A Trump mandate: We have to restore America’s military strength

Commentary by James Shott

Everyone knows that the U.S. military is critical to the nation’s security, and that it is also important how foreign countries perceive America’s strength. That perception of our military and its civilian leadership can encourage careful, thoughtful and peaceful behavior by other countries, or a cavalier, carefree “we’ll do as we please” approach.

Now that the Barack Obama presidency is over, we must begin restoring the military and the world’s perception of America’s strength, both of which have been severely damaged over the last eight years. The security of not just our nation, but also of the world to a large degree, depend upon a strong America.

Back in 2015 Obama stated that the U.S. is now “the most respected country on Earth” thanks to his administration. That comment drew ire and fire on Fox News’ “The O’Reilly Factor.” Host Bill O’Reilly and Fox News contributor Charles Krauthammer both reacted strongly to the comment, with O’Reilly countering, “No, we’re not respected by Putin, we’re not respected by ISIS and other terrorists, so I don’t know what he is referring to.” Krauthammer wondered, “what planet he's living on,” and pointed out that “allies who’ve depended on us for so long are finding themselves left hanging in the wind.”

The rest of the segment detailed the many foreign policy failures of the Obama administration that contradict Obama’s delusional statement.

Two years ago The Heritage Foundation said this about funding for the military: “Consecutive years of across-the-board budget cuts have significantly weakened the U.S. military. The military will likely need several years of reinvestment to return to a sound footing.”

It is instructive to look at just how Obama’s eight years have affected the armed forces from the perspective of active members of the military.

A poll conducted by the Military Times and Syracuse University's Institute for Veterans and Military Families was a voluntary, confidential online survey taken by 1,664 active members of the U.S. armed forces. 

The poll reflects that 51.5 percent of those responding had a generally unfavorable view of Barack Obama’s presidency, and that 29.1 percent had a very unfavorable view, the largest response of the five possible answers. Only 36.4 percent had a generally favorable view, and only 18.0 percent had a very favorable view.

The Marine Corps had the strongest level of disapproval at 60.3 percent, followed by the Army at 53.0, the Air Force at 49.6, and the Navy was the least disapproving at 45.9. Enlisted service members had a 52.1 percent disapproval rate, while 48.8 percent of commissioned officers disapproved.

Seventy-one percent think overall force levels are too low, and 43 percent think more deployed forces are needed, compared to 32 percent who think fewer deployed forces are needed.

Asked how the following “social” measures affected readiness, participants responded: Repealing “don’t ask don’t tell” helped, by 24 to 18 percent; gender integration within combat units hurt, by 30 to 15 percent; and transgenders in service hurt, by 41 to 12 percent.

Participants believe the U.S. is less safe because of drawdowns from Iraq (59 percent) and Afghanistan (54 percent), and less emphasis on large-scale overseas missions (42 percent), but more safe from greater reliance on special forces (58 percent) and training missions (51 percent). And they believe the top four significant threats to the U.S. come from the Islamic State and al-Qaida (70 percent), domestic Islamic terrorists (67 percent), China (64 percent), and Iran (49 percent).

They say the military is smaller and weaker, and the threats against the nation have increased.

In a campaign speech last September, candidate Trump outlined his view of the U.S. military, and said he planned to ask military brass to present a plan soon after he takes office to defeat and destroy ISIS, and that he will ask Congress to eliminate the defense sequester.

Among the goals he seeks are: Building an active Army of about 540,000; a Marine Corps based on 36 battalions; a Navy nearing 350 surface ships and submarines; an Air Force of at least 1,200 fighter aircraft; and developing a new state-of-the-art missile defense system. And he intends to offset the spending for these goals by cutting waste and streamlining the bureaucracy, rather than increases in the $600 billion or so spent each year on the military.

"I'm going to make our military so big, so powerful, so strong, that nobody – absolutely nobody – is gonna (sic) mess with us," he said in a video posted on his campaign website.

Along those lines, his choice to run the Defense Department is retired Marine General James Mattis, a man well respected for his service and expertise, and who is expected to operationally strengthen all armed forces.

A strong military is just smart: Better to have one and not need it, than to need one and not have it. Blessedly, we now have a president who understands that a strong military presence can solve a host of problems before they ever materialize.

And, a president who strongly and unwaveringly supports what is good for America is a great improvement over the weak and tragic performance of the last eight years.

