The Soros-funded J Street and journalists sympathetic to it have not ended their campaign for defense cuts. Now that OBL is dead, they’re using his death as a supposed pretext for defense cuts. Richard Baehr of the conservative American Thinker magazine reports that:
“J Street lover Peter Beinart says the killing of Bin Laden means the war on terror is over, and now we can bring the troops home, and cut defense spending (and raise taxes) to solve the deficit problem, and stop Muslim bashing at home. This is what we get from one of the left’s supposed brighter lights.”
That is unacceptable. Firstly, the fact that OBL has been killed does not mean killing, or even incapacitating, Al-Qaeda. OBL was, during the last several years, only the symbolic/nominal leader of AQ. He had been sick for the last several years and could not coordinate the organization and its operations. Ayman al-Zawahiri and other terrorists were doing this in lieu of OBL. Moreover, killing OBL does not mean Al-Qaeda is dead, although it does, hopefully, signal, the beginning of the end of that organization. AQ, as the US intel community undoubtely knows, is a loose coalition of terrorist groups loosely affiliated with each other, operating independently of each other – as President Bush warned the American people 11 days after 9/11. So killing OBL is merely a symbolic victory.
Nor does it mean that there are no other threats to America. There are numerous threats to the United States: Hezbollah, Hamas, Iran, Syria, Venezuela, North Korea, China, and Russia. Countering them will require a credible strategy as well as ample resources, and that requires enlarging the defense budget, which is inadequate.
Secondly, America can NEVER afford defense spending cuts. They only weaken the military and make America less safe. They are always imposed on the force structure, procurement programs, and RnD programs. They always weaken the military. And that is what happened everytime defense spending was actually cut – during the 1800s, the 1940s, the 1950s, the 1970s, the late 1980s, the 1990s, and this Fiscal Year. So history proves my assertion that defense spending cuts always weaken the military.
Thirdly, although Beinart recommended defense spending cuts (coupled with tax hikes) as a solution to the budget deficit, this is no solution at all, merely a typical leftist demand. Defense spending cuts, no matter how massive, would never balance the budget or even significantly reduce the annual budget deficit. The FY2011 defense budget is 513 bn. Cut it by 10% (which would be a massive cut), and you get only 50 bn per year of “savings”. The budget deficit for FY2011 is 1.65 trillion. You could abolish the entire defense budget and there would’ve still been an annual 1.12 trillion. Beinart’s proposal to cut defense spending represents mere political posturing, a pure political statement, not a real solution.
Fourthly, defense spending has already been significantly cut, by 37 bn, from 550 bn in FY2009 (in FY2011 dollars) to 513 bn in FY2011. America cannot afford any further defense cuts.
Last, but not least, defense spending cuts would amount to a heinous betrayal of the federal government’s responsibility to provide for the common defense and protect each state against invasion (vide the Preamble and Art. IV of the Constitution). This is not an option. It’s a Constitutional DUTY.
Peter Beinart is an utterly discredited, stridently liberal journalist irredeemably biased against the military, the DOD, rich people, and conservatives. He’s guided by his extremely liberal ideology, not by what is right for America. No one should listen to him. His call for defense cuts must be rejected.