military budget (including spending on Iraq, Afghanistan, and the DOE’s defense related programs) is counted. That’s $662 bn per the FY2012 NDAA. However, it amounts, as stated above, to just 4.51% of GDP (the CIA World Factbook says it’s actually just 4.07% of GDP) and just 19% of the total federal budget. Excluding the late 1990s, when it amounted to even less, this is the military’s smallest share of America’s GDP and of the total federal budget since FY1948. Throughout the entire Cold War except FY1948, and throughout the early 1990s, this share was higher. Furthermore, President Reagan’s last 3 defense budgets were also larger than the current total military budget on a per capita basis:

FY…….DOD budget ($ bn)…..US population (mn people)….DOD budget per capita ($)

1987….606.35………………….248………………………………….2,444

1988…..574,23…………………248………………………………….2,315

1989…..568,53………………….248…………………………………2,292

2012…..662………………………308…………………………………2,149

As of the 1990 census, the population of the United States was 248 million people. As of the 2010 Census, the population of the country was 308 million people. All budget figures for this table are given in CY2012 dollars, having been converted to this value using the DOL’s inflation calculator.

Moreover, the core defense budget (i.e. the budget which pays for the day-to-day meintenance, feeding, housing, training, and equipping of the US military) is not the largest since WW2.

6) Myth: Defense spending is just another big government program, albeit one that is loved by Republicans.

Fact: Defense spending is NOT a Big Government program, nor is it anyone’s pet project, nor a contravention of the Limited Government Principle. On the contrary, according to conservative ideology, defense is a Constitutionally legitimate government function and indeed the #1 Constitutional DUTY of the federal government. The #1 reason for having a federal government at all is to have it defend the country and its citizens. The Preamble to the Supreme Law of the Land explains why the federal government was established in the first place:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

The Constitution not only authorizes a strong national defense (and consequently, robust funding for it), it REQUIRES it. Art. IV, Sec. 4 of the Constitution says as follows:

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion…

As you can see, the Constitution not merely authorizes, it REQUIRES a strong defense and therefore any measures necessary to build it.

A key tenet – indeed, the overriding principle – of conservative philosophy is that we must obey the Constitution as it is written. We may not cherry-pick which parts of the Constitution we’re going to obey and which ones we won’t abide by. But that’s what Ron Paul and his minions (including Jack Hunter) are doing. They cherry-pick the Constitution and abide only by those party they like, while ignoring the ones they don’t like and pretending they don’t exist.

7) Myth: We can afford to cut defense spending significantly and still remain the world’s militarily strongest country.

Fact: This is completely wrong. No defense cuts, large or small, can be done without adverse consequences – and these consequences would be proportional to the cuts.  SmallSignificant defense cuts would significantly – deeply – weaken the military and potentially render it hollow. That is unavoidable. That’s because behind each defense cut hides a cut of the number of troops, weapon inventories, weapon programs, troop benefit programs, bases, operation & maintenance programs, training resources, or ROTC units.

8) Myth: There is no significant threat to the US at present.

Fact: There are several significant threats to America as of today. The biggest is Communist China, which is growing its nuclear weapons arsenal (and making its delivery systems more accurate, more survivable, and more numerous) and has accumulated a vast, impressive, diverse arsenal of anti-access/access-denial weapons which would prevent the US military from entering a certain geographic theater. With the second-largest economy in the world and a population of 1.2 billion people, China is a larger threat than the Soviet Union ever was. Then there is a resurgent and anti-American Russia, a nuclear-armed North Korea, an Iran racing to acquire nuclear weapons, Communist-governed Venezuela, and several terrorist organizations such as Al-Qaeda, LET, the Haqqani network, Hezbollah, Hamas, and FARC.

9) Myth: Military spending mightly contributed to the current debt crisis.

Fact: No, it did not. Firstly, as stated above, total military spending amounts to just 19% of the total federal budget, while entitlements consume 63%. Military spending is too small to have caused thecurrent debt crisis. Secondly, the actual sphistory of spending growth over the last 1 years proves that it was civilian, not military, spending that caused the current debt crisis. The vast majority of the Bush-era spending increases went to civilian programs (79%), and only 21% of the spending increases enacted by President Bush went to the military. From FY2000 to FY2012, federal spending splurged from $2.384 T in today’s money ($1.766 T in FY2000/CY1999 dollars) to $3.8 T, i.e. by $1.416 trillion. At the same time, military spending has increased from $352 bn in today’s money ($261 bn in FY2000 dollars) to $662 bn today, i.e. by $310 bn. In other words, only 21.89% of that increase went to the military. From FY2001 to today, military spending has grown by $272 bn, from $390 bn (in today’s money; in FY2001/CY2000 dollars it was $297 bn) to $662 bn.

From FY2008 to FY2010, federal spending splurged, in FY2010 dollars, by $508 bn, from $2.983 trillion to $3.491 trillion. Meanwhile, the core defense budget (not counting spending on Afghanistan) increased by only $35.24 bn, from $506 bn in FY2008 to $542.76 in FY2010. (All figures stated in this paragraph are, unlike in other paragraphs, in FY2010 dollars.)

Since President Obama took office, civilian spending has increased even more dramatically (for example, welfare spending skyrocketed to $888 bn in his first fiscal year alone and the budget of the Department of State has doubled), while defense spending has been cut and while total military spending is lower than it was in FY2008.

