Obama is such a bad president that those in the cause of liberty reflexively oppose anything he proposes.  We all know that the nation is over 15 trillion dollars in debt, a debt on unborn generations, a debt that will likely never be repaid.  Most people with even  basic economic literacy admit that the size of government must decrease.  Progressives do not want any decrease in social welfare programs while conservatives refuse to consider any cuts to national defense.  Each side points to the other, claiming that if we just cut the other’s favorite program we would have enough money to pay for what they like. 

The paramount Constitutional responsibility of the President is to safeguard the nation from foreign enemies in the role of Commander and Chief.  For the past 66 years the strategic posture of the United States military has been to fight a two front war simultaneously. This strategy is a product of World War II in which we fought against Germany and Japan on opposite sides of the globe. I submit that had we also been at war during WW II with some South American power our strategy over the past 66 years would be to have the forces necessary to fight a three front war simultaneously.  More on this below.

Yesterday, Obama proposed altering the two front strategy, shrinking the size of the Army and Marines while at the same time committing more resources to the Navy, Air Force and special forces capabilities. Sure as the sun rises, the talking heads on the right ran to the airwaves to criticize the president and proclaim that any change in our defense posture is unconscionable.  Was it not Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfield, if memory serves me correctly he served under a Republican president, who proposed a “leaner, meaner” military?

I wore the uniform, and have colleagues who have or currently serve, some of whom have worked at the Pentagon.  For years, longer than Obama has been president, military strategists have contemplated just the type of changes that the president now proposes.  But because it is Obama who has proposed the changes, and he has been wrong in just about everything else he has done, some assume this new defense policy must also must be wrong and/or have a nefarious purpose.

In an age of nuclear weapons and strategic missiles it is unlikely that the nation will fight a land war on two fronts of the size and scope of Iraq and Afghanistan let alone Germany and Japan.  Our most likely future opponent with a sizeable military is China.  We will not fight a land war in Asia against a country with over a billion people. 

Our involvement in World War II lasted about three years and eight months.  We fought a “total war,” willing to kill innocents if the greater good meant defeating the Nazis and Imperial Japan.  Few know that the Allies killed tens of thousands of civilians while bombing Nazi occupied countries in preparation of the D-Day invasions.  We no longer have the national or political will to fight and win wars in this manner, which is why almost ten years after the start of the war in Afghanistan we are still there and will leave, just like in Iraq, without a decisive military victory. 

We have the finest military in the world but it is rarely allowed to fight as it once was.  If you know someone who has served in the current wars ask them about the ROE, or rules of engagement.  I dare say that some police officers have more authority to use deadly force against criminals than our war fighters have against al-Qaeda and the insurgents.

The two front strategy was not handed down by God to Moses, and is thus not set in stone.  Strategies can and must change with a change in circumstances.  Unfortunately, some on the right who came of age during the Cold War are unable or unwilling to acknowledge that a two front strategy may no longer be necessary or economically feasible. 

It also sticks in my craw that some of the most vocal proponents of perpetual war and the military-industrial complex have never themselves worn the uniform.  I often wonder how they can so cavalierly recommend that others fight and die when they themselves had the opportunity to serve during wartime and did not.

A brief search of military procurement over the years shows that Congress appropriates money for military hardware that the armed services neither want nor need.  More often than not the plant that builds the weapons is in the district or state of an influential congressman or senator who doesn’t want to harm his re-election chances by a loss of constituent’s jobs.

When it comes to national defense the only considerations should be whether the strategy increases our chance of winning while bringing the men and women who serve home as soon and as safely as possible.  If we are to return fiscal sanity to our nation everything must be on the table including the size, scope and  structure of our armed forces.