War through weakness?
One of the memorable slogans from the Reagan administration was “peace through strength.” Reagan believed a strong defense was a safeguard against enemy attacks and the best hope of victory should America go to war.
President Obama is taking the opposite approach. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta recently announced cuts in defense spending of $487 billion over the next 10 years. Supposedly, these cuts will reduce the federal deficit, but Congress always finds new ways to spend money, so I am not optimistic.
The cuts were announced before critical questions were asked: What is America’s role in the world in the 21st century? Where does the military fit into that role? The administration thinks a sleeker, more mobile military—like SEAL Team Six, which has had recent successes taking out Osama bin Laden and rescuing hostages from Somali pirates—is the way to go, but even the highly trained SEALs can’t confront, say, a nuclear threat from Iran’s Mahmoud Ahmadinejad or China’s increasing military power. The administration says it will preserve its manpower and weapons systems in the Middle East and shift resources to Asia.
Ships and planes take time to build. If America is not building them to ward off present and future threats, someone else—like the Chinese—will. The world does not remain stagnant and threats are not always obvious.
Rep. Todd Akin, R-Mo., chairman of the Seapower and Projection Forces Subcommittee, says he is “deeply concerned” by the announced defense reductions, including the elimination of “at least 12 new Navy ships over the next five years and retiring at least nine ships earlier than planned.”
Akin also worries about what will happen to the estimated 100,000 soldiers and Marines who will become unemployed in a struggling economy.
According to the website USGovernmentSpending.com, defense spending fluctuated in the last century. It hit a peak of 42 percent of gross domestic product during World War II, declining to 10 percent during the Cold War to about 5 percent today.
Reagan’s defense buildup followed cuts during the Carter administration. Reagan increased defense spending from 5.6 percent of GDP in 1979 to 7 percent of GDP by 1986. President George W. Bush’s administration increased defense spending from 3.6 percent of GDP near the end of the Clinton administration in 1999 to 6 percent in 2010 to confront Islamic extremism.
The Obama administration, usgovernmentspending.com adds, plans to drop defense spending to 4.6 percent of GDP by 2015.
Do these reductions parallel a decline in the threats against America and American interests? Quite the opposite. The administration engages in wishful thinking about the so-called “Arab Spring,” which is devolving into a religious tornado, with the radical Muslim Brotherhood calling the shots in Egypt and elsewhere, and the Taliban poised to regain control in Afghanistan.
French President Nicolas Sarkozy and Afghanistan President Hamid Karzai have agreed that NATO should pull out all combat forces from Afghanistan by next year, not 2014, as planned. This can only encourage the Taliban, who have recently been sending signals they are not the bad guys most people rightly think they are.
A recent Wall Street Journal story noted that public statements by the Taliban make them sound more “moderate,” adding, “The big unknown is whether this new rhetoric represents a meaningful transformation—or is merely designed to sugarcoat the Taliban’s real aims.”
It’s a safe bet to say it’s the latter.
The “big unknown” is what a sound U.S. defense strategy should take into account. As former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld once put it, “There are known knowns. There are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns … there are some things we de not know. But there are also unknown unknowns—the ones we don’t know we don’t know.”
It is to protect not only against the “known knowns,” but the “unknown unknowns” that a credible defense strategy should be maintained. Cutting our defenses without a plan of action is an invitation to war.
© 2012 Tribune Media Services Inc.

















Click to Print
Include Comments











back to top39 Comments to “War through weakness?”
Another way to say it is to talk softly and carry a small stick.
Our president is a pansy. A diplomatic disaster. Debt man walking.
Worst. President. Ever.
Arrogant too…
Report comment to moderator
What is the differents between Obama views here and RP views?
Report comment to moderator
What is the differents between Obama views here and RP views? both men want to balance the budget on the backs of the Military.
