Gutting the Army

Arnold Ahlert is a former NY Post op-ed columnist currently contributing to JewishWorldReview.com, HumanEvents.com and CanadaFreePress.com. He may be reached at atahlert@comcast.net.


0224-chuck-hagel-2On Monday, Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel recommended reducing size of the U.S. Army to its lowest level since before the nation’s entry into WWII. “We must now adapt, innovate, and make difficult decisions to ensure that our military remains ready and capable — maintaining its technological edge over all potential adversaries,” Hagel said during a Pentagon news conference. Rep. Buck McKeon (R-CA), chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, illuminated the administration’s dubious priorities. President Obama and Hagel are trying to “solve our financial problems on the backs of our military — and that can’t be done,” he explained.

The reductions are stark. The Army had already been tasked with reducing troop numbers from a wartime high of 570,000 to 490,000. Hagel proposes bringing that number down to the either 450,000 or 440,000. He defended those cuts, claiming they will allow more money to be spent on “technological superiority,” “cyber resources,” and Special Operations forces. 

Retired Gen. Jack Keane contended the reductions would “cut into the bone and the capabilities of the Army,” even as he ridiculed the thinking behind them. “The assumption that’s being made in the Pentagon, and it’s almost laughable if it wasn’t so serious, is they don’t believe the United States will involve itself in a ground war of any consequence again,” he explained. “The fact of the matter is those assumptions have been made after World War II, Korea, Vietnam and the Cold War, and every single time they have been proven wrong. Here we are making that same assumption again. The Army is taking a much more severe cut, and the numbers of the Army are going down to pre-World War II numbers, which, on the surface of it, is irresponsible. Anybody looking at that knows it is far too much.” 

Actually, they don’t. The Pentagon, which has long believed that America should be capable of fighting two ground wars simultaneously, as we did in Asia and Europe during WWII, and Iraq and Afghanistan in recent years, has seemingly abandoned that idea. According to the New York Times, more recent budget and strategy documents reveal that the military must be prepared to win one conflict decisively, and fight a holding operation with a second adversary until a sufficient number of forces could be redeployed to win conflict number two. “Our analysis showed that this [reduced] force would be capable of decisively defeating aggression in one major combat theater…while also defending the homeland and supporting air and naval forces engaged in another theater against an adversary,” Hagel contended.

Given America’s recent track record, one might be forgiven for wondering what constitutes winning period, much less winning decisively. President Obama and his fellow Democrats have made it clear that troop withdrawal – on a timetable and virtually irrespective of conditions on the ground — was their top priority in Iraq, and will be their top priority in Afghanistan. In Iraq, the president’s indifference towards negotiating a status of forces agreement, and his determination to leave behind an insufficient number of troops to protect the gains we made in that nation, turned victory into defeat. It is a process being repeated in Afghanistan, where President Hamid Karzai has rejected a security pact with America unless the Taliban are included in the process, and where Obama once again wants to leave behind a far smaller contingency of troops than his military advisors recommend to maintain our gains there.

Even if we had an administration committed to winning wars, it appears they are willing to sacrifice greater numbers of Americans to do so. Officials who saw an early draft of Hagel’s announcement admit that carrying out two large-scale military operations at the same time would make success more elusive, and engender higher numbers of casualties. Just as importantly, they conceded a smaller military might give rise to increased adventurism by our adversaries. Hagel seemingly concurred. “As a consequence of large budget cuts, our future force will assume additional risk in certain areas,” he said.

Those budget cuts include far more than a reduction in troops. The U-2 spy place would be abandoned in favor of drones that operate more cheaply. The A-10 “warthogs,” an entire class of Air Force attack jets capable of effective attacks against tanks, is also facing the chopping block and will be replaced by F-35s. 

The Navy would purchase two destroyers and two attack submarines per year, even as 11 cruisers would be decommissioned until they were modernized. Training helicopters would be retired, and the National Guard would give its more weaponized Apache helicopters to the Army in exchange for Black Hawks, better suited for disaster response and other peacetime activities. Drone growth would be diminished from an around-the-clock force of 65 Reaper and Predator aircraft to 55 in total. The Pentagon will also ask for another round Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) in 2017.

On the personnel side, a one percent raise in pay would be enacted, but it would be offset by changing healthcare benefits, making personnel pay for some of their housing costs and cutting a billion dollars from commissary subsidies that allow for discounted goods for military families. General and flag officers would be subjected to a one-year pay freeze.

Hagel warned that making these cuts is a better alternative than enduring even deeper ones imposed by sequestration. Sequestration cuts would necessitate retiring an aircraft carrier, decommissioning six more cruisers, eliminating the KC-10 tanker fleet, slowing down the buying of destroyers, cutting flying hours, and dropping troop levels still further to 420,000. Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, contended that number of troops would undermine the military’s ability to deploy for combat. “I’m telling you — 420 (sic) is too low,” he declared.

