Barney Frank, Ron Wyden, Ron Paul and Walter B Jones (R-NC) are ideological opponents of a strong defense. Their “Sustainable Defense Task Force” was misnamed. They don’t want a sustainable defense – they don’t want any defense at all. They want to gut the US military and render America defenseless, because they believe that America is an aggressor who poses the worst threat to the world.
As of 17/7/2010, America’s defense is perfectly sustainable. The FY2010 defense budget equals only 3.65% of GDP and only 14% of the federal budget. The proposed FY2011 defense budget will constitute only 3.75% of GDP.
Their report titled “Debt, Deficits and Defense – A Way Forward” is misnamed because what it calls for is a universal disarmament of the US military and because its proposals would not significantly reduce America’s budget deficits nor America’s public debt. The report’s premise that defense is to blame for America’s budget deficits and public debt is treasonous and false.
Any reductions (let alone drastic reductions) of defense spending are treasonous and wrong.
The misnamed “STDF” is not non-partisan. It is partisan and was convened by a fiercely partisan politician – Barney Frank.
The misnamed “STDF” had no “mandate”. It was convened without governmental authorization by a single politician.
Contrary to the STDF’s claim that it tried to “explore possible defense budget contributions to deficit reduction efforts that would not compromise the essential security of the United States”, the STDF did not try to do so. Instead, it wrote a blueprint for politically-motivated, militarily stupid defense cuts which would gut the military and render it decrepit and would not reduce the deficit, because the money of which the US military would be robbed would be redirected to the domestic programs cherished by the members of the STDF, such as entitlement programs. They don’t want to reduce budget deficits. They wish to protect their cherished, bloated, unnecessary domestic programs.
Any defense budget reduction endangers America.
No DOD contributions to smaller deficits are possible, unless the US military is to be weakened and America is to be endangered.
The defense cuts they proposed (drastic reductions of ship numbers, aircraft numbers, other vehicle numbers, weapon programs and weapon orders) would gravely endanger the US by gutting the US military and making it decrepit.
As Oliver North rightly wrote “better acquisition, contracting and auditing at the Pentagon are essential to saving billions”, but every saving at the DOD must be reinvested at the DOD.
Any reduction of defense spending – let alone a reduction by $1 trillion over a decade (i.e. by $100 bn per year) – is treasonous and bad. Any reduction of any equipment stocks, equipment spending, weapon programs or weapon orders (below necessary levels) is treasonous and bad. The fewer weapons of any kind the US military has, the weaker it is. Any reduction of any category of weapons weakens the US military and reduces the amount of equipment it can use.
Any reductions of the strategic force structure or the conventional force structure of the US military would be treasonous and wrong.
Contrary to what the STDF’s report claims, it does not call for “realistic goals” nor “a sustainable strategy”. It calls for the goal of “unilateral disarmament” and for an unsustainable disarmament+appeasement strategy.
All of the defense cuts proposed by the STDF are treasonous and wrong.
The STDF lied when it claimed that “In the conventional realm, the United States today faces no global threat remotely comparable to that once posed by the Soviet Union and its allies.” Today (on 17/7/2010), America faces two global conventional threats (China and Russia), both of which are comparable to the Soviet Union, as well as 4 regional conventional threats: Iran, North Korea, Syria and Venezuela. These conventional threats justify ANY conventional weapon and ANY conventional weapon program.
The STDF’s claim claim that “A Strategy of Restraint Would Allow Even Greater Savings” is false. A “strategy of restraint” would allow no savings. Moreover, it would be a bad strategy. America should not and must not adopt such a strategy. America should not and must not restrain itself. A restrained America, or an America maintaining a restrained foreign policy, would be a self-constrained America that would be unable to defeat foreign threats, prevent new threats from emerging, protect its allies, or influence the world. It would be a 3rd rate country. It would be a self-constrained America ignoring threats, allowing threats to emerge, grow ever more dangerous and attack it, and allowing its allies to go down.
The STDF wrongly called for “strategy of restraint – one that reacts to danger rather than going in search of it” – thus calling on America to merely react to threats, even if they do attack America. It also falsely claimed that America is searching for threats, which it isn’t.
The 9/11/2001 attacks proved that America cannot afford to merely react to threats, and that it must act proactively to eliminate its enemies before they attack the US. (http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=38084)