Downsizing Defense with a Trojan Elephant

Russ Vaughn
Can anyone seriously doubt that when we have an anti-colonialist, anti-imperialist, Euro-socialist president serving as the commander-in-chief of our armed forces, that America's military, as currently constituted, is in serious trouble? While fundamentally changing America's economy to follow the downward trajectory of those various but failing socialist experiments collectively known as the European Union, do you suppose it hasn't occurred to the nomenklatura of the Obama regime that those countries have downsized their military forces to help fund their workers' paradises? The biggest, Britain, France and Germany, have significantly reduced their forces since embarking on their socialist paths.

The shrinking of those formerly powerful militaries is the major reason for America's being policeman to the world. Consider for a moment that our current president doesn't even want to police our borders, much less the world. Why then, if he wants to emulate Europe economically, would he not duplicate their military policies and shrink our standing forces leaving the world's policeman role to some other country, one with a growing economy and military, say China for instance?

Beginning with the Bolsheviks, the Left has always realized that many of their goals are not palatable to the ordinary folks, so deception and manipulation are necessary to implement their policies. Blaming your own misdeeds on the political opposition is a proven tactic and made infinitely easier with a gullible and compliant media eager to do precisely that. As Sequestration, with its huge military budget cuts, looms, Obama and the Democrats, aided by the media, are trying to convince Americans that evil, intransigent Republicans are entirely responsible for whatever hardships befall our armed forces. When you have the New York Times giving you cover, it becomes much easier to carry out your blatant deceptions right under the collective nose of the American people.

Speaking at the Brookings Institution, Army Chief of Staff, General Ray Odierno, has outlined what is in store for our Army; from Army Times:

Odierno told Congress earlier this week that sequestration might force the Army to cull another 100,000 troops from its ranks. Speaking at Brookings he went further, estimating that beginning with the 80,000 already scheduled, "in the end, it'll be over 200,000 soldiers that we will have to take out of the active duty component National Guard and Army Reserve" if sequestration is implemented for the long term.

"We'll take almost a 40 percent reduction in our brigade combat teams once we're finished," he cautioned.

When looking at the Army's bottom line, Odierno said that if the fiscal 2014 budget is implemented without sequestration, the Army will have taken a 45 percent reduction in its budget since 2008, a number that rises to over 50 percent with sequestration.

And that's just the Army; the other branches are to get hammered as well. Those are reductions of European proportions, exactly what the left wing of the Democrat party has long sought. So what better way to accomplish all this than put a useful idiot Republican in charge of the Defense Department to preside over the debacle? Is there any other possible reason why such a totally partisan president as Obama would pick a totally unqualified, former Republican senator with absolutely no large institution executive experience, like Chuck Hagel, other than the fact he will make an excellent scapegoat when at some future date America finally wakes up and realizes she's been neutered?

If you were truly concerned with America maintaining her military readiness during a downsizing of such huge proportions, wouldn't you want the best executive you could find, perhaps someone with experience in such reductions in force? Wouldn't strong managerial skills be the pre-eminent qualifier for the job? Aren't there plenty of Democrats out there with the requisite credentials, far better qualifications than the current nominee? Yet Obama insists on Hagel? Shouldn't alarm bells be going off all over Washington as to why?

It is for that reason Senate Republicans should be opposed to Hagel, not the content of his past speeches in which he expressed views inimical to Israel or favorable to Iran. Obama and Harry Reid are trying to roll a huge Trojan elephant right through the doors of the Pentagon to tear down the walls of our national defense from the inside, and our team is focused on the usual political nit-picking. Don't misunderstand me, Hagel's positions on Israel and Iran, as well as getting at the truth of Benghazi, are important, but they are nothing compared to the damage Hagel will do as Obama's inside-the-Pentagon hatchet man.

Can't you just picture what's coming? Suppose Israel is attacked by enemies emboldened by America's military weakness and lack of commitment to our long-time ally? And we're caught totally unprepared to respond. Who's going to be the fall guy do you think? Even if that catastrophe never occurs, every time Republicans and conservatives complain about another announced military reduction, the media will provide the true culprits, Obama and the Democrats, cover by pointing out that the SECDEF, who recommended the cut, just happens to be a Republican.

But you can bet the farm they'll never acknowledge that he's a deliberately planted Trojan Elephant.