Sequestration itself is a farce. It reflects Congress’s seemingly permanent inability to forestall the nation’s headlong rush towards insolvency, even as it completely preserves the ever-increasing outlays required by the primary drivers of that insolvency. The nation’s spending is divided into three main categories: interest on the debt, discretionary spending and mandatory spending. As projected for 2014, America will spend approximately $3.8 trillion for the entire budget. Servicing our national debt will consume six percent of that total. Discretionary spending will eat up another 30 percent, with the military consuming 57 percent of that discretionary slice. Mandatory spending accounts for 64 percent of our annual budget, the lion’s share of which goes to entitlement programs, such as Social Security, Unemployment and Labor programs, as well as Medicare and other Health programs.

The amount of discretionary spending is determined by annual appropriations. Mandatory spending, on the other hand, is determined by eligibility. Thus it is far easier to make cuts to the military, such as Hagel is proposing, because Congress can merely trim the budget. Changing mandatory spending requires changing eligibility criteria, such as age for Social Security or income level for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP).

It is no accident that proposed cuts in mandatory spending are often referred to as dealing with “third rail” issues, in that they inevitably engender massive, and possibly career-ending resistance from a dependency-addicted nation. Such resistance is aided and abetted by a Democratic Party that derives much of its power from promoting and maintaining that dependency. In short, when cuts become inevitable, the military is vulnerable, while entitlement programs remain virtually sacrosanct.

Thus, when House Homeland Security Committee Chairman Rep. Michael McCaul (R-TX) contends that military preparedness is “being sacrificed … on the altar of entitlements,” he is spot on.

Moreover, there is an appalling lack of consistency among Democrats who insist that entitlement programs and unemployment insurance create millions of jobs, even as they remain utterly sanguine about military budget cuts that will adversely affect millions of non-military Americans whose communities depend on Defense Department expenditures and activities.

Pentagon press secretary Navy Rear Adm. John Kirby said that Hagel had consulted with military service chiefs on how to go about finding the proper balance between the nation’s defense and budget requirements. “He has worked hard with the services to ensure that we continue to stand for the defense of our national interests — that whatever budget priorities we establish, we do so in keeping with our defense strategy and with a strong commitment to the men and women in uniform and to their families,” Kirby said. “But he has also said that we have to face the realities of our time. We must be pragmatic. We can’t escape tough choices,” he added.

But as noted above, the Obama administration and Democrats are escaping the tough choices. The Constitution requires the federal government to provide for the common defense and promote the general welfare of the nation. Democrats and Obama have it exactly backwards. 

That is not to say that some cuts to the military aren’t warranted. Yet for a nation awash in red ink, one that still faces serious and unforeseen threats from Islamist terror, an increasingly aggressive China, and Russia’s Vladimir Putin, who may yet play a hand in Ukraine, a serious discussion of national priorities is in order. One that puts everything on the table for the simplest of reasons: absent national security, everything else is irrelevant. There will be no victorious enemy willing to provide Americans with anything remotely resembling the massive and overly generous safety net we take largely for granted. And hope and change are not viable substitutes for military strength, preparedness and deterrence.

Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.

  • Steeloak

    Looks like the Army will soon be dusting off the wooden guns and hanging “Tank” signs on their Humvees when they train in the near future – just like they did before WWII.

    • aldisiij367

      My Uncle Aaron just got an awesome 12 month
      old Audi A5 Convertible only from working part time off a home computer… find
      out here F­i­s­c­a­l­P­o­s­t­.­ℂ­o­m

      • Wolfthatknowsall

        Go away …

        • NAHALKIDES

          Just flag these spammers so their posts get deleted.

          • Wolfthatknowsall

            Thanks. That’s what should be done. Responding to them just gives them attention.

      • howardfrombroward

        please don’t troll up the discussion with your money hustling.

    • john4637

      Bags of flour to use as bombs!!

  • truebearing

    Maybe the reason Obama and his dull-witted Secretary of Defense believe the US will never engage in a ground war again is because they forsee their revolution succeeding and assume that the Left will remain in power in perpituity. If they were to remain in power, the military would be “fundamentally transformed” into a “civil defense force” suited for dealing with domestic enemies.

    With his vindictive nature, I’m surprised Obama would get rid of the A-10s. They would come in so handy in teaching his political enemies a lesson.

    • CowboyUp

      I don’t know if they still are, but most of the A-10 squadrons used to be Guard units. Taken with having Guard units trade in their AH-64s for UH-60s, it seems he’s not only eliminating our only dedicated close air support platform, he’s reducing the states’ constitutional and practical counterbalance to federal military power.

      • NAHALKIDES

        I noticed that too, and it’s disturbing. Should it become necessary to resist the Federal Government, the best way to do that would be through the States, which are already established political entities with their own military power.

        • john4637

          Notice none of the governor’s are speaking up, are they?!

          • NAHALKIDES

            No. By and large, they’re not in a truly militant frame of mind, at least not guys like Bobby Jindal and Chris Christie.

      • john4637

        You got it cowboy!!

    • Wolfthatknowsall

      On target …

  • GSR

    We can’t have a strong national defense. We can’t have a space program. We can’t have real, secure borders that keep illegal immigrants out. No, we must use money for welfare, for social spending to get more people addicted to govt. programs and thus keep them voting Democrat. Obama & Crew are “centrally planning” us into a weak country with a feeble economy.

