Cut U.S. commitments, not muscle
In that year of happy memory, 1972, George McGovern, the Democrat presidential nominee, declared he would chop Defense by fully one-third.
A friendly congressman was persuaded to ask Defense Secretary Melvin Laird to expatiate on what this might mean.
The Pentagon replied that the Sixth Fleet might have to be pulled out of the Med and provided the congressman a list of U.S. bases that would have to be shut down.
Radio ads were run in the towns closest to the bases on the Pentagon list, declaring they would be closed and all jobs terminated should McGovern win.
Something akin to this is going on with the impending sequester.
A cut of 7 percent, $46 billion, in Pentagon spending, says Army chief Ray Odierno, will mean a “hollowing” out of his force.
The Navy? The carrier Harry Truman will not be sailing to the Persian Gulf. The Abraham Lincoln will not be overhauled in Newport News. Thousands of jobs will be lost.
Reporter Rowan Scarborough writes that the Air Force has produced “a map of the U.S. that shows state-by-state the millions of dollars lost to local economies” should the ax fall.
But if an evisceration of national defense is imminent, why did President Obama not tell us in 2012? Why were the Joint Chiefs silent when they are panicked now?
Undeniably, spending cuts by sequester slicer, chopping all equally, is mindless. And with national security, it manifests a failure of both parties to come to terms with the world we are now in.
The Cold War is over. The Soviet Union is gone. Mao's China is gone although a mightier China has emerged. And as ex-chairman of the Joint Chiefs Mike Mullen contends, our greatest strategic threat is not Kim Jong Un or Mahmoud Ahmadinejad but the soaring national debt.
What is needed is what America, since the collapse of the Soviet Empire, has stubbornly resisted doing: a strategic review of all U.S. commitments abroad to determine which remain vital to national security. Before we decide what our defense forces should be, let us determine what is in the U.S. vital interest to defend at risk of war.
Start with NATO. In 1961, President Eisenhower urged JFK to bring home the U.S. forces and let the Europeans raise the armies to defend themselves, lest they become military dependencies.
More than 20 years after the Berlin Wall fell, we still have scores of thousands of troops in Europe.
Why? The European Union's economy is 10 times that of Russia. Europe's population is twice Russia's.
On retirement, Robert Gates said any future Defense secretary who advises a president to fight another land war in Asia ought to have his head examined. So why do we have 28,000 U.S. troops in Korea and 50,000 in Japan?
If Republicans wish to remain a viable party, they cannot delegate Defense decisions to the “We-are-all-Georgians-now!” crowd that plunged us into Iraq and is bawling for intervention in Syria and war on Iran.
The GOP desperately needs a credible, countervailing voice to the uber-hawks, whose bellicosity all but killed the party in the Bush era.
Obama is president because of them. And his most popular act, according to voter surveys from 2012? Ending the war in Iraq.
Pat Buchanan is the author of “Suicide of a Superpower: Will America Survive to 2025?”
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Steelers clinch trip to postseason with big victory over Chiefs
- Steelers-Bengals game to start at 8:30 p.m.
- Missed chances haunt Chiefs against Steelers
- Steelers offense learning to slam door
- Downie, Farnham bringing a much-needed edge to the Penguins
- Rossi: Steelers rising fast in mediocre AFC
- Steelers notebook: Gay respects ‘anything’ referees call
- Search for Duquesne University graduate Kochu continues
- Chiefs notebook: Trip not intentional, Walker maintains
- Heyward, swarming defense get best of Chiefs in Steelers’ win
- Outdoors notebook: Recruitment campaign fails in first year