Could America Be In Trouble?
Politicians are blaming the Obama administration for the threat that will leave this country helpless in future times of crisis , if not reserved in the upcoming weeks .
Obama is reportedly behind drafted policies which are responsible for trillion dollar cuts to national defense which leave national security and armed forces limited and too much possibilities to be attacked from enemies.
Recent reports demand for the administration to return to the flexible response doctrine of recent policies to ensure the protection of this country and it's people . Flexible response doctrines allow the military to fight two wars at one time and allow maximum protection of inhabitants of this region and it's allies.
In 2013, the United States Institute for Peace, “a congressionally-created, independent, nonpartisan institution whose mission is to prevent, mitigate, and resolve violent conflicts around the world,” was asked to assist the National Defense Panel with reviewing the Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR). The National Defense Panel is a congressional-mandated bipartisan commission that’s co-chairs were appointed by Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel.
This past Thursday , the long awaited review was received from the National Defense Panel on the foreign policies , national security policies and defense policies and the result was staggering . In lamest terms , if continued , these policies would leave us without a paddle up a long and winding river with fog and no sign of help of any sort. After September 11, that is the scariest thought of them all.
Previous doctrines allowed two war within the same time slot , which has also allow us as a nation to be better prepared for hardship . These same doctrines has allotted for the current posed threats with targets such as America to be dealt with accordingly and overcome national security challenges .
The flexible response doctrine also referred to as the two and a half war policy was created during the Clinton administration period and has gotten us through several wars and conflicts.
Here’s the problem: At the time the Obama administration announced the change in our defense doctrine, the president was also in front of the cameras threatening to use military force in Iran and Syria, announcing a “strategic pivot” toward Asia to counter China, with promises to uphold our defense treaties with Israel, Taiwan, South Korea, NATO, etc, all while we were still at war in Afghanistan. The big question was "How can you threaten to take military action that could start a war when you are already fighting one in Afghanistan if you have changed your military doctrine to only fight one war at a time?"
Some detractors will argue that this is a good thing, because it will prevent the president from starting another war. It’s worth pointing out that not all wars are of our choosing. The U.S. went to war twice in the last 50 years because our homeland was attacked by known enemies . And unlike World War II, the enemy has not been defeated — even though the president plans to withdraw our forces from Afghanistan and has chosen to not take decisive action against these enemies in Iraq, Syria, Africa, etc. — an enemy that still seeks to do us harm. The next war may not be of our choosing. And the enemy has pledged to do just that.
What is even more disastrous is that this doctrine will trickle down into military acquisition strategy. The U.S. Navy purchases ships that will be in service for 50 years. That means that the ships we buy today will make up the Navy’s fleet in 2065. The change in military doctrine that Obama directed will have a negative effect on the size and shape of our armed forces for decades to come. With China rising , a re-emerging Russia, and a continued threat of global terrorism, who knows if at that time, the U.S. will be able to meet the challenges that lie ahead.
Former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld said, “You go to war with the army you have, not the army you want.” He was criticized for that remark, but it reflected the reality that he had to go to war with — an Army that had been hollowed out after the Gulf War by the Clinton administration. War is not a joke or a video game and should be treated as the harsh reality that it will be because the painful truth is that : war is dangerous and more time than not , deadly. You cannot hit the pause button on a crisis and ask the defense industrial base and the armed services to give you what you need to fight a war. That only comes from long-term acquisition strategy driven by doctrines that accurately show future threats.
If the administration does not reverse quickly on its defense strategy and ask congressional Democrats to reverse defense spending cuts, then our nation will find itself in a position where it is unable to defend itself and could become the victim of terrorism on U.S. soil once again.