    • kasandra

      Outstanding comment. Sums up the Obama worldview perfectly. We’re too powerful, too rich, too racist, too white, too sexist, too nativist, too homophobic, too successful so it’s “no soup for you.”

      • DennisMets

        Your right on about being to white. The democreaps want to cut our military and spend trillions building up other natiions military, yes the same ones that attack us. The demos pretend they are saving money then they turn around and pay out taxpayer money for illegals health care while taking tri care benefits away from veterans. ovomit has repeatedly stated he would aLWAYS stand with his Muslim brothers. Well that is quite clear and he will destroy the United States to the point it becomes a Muslim state one day blacks will convert to Muslim in great numbers and the war on whites and Christians will be on.

      • GSR

        Thank you…..and I agree 100% with your comments too! That is his worldview.

    • john4637

      The country is on the path of being a blurb in history. Something that quite possibly may be forbidden to either talk about or read about in the utopian future!!

    • DennisMets

      He is turning this into Africa where women go out and breed like rats and get rewarded for doing it. The democreaps can not wait until they have a black muslim nation. The politicians esp in congress know they have it made no matter how dam poor the rest of the county becomes they will have a life of luxery

  • Texas Patriot

    Hagel is on the right track. Bringing our armies home from around the world will allow us to defend our borders, combat drug-trafficking, and respond more effectively to domestic terrorism, even as we develop the surveillance and interdiction technologies that will allow us to respond to hotspots around the world on a moment’s notice. As an added benefit, instead of spending money to stimulate foreign economies, the money we spend to support our troops at home will provide a direct stimulus to our domestic economy and create millions of new jobs for Americans. The days of the hapless, hopeless, and clueless American “world policeman” are coming to an end, and the days of the incomparable, indomitable, and invincible American Eagle are just beginning.

    • A Z

      The military is not used along the border.So how will redeploying soldiers back to the U.S. strengthen the border and fight the war on drugs?

      Obama has hog tied the Border Patrol officers and he is quite proud of it.

      Having done so he is going to augment the Border Patrol with grunts?

      • Texas Patriot

        The remote, desolate, and largely uninhabited border between Brownsville and Tijuana covering almost 2,000 miles is a perfect training and testing ground for the kinds of surveillance and interdiction technologies now being deployed in Afghanistan and Pakistan. The U.S. Border Patrol is obviously a total failure and needs to be scrapped. Instead of using our best troops and technologies to defend the borders of Afghanistan, we need to use them to lock-down illegal immigration and drug-trafficking along the U.S. Border. It’s a win-win for the American people, and if this administration doesn’t do it, the next one should.

        • A Z

          Border patrol is not a total failure. They are not allowed to do their job.

          I am for militarizing the border. The border patrol could use help.

          Fort Huachca has illegals passing through military housing. so how secure can the base be?

          http://hotair.com/archives/2007/11/26/report-60-afghan-and-iraqi-terrorists-planned-to-attack-fort-huachuca/

          http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2005/may/24/20050524-114243-2374r/

          http://www.huachuca.army.mil/

          http://fthuachucammo1.blogspot.com/

          http://www.educationnews.org/breaking_news/news/96958.html

          • Texas Patriot

            My take is that if the army does its job right, there will be no need for a Border Patrol. Why duplicate effort and expense? With the right sort of advanced surveillance and interdiction technologies, we can make sure that a gila monster never crosses the border without us knowing about it.

          • A Z

            We could have the Air Force do immigration control at the airports and the Navy could take over for the Cost Guard.

            If criminals are on the street is it because the cops failed of judge let them back on the street or politicians failed to build more jails? Is it the cops fault?

            Is it the Border Patrol’s fault?

            I would put some bases on the border.If you patrol the perimeter of the base you have patrolled so many miles of border. Border patrol could patrol other areas in more force.

          • Texas Patriot

            It’s a massive dereliction of duty to enforce the laws of the United States which is being permitted by both political parties, and it’s been going on for many, many years. Basically we need to clean house and come up with an entirely new approach to border security, or nothing will ever really change. My take is that the military is probably the most immune to corruption and therefore probably has the best chance of getting the job done.

          • A Z

            40% of illegals come in through the airports. Is that border agents fault?

        • NAHALKIDES

          Among other problems with your thinking, the Posse Comitatus Act would seem to preclude the use of Federal troops for law-enforcement activities, which is a good thing in a free nation, or even a partly-free one.

          • Texas Patriot

            Guarding international borders against invasion, infiltration, drug trafficking, arms smuggling, or illegal immigration is not usually thought of as “law enforcement” by federal troops vis-a-vis American citizens. If the so-called Posse Comitatus Act precludes using federal troops for guarding our international borders, we may have to tinker with that a bit.

          • Drakken

            You want to put a stop to the millions of illegals entering the US, mine the border and make a 1 mile exclusion zone with a weapons free clause, that will put a halt to the craziness at the border.

          • NAHALKIDES

            I disagree – it is exactly law enforcement, and there’s no practical reason the Border Patrol can’t handle it. The only problem is that Barry Obama doesn’t want to enforce the law. We need a new President with a new attitude toward securing the border.