10) Myth: The military-industrial complex that President Eisenhower warned us about has gone wild and is bloated. If he were alive, he would’ve advocated defense spending cuts.

Fact: This is also false. President Eisenhower did not argue for any defense cuts during his Farewell Address. Instead, he underlined the need for the military to remain under civilian control and not to exercise vast, oversized influence over the government and the society – and especially not to disturb the ordinary democratic political process, which it has never disturbed. Here’s the full quote of what he really said on the subject:

“Now this conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American
experience. The total influence — economic, political, even spiritual — is felt in every city, every Statehouse, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet, we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources, and livelihood are all involved. So is the very structure of our society.

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.”

If one reads the entire speech, rather than just one sentence quoted out of context, it is clear that Esienhower did not call for any defense cuts. What he did do was to warn the citizenry to “compel the proper meshing” of the defense establishment with “our peaceful methods and goals”, and not to allow it to subvert America’s ordinary democratic political process, “so that security and liberty may prosper together.”

Morever, earlier in the speech, Eisenhower said:

“A vital element in keeping the peace is our military establishment. “our arms must be mighty, ready for constant action, so that no aggressor will risk his self-destruction.”

So, instead of seeing the military establishment as a threat to America’s civil liberties, its economy, or its prosperity, he called it “a vital element in keeping the peace” – which it is. Without a strong defense you cannot have peace.

He has recently written a new article titled “The High-Spending Pentagon’s Way of Doing Things Cannot Contain Indefinitely”. It’s ridiculous and wrong. In it, he claims that:

“President Obama has called for cuts of half a trillion dollars from the military budget. In response, too many of my friends on the right are demanding business as usual — that the Pentagon’s way of doing things must continue in perpetuity. It cannot.”

That’s utter garbage. Many rightwingers, including many defense conservatives such as myself, have condemned Obama’s demand of $500 bn in defense cuts, but NO ONE, repeat, NO ONE, not even myself, has demanded “business as usual” – NO ONE has demanded that  ”the Pentagon’s way of doing things must continue”, let alone “continue in perpetuity. No one is defending business as usual.

What we HAVE demanded is that (depending on which person you’re talking to) these defense cuts be dramatically reduced in scope (which is what people like Victor Davis Hanson are saying) or cancelled altogether while continuing DOD reforms (which is what I’m saying). No one, not even the staunchest defense conservative like myself, is saying that the Pentagon should be allowed to continue business as usual. Instead, I’m saying that every aspect of how the DOD is staffed, organized, and operated needs to be reformed – but that every saving made in the DOD must be reinvested in the DOD. I’m acutely aware of the DOD’s problems and inefficiencies, and I’m proud that I’m the author of the largest DOD reform proposals package ever devised by anyone. So I can’t be challenged on that score.

Steyn rightly points out that:

“America is responsible for about 43% of the planet’s military expenditure. This is partly a reflection of the diminished military budgets of everyone else. As Britain and the other European powers learned very quickly in the decades after the Second World War, when it comes to a choice between unsustainable welfare programs or a military of global reach, the latter is always easier to cut.

It is, needless to say, a false choice.”

Yet, he falsely claims that:

“By mid-decade the Pentagon’s huge bloated budget will be less than the mere interest payments on U.S. debt…”

Excuse me? The Pentagon’s “huge bloated budget”? The fact is that the Pentagon’s budget is neither huge nor bloated. It amounts to $645 bn (plus $17 bn for the DOE’s defense-related programs), which is amounts to only 19% of the total federal budget and just 4.51% of GDP! It also amounts, per capita, to a lower expenditure per American than it did during the Reagan era. The Pentagon budget is NOT bloated by any honest measure.

Steyn was also wrong to claim that:

“So the assumptions of the last 60 years are over — and not just because of the cost. If America’s responsible for 43% of global military expenditure, why doesn’t it feel like that? Why does the United States get so little bang for the buck?

It is two-thirds of a century since this country won a war (and please don’t bother writing in to say what about Grenada or Panama).”

Garbage! Firstly, 43% is a minority, and secondly, the US DOES get much bang for the buck (although it could certainly get more bang) – for example, 11 carrier battle groups, over 3000 fighters, 5113 nuclear warheads, a ballistic missile defense system, 10 Army divisions, and a Marine Corps numbering 202,000 men. And the US won the First Gulf War (in a spectacular fashion, I might add) just 21 years ago. So the claim that it has been 2/3 of a century since America won a war is false.

(To be fair, Steyn is no isolationist and no Ron Paul fan. He rightly warns that “”Fortress America” is less a fortress than a state of denial, yet it’s one with increasing appeal to many Republican voters.”)

He ends his article thus:

“With characteristic timidity, Mitt Romney says that as commander in chief his Afghan strategy would be determined by the “commanders in the field.” More tea and sympathy! But a lazy deference to the inviolability of the present arrangements for another two-thirds of a century of unwon wars will not suffice.

I am in favor of a leaner, meaner military — emphasis on both adjectives. A broke America will perforce wind up with the first. But, if we want the second, the foreign-policy right will have to make a better case than it has this primary season.”

Maybe he’s listening to the wrong right-wingers.

Maybe he should start listening to me.

In short, Steyn has once again proven that he’s totally ignorant about defense affairs. He would be well-advised not to speak on these issues again.

http://news.investors.com/Article.aspx?id=597778&ibdbot=1&p=2

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

“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!

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.

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.

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!