Obama's Defense Policy

"Defense sales are a key to building alliances that serve American interests. Weapons exports and licensing can often be used to help strengthen our allies and used as leverage with nations that may follow policies contrary to our interests. Nations such as South Korea, Taiwan, and Israel face threats arrayed against them that are overwhelming and that constitute existential threats. The qualitative edge that leading edge weapons provide them compensates for quantitative advantages enjoyed by their potential adversaries. In this manner, supplying advanced weapons serves as a deterrent that reduces the risk of war."

That's nonsense. The reason why we feared Al Queda had weapons of mass destruction is because we thought we had sold them some during the 80s.

Ed, you have written an interesting article. But there are a few issues I must address:

1) Luckily, Obama will never be elected president. I will be pleased to see him humiliated by McCain.
2) There is no such thing as the 'F/A-22 program'. The fighterplane type is called 'F-22' because it is unable to attack ground targets.
3) All of the programs currently pursued by the Pentagon are needed.
4) The US military must be ready not only to fight current enemies, but also to deter and fight future adversaries.
5) Nixon bargained the US military for nothing. He has accomplished nothing. The disarmament treaties he signed served only to mask the Kremlin's military buildup. During the Nixon era, the US military became decrepit.
6) The Dems want to invest military spending on foreign and domestic SOCIAL programs - like healthcare. Yet none of these programs are in the US Constitution. By contrast, the military is one of the very few DUTIES imposed on the US Federal Government by the US Constitution.
7) The only reason for having a government in the first place is so that the government will defend the people it governs from all enemies - foreign and domestic.
8) The US military is too small. It's overstretched. The Congress must raise military spending to at least 4% of GDP.
9) How else can I justly call politicians who demand the demise of their own country's military, other than 'traitors'?
10) Last but not least, we Poles, and other nations, do not want a militarily weaker America. We want the contrary. This includes, but is not by any means limited to, the missile shield. If elected, Obama would make America weak, unreliable, not credible, and uncooperative. And he would prove to us (e.g. by discarding the missile shield) that our interests can be discarded whenever he decrees so.

All I can say is, the last time I checked, the white house does not come equipped with training wheels....It's not even an option.

Apparently Obama's goal is to leave our armed forces outnumbered and outclassed, and leave the American people defenseless against those rogue nations who may not be deterred by Mutually Assured Destruction.

This was as fine an explication of the role of armaments in advancing foreign policy goals as I've ever read. Please e-mail it to Mr. Obama, in the hopes that he might absorb these essential lessons.

The liberal agenda is to leave this country castrated and bound by the slave chains of social engineering. They want to abdicate the FIRST PRIMARY PURPOSE of government, the common defense. Somehow it escapes them that dead people don't NEED healthcare or social programs anymore.

I would like to know exactly what good could come from an Obama administration.

By his own admission the greatest influences in his life were his Marxist mother, followed by his mentor Rev G-d D-mn Amerikkka Wright, Father Pfleger, Louis Farrakhan, and a few lesser leftests lights.

How could he develop, with those admissions, a political philosophy that is anything but antithetical to the USA?

As time goes by and the onion peels away we find more and more nefarious types and bad judgements of character in the residue of rotten peelings of Obamas judgement. Yes, he's silky smooth on the stump, but so was Bill Clinton, perhaps the greatest sociopath to ever inhabit the White House.

In the election of 1800 the rancor was historical. There was active talk of a coup if Aaron Burr emerged as the President. Anyone who has studied that most famous of all elections knows that we will not allow any president to disarm this country. It would be begging for a coup, which could easily happen should Obama attempt his objectives. Our Declaration of Independence demands we do it, and the supportive documentatioin to the Constitution makes it abundantly clear that it is not a suicide pact.

'Samantha Power, who advocated the ending of all military aid to Israel'

Which would de facto mean eliminating Israel, since that state of 7 million citizens, whose existence has not been assured, cannot cope without the US. So weak is Israel that Bush Junior had to go to Israel earlier this year and assure them that they can count on all 300 million Americans. Facts are facts, Israel needs more American weapons, not less.

Since 1948, all successive US presidents, from Truman to Bush Junior, were unanimous that Israel had to be defended against any aggressors. They were all unanimous despite of their party banners. Obama would bring about not only a wholesale transformation of America, but the end of that 60-year-old consensus.

Obama has never stopped loving any dictator (whether it's Chavez, Castro, Ajad, Putin or Kim), but he's conspiring against America's chief ally - the ME's oldest democracy - Israel. That's a ridiculous foreign policy.