          • Texas Patriot

            Pretending that our military is not qualified or permitted to protect our international borders is absurd. If our laws currently prohibit that, our laws need to be changed, No problem.

          • NAHALKIDES

            There’s a problem, T.P. – I don’t want the military engaging in law enforcement and arresting civilians except in extraordinary circumstances. The situation along our southern border is intolerable, true, but it can be easily corrected by the President who has the will to enforce the law and use the Border Patrol as it should be used.

        • Drakken

          The military cannot be put along the border, period, it is called the posse comitatus act. So your idea is a total nonstarter.

    • GSR

      You sir, are a leftwing fanatic and your words sound silly and like those of a high school kid. Naive in the extreme.

      • Texas Patriot

        If Senator Barry Goldwater and General George Patton were left wing fanatics, then so am I. But I don’t think they were, and I don’t think I am. Barry Golwater said that the object of war is victory, and I agree with that. George Patton said that the object of warfare was not to die for your country, but rather to assist the enemy in dying for theirs; and I agree with that as well.

        My guess is that you are several degrees of separation to the left of where I stand, but you don’t even know it. Basically, you’ve been conned into thinking that throwing away American blood and treasure on hopeless foreign wars and playing the role of global policeman is the conservative thing to do. Guess what. It’s not.

        My advice to you is to wake up and shake off the fog of lies and self-delusion that have dominated American foreign policy since the end of WWII. As Socrates said, the unexamined life is not worth living!

        • Wolfthatknowsall

          Socrates must have had this on his mind when he poisoned himself, at the order of the government …

          • Texas Patriot

            I think at that point Socrates was busy saying goodbye to one of his girlfriends and asking someone to sacrifice a chicken on his behalf to one of the local gods. But it’s a little difficult to say what his actual crime was. I think it had something to do with his lifelong habit of questioning whether men were actually as wise as they thought, and of course they never were, which always made them furious. ;-)

          • Wolfthatknowsall

            Which, of course, in a pure democracy … mob rule … usually ends in the death of the person who makes them so furious.

    • Wolfthatknowsall

      Patriot, are you a former Paul supporter? Did you once post at the Total War Center?

      If so, I think that I know who you are (not your name, address, or anything like that). Your writing is eerily similar to another “Texas Patriot” who commented on the website I mentioned.

      Just curious …

      • Texas Patriot

        I think you asked me that once before, and the answer is still no. Never heard of it.

        • Wolfthatknowsall

          Sorry about that. I’ll remember, next time.

      • truebearing

        A person espousing the same deluded beliefs used to post on the Daily Caller. He claims that wasn’t him either. It must have been a clone.

    • truebearing

      You are so far off it is scary. Hagel is an abject moron. He couldn’t tie his shoes without instructions.

      Obama combat drug trafficking? He sold guns to the drug cartels. He is pushing the Soros agenda where drugs will all be legalized.

      The only surveillance Obama is interested in is spying on us.

      Obama isn’t interested in creating joba, as he has so thoroughly proven. You haven’t figured that out yet?

      Yeah, the Golden Era is just beginning, with Obama enabling Muslims to get nukes, the economy to crash, the dollar to collapse, and the military to become a social justice experiment. You really are deluded.

      • Texas Patriot

        Congratulations. You have apparently swallowed the neoconservative propaganda package hook, line, and sinker. Hopefully you will enjoy your seat at the table alongside John McCain, Lindsay Graham, John Boehner, and Mitch McConnell.. From my perspective, your line of thinking is a perfect example of why the American people are so completely fed up with the Republican Party.

        • Wolfthatknowsall

          Although the Left has started using the term “neoconservative”, it’s primary usage is among libertarians (who tend to agree with the Left, on some issues). No conservative uses the term, which has strong anti-Semitic overtones.

          The followers of Ron Paul … every bit as zealous in their support for him as the Left is in its support for Obama … would take the United States down the same path as Obama on many issues. These include his misguided and often suicidal foreign policy and his attitude towards cutting the military.

          Had I the choice of voting for Mr. Paul, or his son … for that matter … I would have to hold my nose as if he were a DEM. I would do it, but not without serious reservations.

          • Texas Patriot

            Despite the misplaced fantasies of “Mr. Truebearing”, I have never been a supporter of Ron Paul or Rand Paul. I agree with them that unnecessary and unwinnable foreign land wars are a fool’s errand and a huge mistake for the United States, but the world is a dangerous place and we must be prepared to respond to existential threats to national security as and when they arise and by any means necessary. That means developing and maintaining global surveillance and interdiction technologies second to none and a willingness to use them, as needed, on a moment’s notice to protect and defend the United States and our friends and allies, including Israel.

          • Wolfthatknowsall

            I generally agree with you.

            However, sometimes existential threats to the nation must be sorted out on their ground, before they take their hatred to our ground. No war is unwinnable, but the the enemy must be clearly identified, and governments that support the enemy must be clear about the consequences of their support.

            The days of nation-states warring against nation-states may soon be over, with the advent of global jihad. But nations that support such attacks must know that there are many consequences, including military responses, that they will suffer for their support.

