I’m not sure if it’s just my paranoia, but when news regarding the 2012 Pentagon and Military budget was released, and I hear our Commander in Chief say that it is necessary to “Minimize the Military” and its spending, I began to pack my bags. Next stop… anywhere but HERE. Needless to say, I don’t believe this new tactic will bode too well for the American people, and for that folks, I’m HATIN.
Let me explain.
I believe that cuts should be made in our military spending, but the issue lies in where our limited, almighty dollar, will garner the best return on investment.
Obama’s proposed cuts to the military, as a New York Times editorial explains, “Is based on the idea that the country must be smarter and more restrained in its use of force… It will mean a significant reduction in the size of the Army and Marine Corps. But it doesn’t minimize the fact that the world is a very dangerous place and says the country must still be ready to fight a major land war — although one lasting for years would require another buildup.”
The new tactic shows perceived confidence in dealing with national threats by air power, intelligence, special operations or innovative technologies, like drones.
The Times explains that Mr. Obama wants to “spend less on nuclear weapons and focus more resources on naval and air power in the Strait of Hormuz, to contain an increasingly assertive Iran, and in Asia, to moderate and counterbalance China’s ambitions.”
And, the Pentagon plans to shrink the Army even below current targets, dropping to 490,000 soldiers over the next decade.
Now I’m confused… I thought he wanted to cut spending to the Marines? Are the powers that be aware that the Marines are a large part of the USA's naval-based defense? And what about the idea of cutting the number of "land" soldiers, only to build it back up if a war breaks out and lasts longer than expected? Wouldn't that take time (that we don't have... Hello, we're engaged in war) to build up a new force of soldiers, ready to fight?
#DidntThinkThisThrough
This is where I begin to raise an eyebrow… It doesn’t make much sense to me to shrink/cut soldiers, who, mind you, just returned from fighting two land-based wars, and are trained to kill. Talk about a reason to go "postal." Do we REALLY think that taking away their jobs and cutting their benefits is a proper "Thank You" for their service, or that they would actually stand for it? I think NOT. Why are we eliminating their jobs as opposed to reassigning them to DEFENSE.
I feel that we have a backwards way of thinking here and believe our country to be a bit delusional when it comes to how the world perceives U.S. To put it bluntly – Everyone HATES us. So, as we end our respective wars, and perfect our naval and air strike tactics, it is IMPERATIVE that we reallocate some of those budget dollars on protecting our borders.
Someone please explain to me the usefulness of an unemployed soldier, especially when cuts could be made in many other areas of the military, without the dangerous backlash the current plans could evoke. Here are just a few areas the US could scale back on:
- Hiring/Pay Freeze for Government Officials, Congress and the Pentagon – It’s not fair that the civil service folk and soldiers are the first to experience cuts when we acknowledge a deficit.
- Wasteful Spending on Unsubstantiated/Unnecessary Weapons – If we’re focusing on Air and Water attacks, put a halt to, at least for the time being, on the development of weapons that cannot be used in those two ways.
- Payments to NATO - Obama sought in his address to minimize the military costs to the United States by saying NATO will now take the lead. But the fact is that the United States pays the largest share of NATO’s budget — a key omission by the president.
Live Free, Die HATIN’
No comments:
Post a Comment