And what about the sea lanes that link America to most of its allies? The US will need a strong navy - stronger than the one it has now - to secure these sea lanes. Obama would give the USN the kiss of death.

I think this is sad. None of Obama's advisors are anti-Israeli and it is irresponsible for the author and these commenters to imply that they are. Is it not possible for us to discuss foreign policy without resorting to his kind of petty, vicious "journalism".

"We sleep peacefully in our beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on our behalf." -- George Orwell. Left wingers understand this, but their attitude is, "Let's get ourselves in power first, and we'll worry about that later." The problem for rest of us, of course, is whether there will be a later.

This is sad. Are the Rogers of the world really so ignorant? Or are they lying? When Syrian tanks are rolling over Jewish babies, will they be shocked? Or just pretend to be?

Sorry Roger - when discussing foreign policy, we discuss the TRUTH as we see it. When truth is NOT ALLOWED, THAT is what constitutes petty, vicious journalism. Please open your eyes.

Obama has also proven that all those military veterans who fear him are right. His advisors, including Merrill McPeak, claimed that Obama was pro-military and that he'd be a good CINC, but the truth is that Obama is an anti-military pacifist vehemently opposed to any weapons. I'd bet that McPeak will be the only military veteran alive who will vote for Obama in November.

Does anyone seriously think that Hillary Clinton would be promising to keep our military strong? Her husband gutted the military. These aren't Obama's policies. They are DEMOCRATS' policies. For them, the only good military spending is that which directly benefits the district/state they represent. Even someone like Jim McDermott, who denounces the military with delight, is happy to fight for the preservation of a base in his own district. Maybe the key to a strong defense is a base or contractor in every district. What Democrat will vote against programs that benefit his own constituents?

Gee, I thought one of the few things the gov SHOULD do for us is keep us safe. Hmm, I guess Obama has other ideas....

Husssein Obama is the real danger not only for the USA, but for the whole civilized World. He is the fifth columnist of the muslims, who promised to annihilate the West from inside.

Just how does hussein plan to "strip" Israel of whatever nuclear weapons they may possess? Would he advocare invading Israel and forcibly removing them? That sounds about like the obamassiah: invade the only democracy in the Middle East.
Somehow, I just don't think he'll succeed at that. Israel knows that if hussein gets in, any nuclear weapons she may have will be all that stand between the Israeli people and the barbarian states who wish to destroy them.

Hussein Obama has no 'defense policy'. He has Issues and Ideology. That way lies disaster.

I've spent many long hours patrolling the straits of Hormuz, the Persian Gulf and the Red Sea. When President Obama slashes the budget for the Navy, when new and technologically superior platforms are no longer being built, when funds are not available for underway training, when weapons and engineering drills are canceled because there is no money (or fuel) available, who will fear us? Who will stop and think about possible retaliation from a strong and aggressive United States Navy with multiple carrier battle groups scattered around the world. The EU cannot and will not stand up to the threat of a nuclear Iran or Islamic terrorism. Barack Obama will bring this country to its knees.

Following 16 years (Clinton/Bush 43) of giving naval and other military technology to the Chinese, that nation is poised to surpass our navy as the best in the world. Given their superiority in numbers of ground troops and the fact that they have advanced at least as far as we have in "weaponising space" as demonstrated by their satellite shoot-down last year, even four years of Obama cuts to our military could put us at risk from Chinese military aggression. While it's unlikely that this would come in the form of a direct attack, it could take the form of interfering actions taken around Taiwan, the Mediterranean and the Persian Gulf.

Putin and his surrogate Medvedev have been increasingly rattling the Russian sabres in the past year, making it clear to anyone willing to listen that they would enjoy nothing more than to regain the lead in tactical weapons systems in order to sell them to our enemies, and threaten us with them.

Then there are Iran, India and Pakistan, all nuclear powers and all with stability problems. Compound this picture with Barack stating that he supports an invasion of Pakistan in order to get OBL. Attack an unstable nuclear power? Ya gotta be kiddin'.

At the very least, Obama will put us in a defence research/development hole from which it will take years to re-emerge. At worst, he will wittingly or unwittingly foster an increased level of violent attack on America and American interests by enemies known and unknown.