            It’s another form of MAD, and our enemies … terror groups or nation-states … must quickly be made to realize what the United States can do to them. This takes political will, on our part, along with a powerful military.

        • truebearing

          Because I think Hagel is a moron, I’m a neo-conservative? Your reasoning is as bad as your reading comprehension. There is nothing in my comment that supports your inane accusation.

          People with ideas like yours aren’t going to help anyone. Hagel is a fool, and was chosen to be SOD for that very reason. That you agree with him says it all.

    • Drakken

      I really want the drugs you are on, when it comes right down too it and 5,000 years of history, you cannot make warfare a bloodless affair, no matter how many video games you play. With your hero Obummers economic policies grinding the US into the ground, just what jobs are Americans going to have if he continues? The American Eagles wings are being clipped as we speak and your under the delusion that it will all get better if we just bring the troops home from everywhere and stick our heads in the sand. To have peace, one must be prepared for war, and it ain’t no video game.

      • Texas Patriot

        If you think truth is a drug, I highly recommend it to you. Try it. You’ll probably like it. But first you will have to give up the false assumption that Obama and the Democrats are the source of all America’s problems. The loss of millions of American jobs and entire industries to overseas competition did not happen overnight, nor was it the fault of one political party or the other. Rather, it has been the result of the abject failure of both political parties to recognize that America is in competition with the rest of the world for high tech and high value added manufacturing industries, and it’s a competition we’ve been losing for the last fifty years. Either we turn that around, or it’s all over hot shot.

        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vWM08DzTuhY

        • Drakken

          I will give you this, our political parties are broken, period, every goddamn one of them ought to be purged from our system, they have been bought and paid for by various special interest lobbies. Unfortunately, if you cut the military to the bone as Obummer is doing, you invite aggression and telegraph weakness to allies and enemies alike. You fail to realize and understand the basic component of human nature. War is a natural condition of the human race, and that will never change for at least another thousand years or so. Libdolts think you can make peace with wishful thinking and bribery. It always ends in bloodshed.

  • antisharia

    The Democrats, going back to Jefferson, have always loathed the military, and for modern democrats it’s the one area of the budget that they are willing to cut. Sadly libertarian minded Republicans are often their allies. Coolidge didn’t believe in defense spending either, and many Tea Party Republicans, like Justin Amash, are ok with this. The Democrats always think that their diplomatic brilliance is just days away from creating a permanent world peace, while people with IQ’s higher than 25 know that’s idiotic, and that should a war break out it can be won with cruise missiles and air strikes and avoid the messiness, and political backlash, of an infantry war. This is nothing new. Democrats rip the military to pieces, the GOP builds it back up, and just when we get to have a real fighting force again the Democrats come back into power and start hollowing it out into an empty shell again.

  • Wolfthatknowsall

    Well, there is a silver lining. Gun-owners and veterans … like me … will far outnumber the Army, should the president decide to turn them on the American people.

    Can the US Army even field a single corps? And the loss of the A-10 is a tragedy. I realize that the F-35 is intended to be a multirole aircraft, but the A-10 is one of the best tactical bombers that any nation has ever had.

    It will take at least a decade or two to restore the US Armed Forces, after Obama and Heygal are done with them. Will we have the time and manufacturing capacity to meet the challenges of the next 20 years. I suspect that Obama is hoping, “Not.”

    • WhiteHunter

      Note that those who want to scrap the very successful, battle-proven A-10 are exactly the same ones who want to block acquisition and deployment of the F-35 in adequate numbers because “it’s too expensive.”

      And they’re also the same ones who have fought against missile defense every step of the way, and still do.

      Other than rocks and sticks, it’s hard to think of ANY weapon system that (according to them) isn’t either “too expensive” or “won’t work.” Any excuse will do to prevent us from establishing or maintaining military superiority. How cynical of anyone to suspect that’s because they don’t want us to. How DARE we question their loyalty!

      • A Z

        Spot on

      • NAHALKIDES

        Yes, they object to any truly effective weapons system. They’re probably the same people who object to any practical source of energy and only support things that won’t work, like wind and solar.

      • DennisMets

        This article is a must read, because ovomit and the blacks will not be happy until they have enough people to declare an all out war on whites. everything blacks do suggest they want more and more violence and their solution to every thing is more and more violence . americanthinkervvv/when_black_americans_become_good_germans

        • DennisMets

          Moreover,
          no other subculture has nourished a Farrakhan, who waits for the mother
          ship to arrive and expects the extermination of whites. There is no
          Latino or Asian or Native American equivalent.

          There
          is no major infiltration of Islam into Latin, Asian, Native American,
          or white cultures — but Islam flourishes in black culture. It is
          treated as respectable; trendy pastors adopt new names and become imams,
          and the churches refrain from launching a vigorous response.
          To defend the faith might mean opening fissures in “just us.”
          There is no Latin or Asian Sharpton, damning Jews:
          “If the Jews want to get it on, tell them to pin their yarmulkes back and come over to my house.”
          “Talk about how Oppenheimer in South Africa sends diamonds straight to Tel Aviv and deals with the diamond merchants right here in Crown Heights.”
          In no
          other subculture is so much blatant anti-Semitism tolerated; it has
          festered for decades like an open sore, and no dressing is ever
          applied. What Latin or Asian poet has written like this?