Report comment to moderator
A Simple Way to Think About the U.S. Debt and Deficit Problems
Annual family income: $21,700
Money the family spent: $38,200
New debt on the credit card: $16,500
Outstanding balance on the credit card: $142,710
Total budget cuts:$385
Now, just add 8 zeros, and we have the U.S. debt problem
U.S. Tax revenue: $2,170,000,000,000
Fed budget: $3,820,000,000,000
New debt: $ 1,650,000,000,000
National debt: $14,271,000,000,000
Recent budget cuts: $ 38,500,000,000
Neil Snyder- Snydertalk
Report comment to moderator
This will be a contest of wills.
The will of Panetta and his boss to shut down bases, deactivate combat units, decommission old ships/flat tops etc
versus
The will of Senator Snort and Congressman Corruptme to keep the base or post in their state/districts up and running fully staffed even if such installations serve no benefit to the warplanners
versus
Lobbyists hired by German and Japanese communities who want to retain a steady flow of DoD paychecks propping up their local economies.
Snort and Corruptme will have to do a lot of backroom dealing to prevent another BRAC attack. The Germans and Japanese want to continue their postwar “punishment” arrangement and I suspect we will need some overseas forward operating bases in those and other countries since the kleptocrats in Iraq said no to a Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA). No SOFA no US dollars.
Report comment to moderator
I find it ironic that we spent one billion dollars establishing universal health care in Iraq, and that’s OK because it’s “military spending.”
Report comment to moderator
Cal’s article is insightful.
) then we need have no fear.
We are moving away from heavy divisions and emphasizing an “agile, modular” force where the primary “unit of action” is self-sustaining brigade sized elements. If a smaller force can respond more quickly and deliver just as much punch (always a big IF!!
But you are all correct, this is quite a gamble.
And trimming the payrolls with involuntary early retiremts right now will cause a lot of yelping esp if someone has in excess of 10 years time in service.
Report comment to moderator
#6 When the USA came in the CPA wanted to instead have privatized medicine despite the years of Ba’ath party welfare state cradle to grave gummint healthcare.
Report comment to moderator
We outspend more than any other on Earth on the military. In fact, I believe that we spend more than a whole slough of them combined.
If we cut our military by half, we’d still have the biggest, best military on Earth.
Where does it stop? Don’t we have to cut SOMEWHERE? How big is too big? How much better than all the rest do we have to be?
I’m not sure that Obama is wrong on this.
Report comment to moderator
Make that “any other country…”
Report comment to moderator
The preamble to the constitution outlines the 3 main roles of govt.: 1. provide for the common defense 2. promote the general welfare 3. secure the blessings of liberty. So why is over 40% of the budget spent on entitlements? This looks like govt should allocate 30% to military, 30% to police, fire, infrastructure, and a final 30% to military. But that doesn’t buy politicians as many votes.
Report comment to moderator
I actually think that the move toward more special ops is the way to go when fighting terrorists.
The problem with Obama’s military reduction is not in the reduced spending overall or in retiring a few navy ships.
The problem is in closing domestic bases…instead of foreign bases.
Report comment to moderator
#12 See my post. Lotsa Germans and Japanese contractors work at the bases in those countries. Even when we closed Clark AFB in the Phillipines the local Filipinos were the most zealous about keeping it despite all the politicians in their country who denounced “Empire” and “colonization”. Ditto the Panama folks.
Report comment to moderator
Large conventional armies have their place on one end of the spectrum of military operations. But small hit and run guerilla bands arent something you need an entire corps or division deployed to fight.
Report comment to moderator
Ah, the perfect place to post the article I posted yesterday.
I daresay Gibson’s qualifications to judge the wisdom of Obama’s plan exceed Thomas’s. His wiki info here.
Report comment to moderator
“Lotsa Germans and Japanese contractors work at the bases in those countries. Even when we closed Clark AFB in the Phillipines the local Filipinos were the most zealous about keeping it despite all the politicians in their country who denounced “Empire” and “colonization”. Ditto the Panama folks.”
Oh I’m sure they love the jobs/work/commerce they bring in, but as a nation if we close any, we should close those first.
Unless you wish to tax them for our services.
The same argument is honestly made for domestic bases and that is what should come first over many of these bases across the world.