Can anyone seriously doubt that when we have an anti-colonialist, anti-imperialist, Euro-socialist president serving as the commander-in-chief of our armed forces, that America's military, as currently constituted, is in serious trouble? While fundamentally changing America's economy to follow the downward trajectory of those various but failing socialist experiments collectively known as the European Union, do you suppose it hasn't occurred to the nomenklatura of the Obama regime that those countries have downsized their military forces to help fund their workers' paradises? The biggest, Britain, France and Germany, have significantly reduced their forces since embarking on their socialist paths.

The shrinking of those formerly powerful militaries is the major reason for America's being policeman to the world. Consider for a moment that our current president doesn't even want to police our borders, much less the world. Why then, if he wants to emulate Europe economically, would he not duplicate their military policies and shrink our standing forces leaving the world's policeman role to some other country, one with a growing economy and military, say China for instance?

Beginning with the Bolsheviks, the Left has always realized that many of their goals are not palatable to the ordinary folks, so deception and manipulation are necessary to implement their policies. Blaming your own misdeeds on the political opposition is a proven tactic and made infinitely easier with a gullible and compliant media eager to do precisely that. As Sequestration, with its huge military budget cuts, looms, Obama and the Democrats, aided by the media, are trying to convince Americans that evil, intransigent Republicans are entirely responsible for whatever hardships befall our armed forces. When you have the New York Times giving you cover, it becomes much easier to carry out your blatant deceptions right under the collective nose of the American people.

Speaking at the Brookings Institution, Army Chief of Staff, General Ray Odierno, has outlined what is in store for our Army; from Army Times:

Odierno told Congress earlier this week that sequestration might force the Army to cull another 100,000 troops from its ranks. Speaking at Brookings he went further, estimating that beginning with the 80,000 already scheduled, "in the end, it'll be over 200,000 soldiers that we will have to take out of the active duty component National Guard and Army Reserve" if sequestration is implemented for the long term.

"We'll take almost a 40 percent reduction in our brigade combat teams once we're finished," he cautioned.

When looking at the Army's bottom line, Odierno said that if the fiscal 2014 budget is implemented without sequestration, the Army will have taken a 45 percent reduction in its budget since 2008, a number that rises to over 50 percent with sequestration.

And that's just the Army; the other branches are to get hammered as well. Those are reductions of European proportions, exactly what the left wing of the Democrat party has long sought. So what better way to accomplish all this than put a useful idiot Republican in charge of the Defense Department to preside over the debacle? Is there any other possible reason why such a totally partisan president as Obama would pick a totally unqualified, former Republican senator with absolutely no large institution executive experience, like Chuck Hagel, other than the fact he will make an excellent scapegoat when at some future date America finally wakes up and realizes she's been neutered?

If you were truly concerned with America maintaining her military readiness during a downsizing of such huge proportions, wouldn't you want the best executive you could find, perhaps someone with experience in such reductions in force? Wouldn't strong managerial skills be the pre-eminent qualifier for the job? Aren't there plenty of Democrats out there with the requisite credentials, far better qualifications than the current nominee? Yet Obama insists on Hagel? Shouldn't alarm bells be going off all over Washington as to why?

It is for that reason Senate Republicans should be opposed to Hagel, not the content of his past speeches in which he expressed views inimical to Israel or favorable to Iran. Obama and Harry Reid are trying to roll a huge Trojan elephant right through the doors of the Pentagon to tear down the walls of our national defense from the inside, and our team is focused on the usual political nit-picking. Don't misunderstand me, Hagel's positions on Israel and Iran, as well as getting at the truth of Benghazi, are important, but they are nothing compared to the damage Hagel will do as Obama's inside-the-Pentagon hatchet man.

Can't you just picture what's coming? Suppose Israel is attacked by enemies emboldened by America's military weakness and lack of commitment to our long-time ally? And we're caught totally unprepared to respond. Who's going to be the fall guy do you think? Even if that catastrophe never occurs, every time Republicans and conservatives complain about another announced military reduction, the media will provide the true culprits, Obama and the Democrats, cover by pointing out that the SECDEF, who recommended the cut, just happens to be a Republican.

But you can bet the farm they'll never acknowledge that he's a deliberately planted Trojan Elephant.