          “I got the extermination blues, jew-boys. I got the Hitler syndrome figured.”

          “We are all beautiful (except white people, they are full of, and made of sh&t).”

          “Come up, black dada / nihilismus. Rape the white girls. Rape / their fathers. Cut the mothers’ throats.”

          “The fag’s death they gave us on a cross… they give us to worship a dead jew and not ourselves.”

      • truebearing

        Bullseye.

      • BS77

        Extinction ALERT!!!!! Save the A 10 Warthog!!!!

    • A Z

      When liberals compare military budgets we need to consider 2 things

      Purchasing Power Parity

      And that the China steals a lot of our R& D.

      It is much cheaper to pay for a modern military if you do not pay for bleeding edge R & D but simply steal it.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purchasing_power_parity

    • kasandra

      Given the unit cost of an F-35, no one is going to risk one in the CAS role. Plus, it doesn’t have near the payload capacity or loiter time of an A-10, especially without carrying a bomb load externally, which would seriously degrade its stealth characteristics. So, essentially, he’s replacing the A-10s with nothing. Given the cutbacks under Obama prior to now we, to the best of my knowledge, have no new nuclear delivery vehicles in the pipeline, have not been updating our nuclear stockpile, are working on no new long range strategic bombers, ICBMs or SSBNs, we’ve limited the anticipated 700+ buy of F-35s to about 168 airframes, limited the buy of an anticipated 32 Zumwalt class destroyers to 3 (yes, that’s 3) cancelled a new advanced amphibious vehicle for the Marines, a new self-propelled howitzer for the Army and so on and so on and so on. Obama has said he’s uncomfortable with the notion of victory and now he’s making sure the rest of the U.S. will be as well, whether we want to be or not.

      • kasandra

        I meant limited the F-22 buy. We’ll probably be lucky to get 168 F-35s.

        • Wolfthatknowsall

          And note the reaction of the Obama administration to the F-22. He said that America no longer needs an air superiority fighter.

          I can’t imagine someone being as shortsighted as that. It’s like the Air Force saying that we didn’t need a long-range escort for our bombers, in 1942. Had they not developed the P-51 Mustang, the Allies quite literally would have lost the Second World War.

  • Sgt Maj

    We were unprepared at the beginning of WWII (FDR = dumocrat) and we were unprepared at the start of Korea (who remembers Task Force Smith?) (HST = dumocrat) and we were unprepared for Vietnam (JFK and LBJ = dumocrats) but we were totally prepared for Desert Storm (Bush-41 = Republican).
    Anyone see a pattern here?

  • poptoy1949

    Chuck Hagel is the biggest of all Traitors and he does have an Agenda. Ask Israel……

  • Wolfthatknowsall

    In 2008, Obama said that he wanted a “civilian defense force” equal in
    power and funding to the US military. Consider the following:

    * Obama is drawing down the Air Force, and the Navy.

    * Obama, through his dimwitted SecDef, is drawing down the US Army to
    pre-WWII levels, with more cuts to come. The Army will not be able to
    field a single Corps, indicating that the Pentagon has abandoned its
    long-held belief that the United States should be able to fight two wars
    … Atlantic and Pacific … at once.

    * The Pentagon is killing the A-10. Although the plane is capable of bombing soft targets, its primary purpose is as a tank-killer, and it’s probably the
    best platform for this purpose ever created. In other words, the
    Pentagon doesn’t see themselves fighting a conventional war, again.

    * The military has relaxed dress codes to allow enlisted personnel to
    wear headgear associated with their religion. This has the purpose of
    enticing primarily Muslims to join the US Army.

    * My own son has told me that further cuts in the Army are coming (part of his research for future military “history”)

    In essence, what I’m saying is that the US military IS the Civilian Defense Force. It’s purpose is to be used on the US mainland against internal threats. Read that: us. I believe that the plan is, as soon as we are sufficiently suppressed, that a false flag event leads to a declaration of martial law, and a”Red Dawn” scenario is enacted by our enemies (at the invitation of our own government), and a long night of oppression and outright murder descends upon the United States.

    Note that this doesn’t have to be a vast conspiracy. Just a few people could know these plans, and with the president enabling it.
    Now that I’ve got your attention, have a nice day!

    • NAHALKIDES

      That’s an interesting idea, and it could happen eventually, but not I think until Obama is long gone. He has less than 3 years in office left, and in that time he can’t sufficiently corrupt what remains of the Army nor disarm we the citizenry. If Obama were to try to maintain himself in office, the Army wouldn’t support him and the majority of the people would be prepared to remove him by force if necessary. Of course, the rest of the Democrats are no better, so we’ll still have to guard ourselves against them if they’ve so rigged the game we can’t win the Presidency any more.

      • Wolfthatknowsall

        Concerning one point …

        I mentioned my son, in the comment you responded to. He’s a full colonel in the Army, and works as a military historian at the Pentagon (he was a battalion commander in Afghanistan). He told me about the day several officers … one a Brigadier General … came into his office and asked him “the litmus test”.