I see no reason to close all foreign bases either. But I bet we could easily do with half, while maintaining or increasing those domestically.
Report comment to moderator
There’s another obvious question. What will happen to the $487 billion in savings?
Report comment to moderator
I guess with all those “savings” you could start to learn Arabic or Chinese.
Report comment to moderator
I’m disappointed in Cal Thomas’s “anything for the military” attitude. As several have mentioned, there’s lots to be saved by bringing bases back to the mainland, and consolidating bases. I just read a Republican Congressman’s newsletter last night and he was basically saying, “Don’t worry, we won’t let them close any bases in OUR state”. If he was my Congressman I would actively campaign against him.
Fives55 #4 has a table that shows what we are up against. It will take strong action in every area to get us out of our economic mess.
Report comment to moderator
They are supposed to take care of DEFENSE, not offense. Secure the border. Iran has made it clear that they want to do a terrorist act HERE, not there. Germany doesn’t need us, that new group in Australia or New Zealand doesn’t need us, nor does Okinawa. I really feel I’m (we) are being suckered into another war with Iran.
Report comment to moderator
I agree with TWH, too, that a decision regarding US bases should not be political. That said, we should always be able to build ships, etc., in more than one place.
Report comment to moderator
Obama’s jobs program is to lay off 100,000 military men and women … and kill the manned space program … and kill the Keystone pipeline … and so on …
Report comment to moderator
Until the housing crisis is solved, we ain’t goin’ nowhere! And Case Shiller says it isn’t going to happen any time soon.
Report comment to moderator
JJF
I find it ironic that we spent one billion dollars establishing universal health care in Iraq, and that’s OK because it’s “military spending.”
Eisenhower justified the Interstate system as National Defense. Too bad, someone has thought of a military justification for universal health care or the US would have had it years ago
#7 Sawgunner
We are moving away from heavy divisions and emphasizing an “agile, modular” force where the primary “unit of action” is self-sustaining brigade sized elements.
Rumsfield tried that a decade ago. This is nothing new, but Thomas is against it if its an Obama idea.
#10,11
Tammy — correct but the US military industrial complex is highly inefficient, corrupt and prone to congressional pork and ear marks
Report comment to moderator
The problem with closing overseas bases is they represent subsidies and foreign aid to keep US allies happy and in line. And more importantly they also safeguard US corporate interests.
The problem with closing domestic bases and cutting back on spending is expressed by TWH — almost every single district has their finger in the pie. Good luck weaning the congressmen from their re-election tickets.
Report comment to moderator
Ha. Well if US ‘corporate interests’ want to be truly safe, they better get themselves back home to the good ol’ US of A. That’s just another incentive to close those bases as far as I’m concerned. ;–)
Report comment to moderator
There has been a huge push among Republicans and some Democrats — led by the Tea Party Republicans — to cut spending drastically for the sake of reducing the deficit.
Last year they convened the so-called “Supercommittee,” made up of lawmakers from both parties, and asked it to develop a plan to cut $1.2 trillion over the next 10 years. This was mandated by the Budget Control Act of 2011.
The Supercommittee failed, could not agree on a plan by its deadline. When it did, something called “sequestration” kicked in, by law. Sequestration is a series of automatic, across-the-board cuts adding up to $2 trillion.
As he did with his earlier essay about the space program, Cal Thomas is cynically seizing on actions that are being taken under a law that Tea Party Republicans wanted and that many other Republicans and Democrats agreed was a good idea, and using it to bash Obama.
There’s no sincerity here.
Report comment to moderator
Just to be sure I’m clear: The Defense Department has to cut its spending, by law. It has no choice. Panetta’s plan is certainly subject to debate, but there is no option that involves not cutting spending, at least not until Congress repeals the law it passed last year.
Criticizing Obama for cutting Defense spending as if he were doing it by specific design is cynical and dishonest.
Report comment to moderator
Conan – I’m on the “no sacred cows” side, and agree that Cal Thomas was extremely misleading in not reporting that the amount of the cuts is required by current law. We can be confident that the other side is using the same tactics to stir up their base in response to the social spending cuts that were also mandated.