A related concern about Obama's proposed cuts are his proposals concerning our space programme. He has proposed to delay the manned space flight programme for five years and in order to use that money to fund education. This would mean that NASA and it's contractors would have to close or lay off those designers and engineers who lead the development of space programmes. What are these talented people supposed to do for five years in order to earn a living? Well, the Chinese, the Indians and the Japanese all have active space programmes, maybe they could work for them. In essence, Obama is choosing hiring more unionised teachers to fail at educating our kids over employing the cream of the crop at space technology. By the way, does anyone reasonably believe that the surge in unionised teachers would go away after five years? Raise your hand if you believe that - I'd like to speak with you privately about some land I have on offer...

Later, after he realised that his earlier statement about the space programme was ridiculously unworkable, he backtracked and said that he'd continue to fund the development of the new launch vehicle and spacecraft for future manned flights, just not the actual space flights. Well, it doesn't take much of a brain to figure out that since the bulk of the expense in any new programme is the upfront R&D, if he continues to develop the launch vehicle and spacecraft for the manned programme, he won't have the savings from NASA to spend on his education programme, so he'll have to rob some other programme to fund his education effort. Could that be the military? Sure sounds like it.

The other troubling thing about Obama's cuts to the space programme is that there is and always has been a lot of information interchange between the military space programmes and NASA. Hampering NASA by slashing funding will trickle down to the military space programmes in a negative way.

This is just one more area in which Obama shows a complete lack of preparation and understanding of the complexities of the office of President. His naivety is such that he could well end up inviting military aggression by even second-rate nations who will seize the opportunity of American weakness to strike us or allies of ours who they believe rely on our protection. The libertarian in me would applaud abandoning the cost and responsibility of our role as the world cop, but the realist in me knows that the bloodbaths that would ensue following our abdication of this role in nations around the world would be hard to stomach.

Sorry, but trying to paint Obama as a muslim fifth column is stupid. I think he truly believes the Marxist tenet that religion is the opiate of the masses, and he joined TUCCC as a means to a political end. The fact that he admitted he heard some of the Rev. Wright's more colorful sermons and thought nothing of the racist, america bashing rhetoric is more disconcerting than trying to say that he's a muslim in disguise.

What is really going to backfire for the democrats is calling anyone who questions Obama's slim resume a racist. I hope they keep it up. McCain will win in a historical landslide that makes "Dewey beats Truman" look like a kindergarten tea party.

'Given their superiority in numbers of ground troops and the fact that they have advanced at least as far as we have in "weaponising space" as demonstrated by their satellite shoot-down last year'

The space has always been weaponised since ICBMs and SLBMs were invented - they fly on a parabollic course through the Space.

'they would enjoy nothing more than to regain the lead in tactical weapons systems in order to sell them to our enemies, and threaten us with them.'

Not just to do that. They also plan to conduct a nuclear first strike against the US. For this purpose, they have stockpiled 300 missile-shield-immune SS-27 STALIN (RT-2UTTH) (Topol-M) ICBMs, SS-NX-30 SLBMs immune to any missile shields, and RS-24 ICBMs (also immune to any missile shields). They have also commissioned dozens of B-1-like Tu-160 bombers. The combined Russian SSBN/SSGN fleet of 21 subs vastly outnumbers the American one (18 subs). Russia also has the largest nuclear stockpile in the world (16090 nuclear warheads), larger than the nuclear stockpile of the rest of the world combined, growing by 45 warheads per year. Russia has never had any defensive military plans until 1988.

The American space program is important for the US because it would improve American missiles and give America the vast mineral resources located on the Moon.

The US CANNOT afford any more procurement holidays. If Obama embarks on a 4-year procurement holiday, the resulting decline of America's military will never be compensated for because after that 4-year procurement holiday ends it will be too late. The US has been on a procurement holiday ever since FY1990. THIS MUST END NOW. And that's despite the military being one of the very few DUTIES imposed on the US Government by the US Constitution.

If Obama wins, then the US Navy's submarine fleet will always be inferior to the PLAN's one because most of the USN's SSNs will retire by the end of the 2020s. By then, after all LA-class and Seawolf-class subs are retired, the USN will have only 10 Virginia-class SSNs.

What if the US military will need to conduct a maritime blockade of Iran, China or NK? Answer: it won't be because it won't have enough ships.

Obama is a "post turtle." If your driving downa country road and you see a turtle blalnced on a fence post, several things become evident.
1. One look tells you he doesn't belong there.
2. He could never have gotten there by himself.
3. He doesn't have any idea wht to do while he's up there.
4. You have to wonder what idiot put him there.