        He phrased his answer very carefully, and it must not have set off any alarm bells in their minds, because he’s still at his job.

        They started with the flag officers, now they’re asking colonels, and how long will it take to get to get to the lieutenants?

        There is a litmus test, and it involves whether or not officers would order men under their command to fire on American citizens on American soil.

        • NAHALKIDES

          If that is true, and I have heard this before, it is not only deeply shocking but something that urgently needs to be exposed. It would require the cooperation of many senior officers, however, and they would have to be willing to go public with these allegations when possibly they have been ordered not to.

          Someone would have to initiate an investigation. I think the press is hopeless, and probably House committees would be very reluctant to involve themselves in what could be seen as Area 51-type nuttiness. Perhaps some House investigators could be sent to begin quietly interviewing members of the military.

          • Wolfthatknowsall

            I like the quiet interview route. Also, those flag-rank officers who have been dismissed from the military should be first on the list to be interviewed.

          • Drakken

            It is really surreal that the Flag officers who have been “retired” early have not been heard from.

        • WhiteHunter

          A truly terrifying thought to have to worry about…depending on the underlying implication: I.e. either, “If Obama (or Hagel, or Dempsey) issued such an order and we refused to obey it, could we count on you, our fellow officers, to side with us in likewise refusing to carry it out?”
          or (frighteningly): “If the President issued such an order in a time of national emergency, would you do your sworn duty to obey the Commander in Chief, however much you might disagree with it, put aside your personal misgivings, and carry out that order to put down the rebellion?”
          We always think of our own troops (justifiably, I hope and believe) as decent citizen-soldiers above all else who would never, ever, follow such an order.
          But there are so many examples of the opposite that it can’t help but give one a shiver: not just Nicholas II’s troops firing on peaceful demonstrators outside the Czar’s palace, or the “Peterloo Massacre” in England, but the U.S. Army firing on striking miners in Rockefeller’s coal fields, and in the 1930s violently rousting the “Bonus Marchers” in D.C. at the command of…MacArthur and Eisenhower.
          If you just look at some of the posts from Obama’s blindly loyal, hate-filled followers here (and especially on the Fox website’s Comments), it’s clear that there are many, many of them who would be just fine with that sort of “final solution” for his detractors, and would even eagerly participate in it themselves. I hope it’s not naive of me to believe that our own troops would not.

          • Wolfthatknowsall

            I pray that our own troops would not fire at us, especially if we are not presenting a threat to life, at the time they receive the order. A demonstration or protest is not a threat to life, even if some of the demonstrators are armed (like in the Tea Party rallies of 2010). There is a very limited and precise definition of what constitutes a jeopardy situation.

        • Drakken

          Those very same officers haven’t thought it through, if that order would be given, there would be a lot of officers very afraid to being fragged by their own.

          • Wolfthatknowsall

            It happened often enough in Vietnam, for many different reasons. The usual officers for such attacks were 2cd Lieutenants. Discipline and morale was low, due to the nature of the war, and untested officers ordering actions that soldiers understood were suicidal.

            In what we’re talking about, there will be a general division between those who are for obeying the orders, and those who refuse. It could be the genesis of civil war.

          • Drakken

            I do know that the rank and file Marine is extremely concerned about said actions, the officers in charge are now very concerned about obeying a illegal order and wonder who among them will obey it. They also wonder if one of their troops will put a bullet in them if they try. This is the new reality of what we are living in today, when the economy crashes, that will be the ultimate test of their oath to the Constitution.

      • dad1927

        What about the Muslim the democrats will run after obama? You know the repubs run the most connected billionaire they can find.

        • NAHALKIDES

          Yes, we have a huge problem. Republicans can only win with a really good candidate, and the Establishment wants another of its own (Jeb Bush, Bobby Jindal), while the Democrats can win with anyone because there base is so large now.

  • Lanna

    This is the mistake the Left always makes…they cut the ability to be able to deal with our enemies. It never works throughout history…arrogance and stupidity make innocent people suffer for their mistakes…innocent people pay the price for an over zealous government who would rather demean our military, cut defenses, and make the United States a 3rd world nation….Obama’s goal is to make us just a second rate country with little respect from other nations.

  • ADM64

    Right now, the Navy has more admirals than ships – and has for some time. The officer corps is 15% of the force (in all services), at least twice (and possibly three times) the number for a truly professional, effective military. Soldiers who serve twenty years get to retire with full pensions. The up or out promotion system discourages excellence. Every major weapons program is in trouble from a conceptual, design, and procurement process. We have major ethical problems. The military’s priorities seem to be encouraging more women and gays to serve (women are 15% of the force; want to bet that won’t be reduced despite zero net benefit to military effectiveness) and discouraging sexual harassment. Winning wars and buying effective weapons comes low down. So…while this administration has been a disaster, there are a whole set of other problems that pre-date it and that need to be fixed, and many of those problems are the direct result of a largely incompetent military leadership. Cuts will be needed; they could be smart – we’re bankrupt after all; but fundamental reform of the armed forces is essential.

