Obama’s “Peace With Justice” Doctrine Requires a U.S. Military Smaller Than Turkey’s

0
Share

obama

Obama’s Peace with Justice doctrine, a phrase he himself coined, is a redistributive and social justice approach to defense allocations. It is the opposite of Reagan’s Peace with Strength. It likely means he will take the funds from our military and our defense systems and move them over to green energy, food stamps and welfare.

It seems as if Mr. Obama does not have a plan but he does. His plan is for full disarmament as he fundamentally transforms our military and the very foundation of our government.

President Obama has directed his Secretary of Defense, the useful idiot, Chuck Hagel, to bring the size of the military down to pre-World War II levels. We will have a military smaller than Turkey’s and half the size of Russia’s. China’s military will be more than four times larger than ours and North Korea’s almost three times larger.

Our enemies are rejoicing.

These cuts are made for political reasons:

The New York Times announced the cuts in advance of the Hagel speech Monday, writing:

“Officials who saw an early draft of the announcement acknowledge that budget cuts will impose greater risk on the armed forces if they are again ordered to carry out two large-scale military actions at the same time: Success would take longer, they say, and there would be a larger number of casualties. Officials also say that a smaller military could invite adventurism by adversaries.”

Our military will face a larger number of casualties! This is unacceptable!

The Army was scheduled to drop to 490,000 troops from a post-9/11 peak of 570,000. Last year, Secretary of Defense Gates described that as “catastrophic.”

Under Mr. Hagel’s proposals, the Army would drop over the coming years to between 440,000 and 450,000, smaller than Turkey’s army.

Mr. Obama wants us to be a very diminished country. He does not want us to be a world power for his own reasons.

Listen to Lt. Col. Peters:

When the New York Times reported this, they wrote: “The changes reportedly would leave the military capable of waging war, but unable to carry out protracted occupations of foreign territory, as in Afghanistan and Iraq.”

In other words, Obama wants to be certain the U.S. will never again be dominant, be able to fight on two fronts, or sustain any occupation of enemy land. Unfortunately, the enemy gets a vote too and this leaves us in great danger.

Mr. Obama wants more money for the largely-failed green energy sector, assorted entitlement programs and the unaffordable ObamaCare. Obama is eager to do it on the backs of the soldiers and at risk to the safety of Americans.

Our fighters, not bureaucrats and contractors, will bear the brunt of the cuts.

Mr. Obama has never been proud of nor has he broadcast the successes and achievements of our military. He is anti-military and it’s never been clearer. He is cutting the budget on the backs of our soldiers.

 

Our allies no longer trust us and that is a feeling that will last far beyond Mr. Obama’s tenure as president:

 

Oddly, this comes at a time when the Director of the CIA James Clapper  is warning us that this is the most dangerous of times.

“I’ve not experienced a time when we have been beset by more crises and threats around the globe,” Clapper said on February 11th before the Senate Armed Services Committee.

“My list is long. It includes the scourge and diversification of terrorism, loosely connected and globally dispersed, to include here at home, as exemplified by the Boston Marathon bombing; the sectarian war in Syria, its attraction as a growing center of radical extremism and the potential threat this poses to the homeland… we live in a complex, dangerous world…”

Benefits for active­ duty personnel and their families would be slashed under a budget proposal released Monday by the Pentagon.

The budget would dramatically reduce the Army’s size and trigger a new round of controversial base closures while cutting healthcare copays and deductibles and reducing the subsidies military families get for housing and low-cost goods.

From the hill:

“We know the Defense Department must make difficult budget decisions, but these cuts would hit service members, making it harder for them and their families to make ends meet,” said Paul Rieckhoff, the founder and CEO of Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America (IAVA).

Coupled with a 1 percent ceiling on pay hikes and assuming a 5 percent annual increase in housing costs, the Military Officers Association of America estimated an Army sergeant with a family of four would see an annual loss of $1,400. An Army captain would lose $2,100, it said.

The group said those figures don’t account for other costs that would affect military families, such as increased prices at military commissaries because of another budget proposal and an increase in healthcare fees for military family members, according to the hill.

Only the medically retired would escape proposed cuts to healthcare copays and increases to deductibles.

While basic pay raises will be held to 1 percent in 2015 under the budget, general and flag officers would see a pay freeze.

The budget also calls for a new round of base closings in 2017, which lawmakers have fiercely resisted during the past two budget requests.

The Pentagon also proposed cuts to programs not geared toward future wars.

It would eliminate the Air Force’s A-10 “Warthog” attack jets, which provide ground troops with close air support. That would save $3.5 billion over five years, Hagel said.

It would retire the Air Force’s entire fleet of U­2 manned spy planes and replace them with unmanned Global Hawk aircraft.

The budget cuts the number of Navy littoral combat ships from 52 to 32.

The elimination of the A-10 will be particularly controversial with lawmakers.

President Obama is dramatically reducing our nuclear stockpile at the same time. Obama’s doctrine:

Share