If Barack Obama is elected president, the one thing you can count on is that we will have a much smaller military. Leading Democrat mouthpieces like Barney Frank -- who couldn't find his ass with both hands and a flashlight -- are arguing that we need to cut defense spending by at least 25%. But we need to ask a couple of questions: what will a military that is 1/4 smaller look like? What happened the last time we did this? How will this impact our national security?
First off, we know that Obama will cut off all spending in our very successful missile shield defense. Why? Because he evidently is a moron. He fails to grasp that the great risk is not Soviet or Russian intercontinental ballistic missiles any longer, but ICBMs from smaller, more nutjob countries like North Korea, Iran, and so forth. Smaller missiles that could be launched from sea-borne platforms like diesel-electric submarines sold as surplus from Russia to these third-world oligarchs. And that is a real threat. Especially if a country like Venezuela decides to give these countries access and porting in exchange for hard currency-- which they desparately need.
Second, we know that Obama is going to cut off investment in new weapons systems designed to keep our technological edge. How do we know this? He's said so. Weapons systems like the littoral combat ships, designed to operate in the coastal and intercoast waterways our deep ocean navy can't penetrate, are optimal for the Special Forces operations that will continue to mark the ongoing War on Terror in places like the Southwest Pacific, East Africa, and the Mediterranean. Weapons systems like unmanned aerial vehicles, which provide long-loft force projection and reconnaissance capabilities that exceed even our keyhole (KH) satellites and are less susceptible to weather interruptions -- like clouds. Weapons systems like the Joint Strike Fighter, which promise to provide a uniform airframe for the three major air services (Naval Aviation, Marine Aviation, and the US Airforce) that will continue to maintain both air superiority and deep strike capabilities.
Third, we know that Obama is going to outright refuse to weaponize space even as the Chinese are moving aggressively to do this to counter our communications, command and control, and reconaissance capabilities. How do we know this? He's said so. This will dramatically weaken our defensive and offensive abilities, diminishing dramatically our ability to be everywhere we need to be when we need to be there.
But, more to the point -- beyond the three points above-- an Obama Presidency coupled with a Democrat House and Senate would most likely result in an across-the-board cut of 25% of the defense budget. And we have to ask: what does that mean for us? And, what does that mean for the rest of the world?
Let me start by saying this: the rest of the world will suffer dramatically. Do you remember the Indonesian Tsunami? Who was the first on the scene providing relief operations, rescue and recovery, search and rescue, and command and control? The United States Navy. We have the ONLY Navy on the entire planet that can put an entire battle group -- with all of its support ships, supplies, and logistics support -- anywhere on the globe inside of 36 hours. We are the only country with the heavy sealift capability to move massive supplies and equipment into remote areas inside of 48 hours. The ONLY ONE! The French cannot even keep one of their two aircraft carriers in operating condition. The British Navy is a shell of its former self, and completely lacks the ability for landing supplies and equipment directly on the beach.
The United States Air Force is the ONLY Air Force in the world with the heavy airlift capability to move supplies and equipment into remote locations on hours notice. The ONLY Air Force with aircraft like the C-17 and C-130 that can land those supplies either through airdrop or on unimproved runways. And lets not forget the Osprey -- the next generation heavylift rotary/fixed wing airframe that work with NO RUNWAYS. Not even the Russians have the capabilities that we have in this area.
A 25% cut in the Defense budget MUST mean the reduction of our Naval and Air power-- the very power that has been the backbone of our humanitarian relief operations in Indonesia, Iran (earthquakes), China (earthquakes), Myanmar, and even here at home for hurricanes.
We should ask ourselves what happened the last time we gutted the military for budget cuts. In the early 1990s, in the aftermath of Desert Storm, we sought out the "Peace Dividend". What did we get? We got a dramatic reduction in the active force of all services. The result of that was two-fold.
First, we moved a large number of key support operations into the National Guard units. That meant that anytime we had a large-scale deployment -- Bosnia, Somalia, the Sinai, etc. -- we had to incur direct impacts on Reserve and National Guard units, straining those units and disrupting the lives of those citizen soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines and the businesses they worked for.
Second, the Defense Department started downsizing secondary support and logistics operations and outsourcing them to companies like Haliburton, Kellogg Brown & Root. If left-wing Socialist Democrats want to criticize the no-bid contracts these companies have with the Defense Department, they need only blame themselves. They created the situation.
This time, the situation will be much worse. There is not a lot of meat to cut from the bones of the US military. Oh sure, we could move a sizeable group of the Chairborne Brigade in the Pentagon into combat and combat support units. But that doesn't gain you a lot, unless you start building battalions of field grade officers instead of enlisted personnel. You can be sure that under a Democrat monopoly in Washington, we will be forcibly retiring a big part of the officer corps, deactivating key active-duty units, and placing a great burden on a reserve component -- while depending even more on civilian contractors to fill the needs of deployed forces around the world.
But we should also look at what it will do to our active duty component. To achieve that 25% cut, we will NEED to deactivate air wings. We will NEED to deactivate infantry and armored divisions. We wil NEED to deactivate battle groups. If you want to know what the US military will look like, look to Britain. The British Army of today is smaller than our entire United States Marine Corps. The entire British Army cannot deploy more than 109,500 personnel. The United States Marine Corps has 178,000 Active Duty Marines. We will be a toothless tiger.
Our military is currently tasked with a 2.5 war plan. That is, they should be able to fight 2 hot wars and numerous small police actions. Everyone -- from the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs to PFC "Gomer Pyle" knows that is a joke. But that has been our force structure approach for 16 years. A 25% cut to our Defense Department budget will mean that we would barely be able to fight a 1+ war plan. And with Russia making noise in Southeast Europe, China making noise everywhere, and an ascendant nuclear power in Iran-- that is simply unrealistic. We may not be the world's cop, but we are definitely the world's firefighter. No other nation possesses the capabilities to deploy themselves between the evil and the good in defense of the good.
A President Barack Obama would destroy that. Israel, Europe, free Iraq, Taiwan, South Korea, Japan, the Phillipines, Columbia, and others would have no protector, no hope, no Shining City on a Hill. The firehouse would sit empty, with no one at the watchdesk to answer the alarm.
That is what a 25% cut would give you.