  • mattogilvie55

    Given the DNC’s anti-military history, I’m surprised they waited this long to start gutting the military.

  • Contrarian

    Now I understand why Obama chose a useful idiot like Hagel.

  • john4637

    Can’t defend the nation nor stop a dictator from overthrowing a nation if the military is just a skeleton force!

  • BS77

    Extinction alert!!! Save the Warthog!!!!

    • Habbgun

      LOL!!! I lived in Tucson once….shame to see a noble beast exterminated by haterz.

  • Habbgun

    Like anything else in the modern age..it can always revert…there will be privateering…..America is going to make somebody very rich and I doubt it will be the Progressives who will enjoy the outcome. Their whole lives are dependent on a very layered, very choreographed global society. It is the very America that they hate that made that possible.

  • Lemrob

    Social Security is not an entitlement. That is money owed to the people who paid into it. The country owes it to them

    • Myrtle Linder

      You said it!! One of the socialist favorite lies, is telling the world how much the USA government is giving her citizens in Social Security, while they grin like the hungry wolf in the fairy tale. Our children and our grandchildren keep the money flowing into those coffers

  • Richard O. Mann

    America. It was fun while it lasted.

  • flowerknife_us

    Our home grown Communists are having a field day.

  • GSR

    Every notice commercials/promotions for the armed forces on TV and radio since Barry Soetoro “marketed” his way into the White House?
    You’d be hard pressed to see a normal looking White American young man in any of them. They all feature Black females, foreign born (immigrants) serving I n uniform. I haven’t seen a Mohammedan yet but I expect to anytime, as well as cross-dressing perverts and lesbians in uniform.
    Obama bin Lyin’ and the Leftists have always thought the US Armed Forces was “too White and too male”. They are achieving their goals.

  • tanstaafl

    And how well did this work when we had to go to war after Pearl Harbor?

  • dude

    So we are being st up for the kill?

  • vladimirval

    Obama and his administration have done more damage to America’s ability to defend itself and its interests around the world than any other president including the Carter administration. America has been the primary, if not the only, force that has kept the international shipping lanes open to all nations. America’s military strength has deterred aggression around the world. the current administration has enboldened enemies of freedom and liberty even before gutting our military and curtailing its effectiveness. With a weakened military, our enemies will move to fill the void left left by us. China is on the verge of becoming a dominant power not only in Asia but the world. They are moving to manipulate the world monetary system, at the same time they are building up their military capability. It is becoming the big gorilla on the world scene, while America is becoming feckless cartoon character. Nations that were our friends are looking elsewhere to align themselves with. Russia is moving to expand its influence in the world and are still hard at work opposing America. With a military weakened America will not be able to defend it self. A complete remake of our government is needed, first Congress and then the White House. We have a nation to save. So let’s get going now.

  • American1969

    While I have no problem cutting wasteful spending even in the military, reducing troop sizes and removing essential equipment is not only dangerous, it’s just plain stupid. Both Obama and Hagel are putting this country and its troops at risk. Both need to be fired!

    Worst President Ever. Worst Administration Ever.

    • oldeagle145

      The damage they are doing is going to be tough to fix. These cut are going to cripple military manufacturing and tooling. It’s disgusting.

      • Drakken

        I believe that we are past the tipping point, it only gets worse from here.

        • oldeagle145

          The damage done to our country, industrially, politically, and spiritually has forever changed it. If and when We do take it back, I’m not sure what we will have on the backside.

          • Drakken

            I am starting to really give Heinlein a second look where his idea of being a citizen relies on being in the armed forces. It is obvious that our electorate is to stupid to be relied upon to what is best for the country.

          • oldeagle145

            I have considered that very same thing. That is real skin in the game.

    • Drakken

      We are going to pay for this treachery with lots of blood. I thought Carter was the worst? I should have known sooner or later an Obummer was going to come along and really fu** things up worse than Carter.

  • Danny

    So our military is being (let’s be honest) disassembled, while the militaries of our enemies (including terrorist groups) are growing. But that’s okay! Because Obama is going to take that money that he’s saving by reducing our military to suicidal levels, and he’s going to spend it on something that I’m sure is just as important as having a strong military…like foodstamps for instance. Everybody has the right to get some form of publicly funded entitlements, no matter how well off they might be! Seriously though, even the most ardent libertarian spend-thrift will tell you that the one essential job of the government is to protect the people; with police for domestic threats, and with a military for external threats. Every other bloated and soul crushing entitlement program is a (to paraphrase Orwell) boot stomping on a human face. Forever.

  • kasandra

    To be clear, I am responding to “Texas Patriot.”

  • Guest

    Comment deleted.

  • truebearing

    It isn’t technically a lack of intelligence that is too blame. It is TP’s rigid dogmatism and penchant for self-delusion. He is a Ron Paul type.

  • kasandra

    My comment was deleted but here’s the gist. Texas Patriot – If you think Hagel (see, Obama) is on the right track, as you said, name one public figure not connected with administration that thinks these cuts are a good idea. One person. Come on, you’ve had several days. Where is all the support for this continued slashing of our defense posture if it’s the right track.