Obama and Hagel Try to Eliminate America's World Military Dominance

Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel has revealed the defense component of the Obama 2015 budget, set to be sent to Congress next week. Hagel's defense budget shrinks the Army to its smallest size since 1940, closing bases and reshaping forces to operate in a "more volatile, more unpredictable" world with a more flexible military that has fewer ground troops. Looking beyond America's post-9/11 wars, Hagel said the US can afford a smaller military as long as it maintains its technological advantage and the agility to respond on short notice to crises anywhere on the globe. He said the priorities he outlined reflect a consensus among America's military leaders. Hagel described it as the first Pentagon budget to fully reflect the nation's transition from 13 years of war. In a speech to mark his first year as Defense Secretary, Hagel revealed the core of his plan - the fact that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan proved longer and more costly than foreseen, and that the US military will no longer be sized to conduct large and protracted ground wars. It will put more emphasis on versatile, agile forces that can project power over great distances, including in Asia. Hagel stressed that such changes entail risk : "We are entering an era where American dominance on the seas, in the skies and in space can no longer be taken for granted." However, Hagel contends that budget constraints demand new approaches, and he proposed a variety of changes in military compensation, including smaller pay raises, a slowdown in the growth of tax-free housing allowances and a requirement that retirees and some families of active-duty service members pay more in health insurance deductibles and co-pays. "Although these changes will not cut anyone's pay, I realize they will be controversial," Hagel said, adding that America cannot afford the escalating cost of military pay and benefit packages that were enacted during the war years. "If we continue on the current course without making these modest adjustments now, the choices will only grow more difficult and painful down the road," he said. ~~~~~ Secretary Hagel may have the agreement of the millitary, but after the high-level officer purges carried out by President Obama and Hagel, one wonders what this "agreement" really means. Congress has already set a fiscal 2015 Pentagon budget of $496 billion, under a congressional deal passed two months ago that holds the Pentagon's 2015 budget at the 2014 level. But Hagel said Obama's overall 2015 budget proposal also will include a government-wide "Opportunity, Growth and Security Initiative" that would provide the Pentagon with an additional and separate $26 billion - assuming there will be no return to across-the-board sequestration. He said the new money would be used for increased training and other partially neglected activities central to making the military ready for combat, but Hagel says there are still major decisions to be made on how the total budget should be spent to best protect the nation. Reaction from congressional Republicans was negative. "I am concerned that we are on a path to repeat the mistakes we've made during past attempts to cash in on expected peace dividends that never materialized," said Senator Marco Rubio, a possible presidential contender in 2016. "What we're trying to do is solve our financial problems on the backs of our military, and that can't be done," said Representative Howard "Buck" McKeon, chairman of the House Armed Services Committee. An example : there will be another round of domestic military base closings in 2017, but in the years following the last round in 2005, members of Congress fought to protect bases in their home districts and states, arguing that the process does not yield as much savings as advertised. Other components of Hagel's budget that Republicans in Congress criticize include the following Hagel proposals : *Reducing the size of the military to 440,000 - the lowest since the 267,000 number in 1940 before the nation geared up to enter World War II - and down from the current scheduled reduction to 490,000 from 520,000. *The Army National Guard would drop from 355,000 to 335,000 by 2017. *The Army Reserve would drop by 10,000, to 195,000. *The National Guard would send its Apache attack helicopters to the active-duty Army in exchange for Black Hawk helicopters more suitable for domestic disaster relief missions. *The Navy would remove from active service, 11 of its 22 cruisers for modernization. *The Navy would also reduce from 52 to 32 its purchase of littoral combat ships, which are smaller vessels designed to operate closer to shore. *The Air Force would retire its fleet of A-10 "Warthog" tank-killer planes for an estimated savings of $3.5 billion over five years and would also retire the classic U-2 spy plane, which debuted early in the Cold War to bolster US intelligence. ~~~~~ Hagel says his case rests on what he calls a foundation of realism, emphasizing that the period of explosive growth in defense budgets is over, making it more important to preserve a technological edge as other nations modernize their militaries. Hagel did not mention China or Russia, although both are investing heavily in their military capabilities. "Budget reductions inevitably reduce the military's margin of error in dealing with these risks," according to Hagel, who added that a smaller US force "strains our ability to simultaneously respond" to multiple global crises. He and General Martin Dempsey, the Joint Chiefs chairman, both argued against a return to across-the-board sequestration budget cuts that were partially suspended for the 2014 and 2015 budgets. Hagel compared a return to such cuts to "gambling with our military." Dempsey said those deeper cuts would have exceedingly harmful effects on the entire military. "We are all willing to take risks," Dempsey said. "None of us are willing to gamble." ~~~~~ Dear readers, this budget battle will be waged by military experts, both at the Pentagon and in Congress. The US senior officer corps has lost many of its combat-tested generals to the Obama purge. But it is not difficult to calculate that the army will be reduced by 15%, the National Guard by 6%, the Reserves by 5%. Half the Navy's cruisers will be drydocked for major modernization. Almost half the scheduled shoreline ship replacements will be cancelled. And reduced pay and benefits will make it harder to recruit qualified military personnel. I think this would seem to most of us to be major reductions that will significantly impact "the margin of error" - taking risks that amount to gambles with the security of America and the world. Hagel spelled out his and Obama's view on this : "We are entering an era where American dominance on the seas, in the skies and in space can no longer be taken for granted." We must ask the critical question -- If America is no longer to be the dominant power, who will be? For it is clear that some country will become dominant. China? Russia? And what risk-laden chance will that pose to America? A major one, to be sure. Former Vice President Cheney has questioned Hagel's military cuts, in place of military readiness, at a time where the US faces threats from multiple areas of the world. “That would lead me to think I need the strength of military capabilities, not cut it.” But, Cheney said he believes the cuts are a reflection of President Obama’s beliefs, and that the President has always wanted to cut the military. “He said when he went to Cairo in that famous apology tour back in ’09 that he believed...apologized for our overreaction to the events of 9/11,” Cheney said, “and today he is fixing it in a way, in a fact where it will be almost impossible for future presidents to deal with that kind of situation.” Finally, the Hagel-Obama military budget is yet another deliberate attack on America by the President who is not operating in America's best interests...perhaps not in America's interests at all.