Yesterday the Obama administration – through Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel – proposed that we reduce our military manpower to levels not seen since before World War II (at which time we had less than half the population we have now).

In Hagel\’s words:

“Weare repositioning to focus on the strategic challenges andopportunities that will define our future: new technologies, newcenters of power, and a world that is growing more volatile, moreunpredictable, and in some instances more threatening to the UnitedStates”

Does this make any sense at all – especially given a) the worldwide turmoil we exist within today and b) the near-total lack of willingness to lower entitlement spending?

In the words of Rep. Michael McCall, who chairs the House Homeland Security Committee:

“It\’sall being sacrificed … on the altar of entitlements. This Presidentcannot take on mandatory spending, so all we\’ve done in the Congress– and this president — is basically cut discretionary spending”

Who is correct?  I don\’t know for sure. 

If I believed the Obama administration\’s intention was solely to substitute military manpower for technological advances which might require fewer boots on the ground, I would be cautiously hopeful that it would work…and very insistent that the second it became clear that it was not working, the policy would be reversed.

But – based on five years of continuously being lied to – I do not trust a word that comes out of this serially dishonest administration, and don\’t believe that this is anything but cutting the military to fund even more giveaways to people who then would feel compelled to vote for the administration\’s political party. 

Therefore I am strongly against the Hagel/Obama proposals, and hope that enough Democrats join what I am sure will be near-unanimous Republican opposition to squash it forthwith.

Will it pass or be squashed?  Only because this is an election year, I think there is a good chance for the latter.  Unfortunately, however, even if I am right I would expect it to be re-introduced next year with a substantially different result.

We\’ll see…..

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *