- MUST READS
- PRODUCTS
- RESOURCES
- MULTIMEDIA
- ENFACTLOPEDIA
- FSM AUTHORS
- ABOUT US
- CONTACT US
- FSM BLOG
- DONATE
- PRESS COVERAGE
SEARCH FSM
- IN THIS SECTION
August 24, 2009
Exclusive: Cuts in National Defense Nothing to Cheer About
James Carafano, PhD, Presidential Policy: Does It Make the Grade?
President Obama gave his first “national security” speech in a long time, speaking to the national convention of the Veterans of Foreign Wars. It was a speech worthy of cheers and jeers.
On the plus side, the president sounded spot on making the case for finishing the job in Iraq, winning in Afghanistan, and taking care of America’s veterans.
On the other hand, he also made a sales pitch for “soft power,” something that we’ve talked about in this column before. Soft power means relying more on civilian aid and diplomacy. The problem is that in war zones like Afghanistan, you need more “hard power” to make soft power work. There have to be boots on the ground to defend aid workers. Otherwise, the aid workers just become “more targets.” The senior military officer running operations in Afghanistan is due to report back to Washington soon with a “strategic assessment” of how things are going in the fight against al Qaeda and the Taliban stooges. Odds are, he will ask for more troops. The president will need to provide them. That will be tough call. Recent polls show fighting for Afghanistan is less popular here at home. Still, as Heritage analyst Lisa Curtis points out, crushing al Qaeda once and for all is an important U.S. interest and that can’t be done without saving Afghanistan and pressing Pakistan to do more to go after al Qaeda and the Taliban on their side of the border. Neither can be accomplished without a determined U.S. military effort and that effort will require more U.S. forces. The president’s speech would have been a lot more reassuring if he announced his willingness to support additional troop commitments.
The president’s speech was at its worst talking about the defense budget and cheerleading for draconian cuts in new programs being rammed through by Defense Secretary Gates. Obama characterized the cuts as smart business decisions – axing unneeded weapons and killing costly programs. From massive cuts to missile defense to pairing back on how many ships and planes America needs, the truth is that the administration is more interested in budget-slashing than smart buying. They are gutting buying defenses for the future to pay for operations in Afghanistan and Iraq. The proof of this is simple. They are cutting programs and replacing them with…nothing. The Pentagon’s plan is to simply ignore future needs or else push the decision to buy new equipment far into the future, when paying for new planes, combat vehicles, missile defenses, and ships will be somebody else’s problem. Heritage defense analyst Baker Spring argues that the Obama administration, despite its rhetoric to the contrary, is grossly under funding the long term needs of our men and women in uniform. If the White House does not change course on its long-term defense budget plans military preparedness will crumble.
Presidential speechmaking aside, the major national security news last week was the national election in Afghanistan. By authoritative accounts the election was a success. Heritage analysts Lisa Curtis (who has recently traveled to Afghanistan) and Jim Phillips conclude the elections offer further proof that the U.S. can succeed in Afghanistan, if Obama sees through on U.S. commitments. That remains to be seen. Grade – incomplete.
FamilySecurityMatters.org Contributing Editor James Jay Carafano, Ph.D., is a leading expert in defense affaires, intelligence, military operations and strategy, and homeland security at the Heritage Foundation. Feedback: editorialdirector@familysecuritymatters.org.
Reader Comments: Submit Your Comment (0)
| Print This E-mail This |
|