That contextual information should have been at the top of the story – it is that important.
Cal, if you read any of this, please be part of the solution; not the problem.
Report comment to moderator
A big part of the defense budget is health care for retirees. You endure 20+ years in uniform expecting to receive 100% medical coverage. A naive expectation.
There is much that gets spent to renovate barracks. Fort Hood has recently purchased/built several new gyms. If you’re a low paid PFC (often times far from home with no car) you have two options: go to BX/PX and buy booze or hit the weight room.
Report comment to moderator
#27, #28 and #29 – On Aug. 2, President Obama signed into law the Budget Control Act of 2011 (BCA).
Conan and TWH, you both act like the law is the problem. The President, the Senate, controlled by Democrats, and the House of Representatives, controlled by Republicans, made the law. All three share the responsibility. Blaming one side is political gamesmanship.
In addition, the shameful super-committee, 10 Reps. and 10 Dems., could have resolved this issue some other way, but could not find the backbone to do it.
Further, the President, who is the Commander-in-Chief, could have provided some leadership in working with the super committee, but was absent.
Finally, I bet there is still a way for the President to get around the “sequestration” if he thinks the defense cuts are a problem. He doesn’t, he wants the cuts. That is the point of Cal Thomas article.
Report comment to moderator
Leo – In the immediate context, THE LAW IS THE PROBLEM! Cal Thomas lets the reader think that the President woke up one morning and decided to cut the stuffing out of the defense budget.
Everything you say about the background is true, and it would have been very good for Cal to provide this context. It is wrong for either side to write anything about this mess without pointing out the context of a completely dysfunctional government. Again, as in 2010, if there was a lever available to vote against all incumbents, I would pull it.
William F Buckley, 1963 – “I am obliged to confess I should sooner live in a society governed by the first two thousand names in the Boston telephone directory than in a society governed by the two thousand faculty members of Harvard University.”
Report comment to moderator
The Budget Control Act of 2011 raised the debt limit by $2.1T in exchange for $1.2T in cuts. That’s like asking someone for change for a $10 and he hands you back $5.
The cuts break down like this:
40% from defense
33% from non-defense including veterans benefits
27% from medicare
So the bill gives Congress the ability to continue unrestrained reckless spending and will take that money out of the hides of veterans and the poor and elderly.
How bizarre and hypocritical it is for Obama to continually accuse the Republicans of doing the very things he does.
Report comment to moderator
Leo: Conan and TWH, you both act like the law is the problem. The President, the Senate, controlled by Democrats, and the House of Representatives, controlled by Republicans, made the law. All three share the responsibility. Blaming one side is political gamesmanship.
Where did either of us blame one side?
Cal Thomas blamed one side. I think TWH and I agreed that the bipartisan-passed law is the problem.
And yes, the law IS the reason the spending must be cut.
Report comment to moderator
Also, Xion in #33 blames one side. One man, actually.
But TWH and I did not.
Report comment to moderator
Wrong again Conan. I am not blaming one side; Obama is. The rest of us recognize that both sides are to blame.
Report comment to moderator
Xion: Wrong again Conan. I am not blaming one side; Obama is.
What do you mean by this, then? “How bizarre and hypocritical it is for Obama to continually accuse the Republicans of doing the very things he does.“
Report comment to moderator
According to Obama, all the good stuff he does is because the Bible tells him so. You know, like the part about taking from the rich to give to the poor.
Everything bad in this world Obama blames on somebody else, usually Bush or more generally Republicans. Has Obama ever taken responsibility for anything?
Report comment to moderator
“What do you mean by this, then? “How bizarre and hypocritical it is for Obama to continually accuse the Republicans of doing the very things he does.“”
That is Obama blaming one side, i.e. Republicans. Then behind the scenes he signs bills which do the very thing he was just blaming on others. I am not saying he is the only one to blame, but he is certainly a hypocrite. It is Obama who only blames one side.
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDmag.com's Community section to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!