|
Defense cuts not surprising, not good By Michael C. Guilmette Jr. Originally published on April 9, 2009, in the Connersville News-Examiner. When I was in Korea, I saw a land notably different from what I was accustomed to in the United States. I saw a land roughly the size of Indiana, but with — at the time — 40 million people, with a quarter of them living in the capitol city of Seoul.
I saw a land that had risen from centuries of subjugation to become one of the fastest growing economies in the world, and their star is still on the rise. Of course, this is what I saw in South Korea. Being a service member at the time, and for that matter an American, I couldn’t see North Korea without facing imprisonment, brutal interrogation and possibly execution. North Korea contrasts starkly with its southern neighbor, still operating under a failed communist philosophy that has reduced its population to barely subsistence living in a 19th century level of sophistication. U.S. Rep. Fred Upton, R-Mich., told me in February 2007 that when he traveled to North Korea in January 2005, most buildings in Pyongyang, the country’s opulent capital, were not heated, and most of the cities were completely dark at night. Hard data is sketchy, but an estimated 1 million North Koreans died in the famine of the late 1990s, and although aid shipments have improved the situation somewhat, the future for the North’s citizens is still bleak. Despite the suffering of its people, the North Korean dictatorship continues to spend money building ever more provocative weapons, detonating a weak nuclear weapon on Oct. 9, 2006, and on Sunday, launching an intercontinental ballistic missile capable of reaching the United States. In the face of these developments, President Barack Obama’s administration has decided to cut defense, including a missile defense system the president himself has called “unproven.” Defense Secretary Robert Gates released his $534 billion budget proposal Monday that radically alters the forward-looking defense modernization promoted under President George W. Bush. In the proposal, production of the F-22 Raptor, the most advanced fighter plane ever built, will be halted in favor of the less capable F-35, the so-called joint strike fighter. Gates’ proposal does include more funding to build a speedboat Navy, one that can operate closer to enemy shores, and for more Special Forces troops. “It is important to remember that every defense dollar spent to over-ensure against a remote or diminishing risk … is a dollar not available to take care of our people,” Gates told the Associated Press. A noble sentiment, but reminiscent of how President Bill Clinton approached defense and how he fought the Bosnian war — hands off, from 15,000 feet. Gates’ proposal, like the rest of Obama’s near $4 trillion budget, has to survive Congress, and early rumblings from moderate Democrats indicate parts of the president’s budget may face some opposition. However, defense has routinely been a favorite target for liberal lawmakers to carve up for expanding social programs. And since our government is moving more toward providing instead of promoting the general welfare, defense spending is likely to remain on the chopping block. Granted, building the kind of military and defense apparatus President Ronald Reagan needed to bring the Soviet Union to its knees may not be necessary now, and Gates and the president may believe preparing the military for an asymmetric terrorist threat may be sufficient. However, the era of the rogue state is rising. North Korea is only the latest despotic state to go nuclear and develop a means for making a long distance nuclear delivery, Iran already has there missiles and may only be a year away from joining the nuclear club. It is true the United States, Russia, China, Britain and France have possessed nuclear weapons for decades, and the United States is the only country that has used said nuclear weapons in anger. But the track record of the big five points to a policy of deterrence, while countries like North Korea and Iran look at nuclear weapons as, in the least, bargaining chips or, at the worst, something that can be clandestinely delivered to al-Qaida or any other terrorist group who will have no qualms about using it. In between Obama prostrating himself before the rest of the world at the G20 summit, he reiterated his belief the world should be free of nuclear weapons. While this would be a desirable goal, the reality is that Iran and North Korea will not give them up through diplomacy, especially since they will see an opportunity to take advantage of a weakening United States in order to further their dangerous goals. Obama can start with diplomacy if he wishes, but he will need a strong and capable military — and the willingness to use it — to back it up. He must be prepared to destroy the nuclear weapons and, if necessary, the countries that produce them should diplomacy fail, and the rogue states need to know that. But by cutting our defense, we are sending the message to our enemies our military with be neither strong nor capable, and more importantly, we will not have the resolve to use it to at least keep the rogue states in line. • Guilmette is managing editor of the News-Examiner. He may be contacted at mguilmette@newsexaminer.com. |
|||
|
|||
|
Copyright © 2009, Michael C. Guilmette Jr. |
I saw a homogenous culture, with the largest minority population, other than the U.S. military forces stationed there, were 20,000 Chinese. The food was decidedly foreign, and although I could read the language, seeing Hangul written everywhere instead of English made clear I wasn’t in America any more.
