L,
I've was thinking about your friend when I came
across an article in the National Review about military spending. Not that it
would have any effect on your friend; in this area, as in most others, lefties
don't care about facts since everyone knows that they are the reality based
community. But just to give you some talking points if you ever want to go
there again.
The article is Defense is Different by Jay
Nordlinger in the January 28 issue.
He starts the piece with the awarding of the Nobel
Peace Prize of 1953 to George C. Marshall for the Marshall Plan, aka, the
European Recovery Plan that set about rebuilding Western Europe. He was awarded
the prize by C.J. Hambro a Norwegian politician who had organized the escape of
the royal family and major government officials to England as the Nazis were
conquering the country. This was in 1940 before the fall of France.
But Hambro knew that General Marshall, then
Secretary Of State had been the American Chief of Staff, the boss of
Eisenhower, Patton, Bradley, MacArthur and all the rest. That Marshall had said
in his Biennial report of 1941:"As an army we are ineffective. Our
equipment, modern at the conclusion of the World War, was now, in a large
measure obsolescent. In fact, continuous paring of appropriations has reduced
the Army virtually to the status of a third rate power. Said Hambro, "The
United States had no military strength that could prevent war or even an attack
on America." Marshall "saw the total war approaching and his own
country powerless." The Army had about 100,000 men under arms, though the
newly signed draft would expand that number to 1,500,000. By the end of the war
12,000,000 would serve. Development on tanks had been somnambulant for twenty
years, not only did we not have a weapon with a true turret for its main gun;
we were still deploying horse cavalry to the Philippines. And in the area of
aircraft we had nothing to match the Zero in the Pacific or the Me-109 in
Europe. During the Louisiana Maneuvers in the summer of 1941 the
troops carried broom sticks for rifles, and the tanks were trucks with "Tank"
painted on the side. But we did have a whole raft of peace and disarmament
treaties.
And that's how it is with America; we ramp up when the
war is upon us, and disarm on the back end. We disarmed so fast after WWII that
by 1950 North Korea could attack the south and drive us back over
the peninsular to the Pusan Perimeter far to the south on the Sea of
Japan.
When Marshall spoke he said, "My military
associates frequently tell me that we Americans have learned our
lesson"---about military preparedness, "I completely disagree with
this contention and point to the rapid disintegration between 1945 and 1950 of
our once vast power for maintaining the peace. As a direct consequence in my
opinion, there resulted the brutal invasion of South Korea, which for a time
threatened the complete defeat of our hastily arranged forces in the field. I
speak of this with deep feeling because in 1939 and again in the early fall of
1950 it suddenly became my duty, my responsibility, to rebuild our national
military strength in the very face of the gravest emergencies."
So spoke the man that Churchill called "The
Architect of Victory". By the way, that was the last time a military
leader would be awarded the Peace Prize.
So where does that put us today? As Buck McKeon
(R-Ca.), head of the House Armed services Committee would say "We never
think we're going to have to fight another war." But as Trotsky said,
"You may not be interested in war, but war is interested in you."
The 2012 Budget Control Act slashed $500,000,000,000
from the defense budget. The Sequester, with its 50/50 cuts to defense and
entitlements, will result in indiscriminate slashing, though defense is only
19% of the budget, that's another $500,000,000,000. Thus the budget which
stands at 4.6% of GDP will shrink to 2.4% in ten years, exactly where it was in
1940. To maintain our standing in the world the number should be 6%.
As Leon Panetta was leaving office he said these
cuts will be devastating, leaving us with the smallest ground force since 1940,
the smallest navy since 1915, and the smallest air force ever. This also means
a lack of training, spare parts and maintenance, and no modernization of
systems. I know your friend doesn't care about these things; he's still
nostalgic for the Cold War, a war he thought we should have lost. But War takes
planning, and as Samuel Pepys noticed it's damn expensive, if you want to win.
What does he want, to win or to lose?
No comments:
Post a Comment