What's Happening to the US Military?

VERNUCCIO/ALLISON REPORT

Frank Vernuccio 

What’s happening to the American military?

Americans have always debated how much to spend on defense. The current Administration’s apparent disdain of the military itself, however, is an unprecedented development.

It’s well known that the White House is determined to continue slashing the already sharply reduced military budget. One immediate effect has been the removal of vitally needed funds for training. As noted in an Investors Daily report, General Ray Odierno, the Army’s chief of staff, has admitted that there has been no substantial training in the six months prior to September 30. Because of this, according to Odierno, only two Army brigades are currently combat-ready, less than a third of the minimum number necessary to protect the nation.

The crisis also extends to our sea power.

The Navy has stated that America’s vital forward defense, our aircraft carrier force, has now been reduced to nine vessels.11 is the widely accepted minimum number needed for safety.

As this column has previously reported, these latest decreases come on top of massive reductions already in place. The U.S. navy has shrunk from 600 ships to 284, the Air Force from 37 combat air wings to 20, and the U.S. army from 18 divisions to 10.

Most frighteningly, the U.S. nuclear deterrent has aged and shrunk to the point of being potentially unreliable, while our adversaries-the Russians and the Chinese-have spent enormous sums modernizing and expanding their atomic and ICBM arsenals.

The once promising U.S. missile defense program, initiated by President Reagan, has yet to be fully developed. President Obama has been virulent in his opposition to this life-, indeed, nation-saving technology that could deter a missile attack on American civilians. During his first presidential campaign, he famously advocated reducing more funds from the program than were actually allocated to it.

As more nations, and potentially terrorists organizations, acquire nuclear technology, including North Korea and Iran, both of whom have sworn to use such weapons against the U.S., this is a policy error of the highest magnitude.

During his second presidential campaign, Mr. Obama was caught on an open microphone promising Russia’s Medvedev that he would be “more flexible” in a key weapons issue after his re-election, surely one of the first times a U.S. President felt more comfortable being honest with a Russian leader about military matters than with his own constituents.

There is sufficient evidence that top military commanders who have expressed their dissatisfaction with White House defense policies have been punished for their honesty.

There are repeated reports about top generals and admirals being replaced,detrimentally reassigned, or compelled to resign for all sorts of unconvincing reasons, none actually related to the performance of their duties.

A WND report notes that top generals and admirals describe the Obama Administrations’ removal of nine generals and admirals this year alone as a “purge.”

It’s a process that begin almost immediately after President Obama took office in 2009. Within months of moving into the Oval Office, he sacked General David McKiernan, the general in charge of the Afghanistan war. Then he fired his replacement, General McChrystal. He fired his chief of intelligence, General David Petraeus. General John Allen, another key Afghanistan figure, resigned unexpectedly.

General Carter Ham was fired shortly after the White House refused to allow a rescue mission to save the U.S. ambassador in the Benghazi incident. Similarly, Admiral David Gaurette, in charge of the John C. Stennis Aircraft Carrier group in the middle east, was relieved in the wake of the disaster for similar reasons. Speculation runs high that both men protested Obama’s lack of action. Marine General James Cartwright has also been harassed into resigning.

Chiefs involved with the U.S. nuclear deterrent that have been dismissed include Vice Admiral Tim Giardina and Major General Michael Carey.

Some retired leaders also state they are harassed in their new civilian jobs following criticism of White House actions.

Other odd policies also smack of an anti-military attitude on the part of the Oval Office. These include decisions such as harassing Christian chaplains, a short-lived attempt to label evangelicals as “extremists” and seminars portraying legitimate political groups that disagree with the President as “terrorists.”

Specific steps have been taken to detrimentally affect morale. Examples include eliminating the Navy’s traditional “don’t tread on me” insignia, and the Marines dress cap.

As noted by a number of observers, there is significant irony in the labeling of Tea Party followers-who advocate adherence to the U.S. Constitution and who have been known mostly for their political activism advocating adherence to American law and tradition– as “terrorists” by the same presidential administration that referred to the incident in which Nidal Hassan, the Moslem Fort Hood army psychiatrist who shot 13 soldiers, as “workplace violence.”

These are dangerous actions, made all the more so because they have been done without any input from the legislative branch or discussion with the public.