Cross-posted from Observations

America’s Blunt Force Military Blunted By Repeal Of Don't Ask, Don't Tell

America’s Blunt Force Military Blunted By Repeal Of Don't Ask, Don't Tell
A Commentary by J. D. Longstreet

A military is a blunt force. The waging of war is nothing less than blunt force trauma. Rough men who keep the people of the nation they serve safe inflict that blunt force trauma.

Over the weekend, a civilian Congress, with very few military veterans now serving within its ranks, voted to repeal the 17 year old “Don’t ask, Don’t tell” policy. With repeal of DADT, openly homosexual volunteers will be allowed to serve in the ranks of the US military. In doing so, the fate of the US Military, as a real fighting force, was ended. A force of fighting men feared and respected the world over has been reduced to the battlefield effectiveness of a troop of girl scouts.

I’m a veteran. I wear a US Army lapel pin awarded me by the Army some years ago. My truck had proudly boasted a US Army logo on the rear glass. I have, ‘til now, been proud to have been a member of the most effective fighting force in the history of the world -- the US Military.

Today, I do not feel that pride. What I feel is sorrow. And shame.

I cannot, in good conscious, encourage America’s young people to enlist in the US Military any longer. If I had any advice for parents of youngsters considering service in the US Military, I would advise them to make every effort to discourage their son or daughter from enlisting.

“Oh,” but you say, “the top brass said it would have no effective on the war-fighting ability of the US Military.” To that I say: “Don’t make me laugh!”

Look, when you have a military under civilian command, the top brass will say whatever the civilian bosses want to hear! Its what a soldier does! They say jump and he jumps.

I have often thought the US Military should not under the command of the President nor the congress but a co-equal branch of our government. I KNOW how radical that sounds, and for Americans it would be a radical departure from everything we have known as a country.

One must remember that America’s early government feared a standing army. They feared then, as some do today, that a standing army could over-throw the government and set up its own government any time it chose much as a few of the so-called “banana republics” do from time to time. There would be no one to stop them.

Since, at least, the 1950’s, the patriotic feeling that a man owed service to his country in the military has waned to a historic low. As a result we have the majority of our politicians with power over our military while they, themselves, have never spent one day in uniform and have absolutely no idea what it means to put your live on the line for your fellow Americans every single day. Yet they order our military personnel into harm’s way with the fervor reminiscent of an insane person with an extreme Napoleonic complex!

Allowing openly homosexual persons to serve in the US Military, regardless of all the BS propaganda we have been fed by the MSM, the “gay” special inertest groups, the leftist and liberal bleeding-heart politicians is going to accomplish three things: It will reduce the recruiting numbers forcing a resumption of the draft. (This time the draft will be for both men and women.). It will lower the morale of the serving troops. It will reduce the effectiveness of combat units at the point of the spear, it will increase casualty rates among American troops, it will reduce the respect for, and the fear of, the American fighting men, and it will, eventually, result in America winning no more wars. In other words – it will destroy history’s most effective fighting force -- ever. And finally, it will do irreparable damage to the national security of the United States.

America should prepare itself for so-called hate crimes within the military. How long do you suppose it will be before naked heterosexual males become incensed at having an openly homosexual male in the shower with them and decide to do something about it? Seems to me that scenario would be the equivalent of having a heterosexual male in the shower with a number of naked co-ed college students. I see no difference.

I’m not even going to speculate on the probable increase in “friendly fire” incidents involving openly homosexuals in combat zones.

What I am endeavoring to describe to you is the coming deterioration of our fighting forces into a non-cohesive conglomeration of young, virile, males -- trained to be killers -- acting as individuals with no loyalty to the man next to him. It will be every man for himself and to hell with the unit.

Sadly, when this happens, the military will not dare admit it has made a mistake – nor will the government. It will be too late by then anyway.

In a decade, or so, I expect America will have to lease a private army of mercenaries to provide national defense.

The decision to repeal DADT was not only naïve -- it was just plain stupid. America will pay a price in blood that can be slathered upon the hands of those politicians who endorsed it, upon the Commander-in-Chief who signed it into law, and upon the military leaders of the America military who had not the cajones to stand up and be counted and tell the Congress and the President the truth concerning their responsibility for destruction of America’s prized military.

It is a sad day for America and a happy day for America’s enemies.

J. D. Longstreet