It is a sad state of affairs that the Dems could only drum up Billary (who is only a "politician" because of some illegal pardons handed out like candy in a corruption-friendly state by her wanker husband on the way out of his disgraceful presidency) and Barak Hussein Osama who is as shaky of a candidate as you could find (if you tried REALLY hard).

I truly hope that every swinging red-blooded, tax-paying, REPUBLICAN American shows up in November and sends a very resounding message (in the form of a LANDSLIDE McCain win !!).

Zbigniew Mazurak said, "2) There is no such thing as the 'F/A-22 program'. The fighterplane type is called 'F-22' because it is unable to attack ground targets."

Zbigniew, you need to use google a bit more before you post stuff like this. F-22 IS a ground attack capable aircraft. It is an air superiority aircraft with an inherent ground attack capability. To have air superiority today you have to be able to fight other aircraft AND attack ground targets like surface to air missle sites.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/f-22.htm

from the link:

"On Sept. 17, 2002 Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. John P. Jumper announced a change in the designation of the F-22 Raptor to F/A-22 at the 2002 Air Force Association National Convention. The change is meant to more accurately reflect the aircraft's multimission roles and capabilities in contemporary strategic environments. However, the designation reverted to F-22 in December 2005."

also from the link:

"The Block 10 Initial Operational Capability configuration, to be fielded this year, will be multirole, with the option of four AMRAAMs being replaced by GBU-32 JDAMs. This provides an analogous deep-strike capability to the F-117A, but is more survivable.
The Block 20 configuration is the baseline for the Global Strike Task Force (GSTF) fleet, and will include JSF common radar modules, a dedicated high-speed radar processor, and COTS technology CIP processors. The GBU-39/40 Small Diameter Bomb is introduced in the Block 20 aircraft by 2007, together with high resolution SAR radar modes, improved radar ECCM, two way voice and data MIDS/Link-16 capability, improved crew station software, and improved electronic countermeasures.
The Block 30 configuration, planned for 2008-2011, extends the growth seen in the Block 20. Side-looking radar arrays provide a significant ISR capability in the aircraft along with enhancements to provide full Wild Weasel air defence suppression and time-critical target engagement capabilities. A Satcom terminal will provide continuous network connectivity during deep-strike profiles.
The post-2011 Block 40 aircraft is intended to be the definitive Global Strike configuration, with incremental enhancements to Block 30 additions providing full sensor networking, range enhancements, integrated ISR capabilities, and a Helmet Mounted Display similar to the JSF.
Longer term planning for a Block 50 envisages an Electronic Attack variant, replacing the lost EF-111A Raven. A stealthy stores pod for JDAM and SDB is under development to enable carriage on external pylons. As a strike aircraft the F/A-22A will have similar internal payloads to the JSF, but will be vastly more survivable due to better stealth."

looks like the F-22 is quite capable of raining death and destruction with precision from above.

Does anyone remember the Billy Clinton military cuts in the 90's? Our resulting lack of intelligence gathering and constant attacks (both on our soil and on our troops elsewhere) left us so weak that it finally culminated on 9/11. Why can't the dem's learn from their own stupid mistakes!

Dear Zaflart, before you lecture me, you may want to read a few more sources. John Jumper's decision was reversed by his successor Michael Moseley, who changed the designation back to F-22, as Globalsecurity.org itself said.

The fact that it can launch a few types of A2S missiles and bombs doesn't make it a multirole plane nor an attack jet even though some people have described it as such. Nor will F-22s be used in that role, that's the duty of A-10s. F-22s don't even seem to be able to deliver any bombs other than JDAMs.

F-22s were NOT originally designed to attack ground targets, but rather defeat any hostile fighterplanes (like the ones the Russians and the Chinese are developing right now); a few missile types or bomb types won't make it an attack jet. That's the role of jets whose prefixes are 'A', e.g. F/A-18 and A-10.

Eliminating AAA and SAMs has been a condition of gaining air supremacy for decades, yet the USAF and the USN have managed to cope without 'multirole F-22s' - instead using SPECIALISED attack jets and bombers (e.g. F-117s and F-111s).

There wouldn't have been so many pro-Russian subversives in the West (there are 125000 in the US alone, plus 500000 useful idiots in the US alone), if the Russians hadn't been allowed to revere the USSR and if computer games did not propagate Communism (but some do, like RE and RE2):
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=KHm9YMK2HJs
Computer games like these should be banned.