Last week, President Obama announced major cuts in the nation’s defense program. I’m certain there is waste in every area of government operations, including the military. For that reason, I don’t have a knee-jerk reaction to defense cuts, as long as they do target waste and don’t weaken the nation’s ability to respond to threats.
But is that what the president has done? I’ve read analysis on both sides of this issue, and while I understand the desire to focus more on drones and other high-tech operations, is it really safe to cut back on the number of troops available? Do we put too much trust in high-tech gadgetry? The old refrain, “boots on the ground,” is still relevant.
I might not be quite as concerned if I could trust the man in charge. If, for instance, a Ronald Reagan-type of president argued for a new direction in defense, I would be more comfortable with the rationale simply because I would know he wouldn’t sell out the country’s protection. Obama, however, doesn’t inspire the same degree of trust. In fact, I deeply suspect everything he does. Why? Because I understand his worldview. He has a long history of sympathy for radical causes, both within the U.S. and in foreign nations. His “church” for twenty years was an apologist for the terrorist organization Hamas. He is also blatantly anti-Israel.
With respect to our dependence on drones, it was just a couple weeks ago that Iran captured one of them and now has access to its technology. What was President Obama’s response to this capture? He meekly asked for them to please return it. They laughed. What an astute negotiator.
Defending the nation from all enemies domestic and foreign is the primary reason for the existence of the national government. It’s the one most obvious area of the budget that is completely constitutional. I fear he has undercut our national security. I hope I’m wrong, but it would be in character.
I’m still praying this nightmare will end in November.