John McCain has slammed Obama on Defense policy in Iraq, but this is only one narrow dimension of our defense policy — while it’s very important today in five years this back and forth might not matter crazy as that sounds.
Our bases in Germany, Japan, South Korea, or Kuwait are not controversial, and if a country wants to ally with us and support bases, we should be ok with that. US military bases are an important part of world stability, prior to us extending our strategic reach the entire world was wracked with chronic conflicts and incessant war.
Any Chompskyite critics of Pax Americana who want to characterise it as Hegemony and US Imperialism need only look at history — Compare Europe pre-WWII to post-WWII – no European country is a puppet-state to the US, as can be seen by the anti-US sentiment of several European governments and bodies. They aren’t perfect allies either but commerce is flowing and peace is prevalent in those regions we have bases, no matter how imperfect our allies might be.
Where we do have bases countries are less fearful of their neighbors and more likely to trade with them. Where we have bases tyrannical states are less likely to threaten and bully. Where we have bases terrorism is less likely to flourish.
Barack clearly doesn’t want to get the point that McCain is speaking to, but he also doesn’t understand the rest of our strategic defense direction either. In PC-Gamer terms Obama’s a “newbie” who would get “pwned” on the international stage of Geo-political reality.
Our military stance is based on certain superiorities that we have, and that’s good for now, but not for the future if we fail to extend and update those capacities.
- We can attack a foe with less ammo and consequent logistics chains because we have superior electronic warfare capabilities. We can guide our varied munitions via gps, television, laser, satellite, and a variety of other means, but our window of superiority there is closing as other nations are implementing similar or same systems. Research into next generation systems is continually shaved by Barack and his peers.
- We have good missile defense, however it’s not fully deployed, and there are layers missing in the missile screen. Even as our allies deploy forward missile defense systems (Japan, South Korea, Poland, Czechoslovakia) Barrack Obama and others in the Senate are delaying programs with the goal of cutting them entirely. Ballistic missile defense is a key component in our strategic infrastructure, and it’s doubtful others will deploy if the program is put in doubt.
- We can project power and defense capabilities quickly through combined systems that include our aircraft carriers, troopships, missile cruisers, SSBN’s, forward bases, ICBMs and long range strategic bombers and fighters. Congress continues to decrement our Air, Naval, and Land force capabilities through the death of a 1000 cuts. Barack votes consistently against all flavors of military spending.
- The next wave of war fighting capabilities will be with unmanned drones, and other robotic and teleoperated systems. While other countries are racing to take the lead in that arena, once more congress with Barack’s support is shaving funding and research.
The big difference between Barack Obama and John McCain isn’t only on Iraq. It’s also in the approach to our defensive systems. If elected Barack would support further cuts, reductions, slow-downs and eliminations. He’s said he will cut billions from defense, and that he’s against missile defense.
It never fails that when a new war comes that we are well prepared to fight the last war we were in, but not the one in our face. John McCain understands that equation, and that’s why the clear difference on defense between him and Barack Obama is a yawning chasm, in which Iraq is just the visible edge.
If Barack gets the nod from the Democrat convention, then those differences will become much clearer.
He says his sole priority will be protecting the american people, but in the speech above you see him promising to take away every strategic advantage we have, which will put us all in clear jeapordy. You can see that he is viscerally opposed to all defense spending, and this puts your children at risk in the real world.
What is Barack’s stance on the Taiwan straits? How does he want to handle Myanmar? Where is he at on South America? What would he do if Hugo Chavez invaded Panama, Costa Rica, Ecuador, or Columbia? What’s his position on North Korea? What would he do about the increasing belligerence of Russia? Where does he stand on Tibet? What would he do if Kosovo and Serbia go to war, and Europe starts choosing up sides?
Where would he be if India and Pakistan went to war? What would he do if Iran gets nuclear weapons, and attacks Israel? What is his policy towards Turkey? What about the Sudan?
The truth is that Obama’s quite naive when it comes to defense, and he’s a babe in the woods when it comes to strategic geo-politics. His voicing of threats against Pakistan is clear proof of that. Putting him in office would be a risk to your children, and your grand children, for cuts in research have long-term effects.
Several nations are racing to close the window of our military superiority, and some like Russia and China with their space programs are working to close it and nail it shut forever.
7 thoughts on “Obama Schooled on Defense”
It’s a lot cheaper to fly planes into a country and parachute in hundreds of tanks and APCs, and thousands of paratroopers… backed up by troops and materials from ships in the days after…than to keep personnel and equipment and buildings in-place and maintained for decades on end. You could have, say 5 strike forces based in the U.S. ready to respond anywhere within 12 to 24 hours, and they could take the place of dozens of bases throughout the world.
Obama was ridiculed by conservatives and by Clinton for suggesting that we attack Al Qaeda in Pakistan even without Musharraf’s approval. Guess what, the CIA is doing just that.
The former CIA head of the search for Al Qaeda spoke on national television, saying Obama’s strategy was the most effective and logical.
Paratroopers and artillery yes, tanks and APCs no. There is no
parachute made that can deliver a 62 ton tank. Only the C-17
transport can carry the M1A2 Abrams tank and only one at a time. We have fast transport ships stationed in stratigic locations
and can respond with heavy equipment and Marines. We do need a shore line or harbor where we can unload. Both Obama and Clinton are trying to outdo each other on how to save the
economy rather than trying to save the people of this nation
from outside threats that they can’t see, never have and never will..
Paul, Paratroopers are highly ineffective in a large scale war. They are great for strategic targets, but in a real fight they get nowhere fast without backing.
Obama, Kerry, Kennedy, and Reid are on a fast track to tear down all the heavy offensive capabilities we have.
The movie “We Were Men” details an action in Viet Nam with the Air Cav. Without the continual air support the forward air bases and carriers provided, they would have been toast, and none of them would have come home.
I believe that was “We Were Soldiers (once and young) with
Mel Gibson ….
Yep, that was it, “We Were Soldiers”, well worth watching.
Paul, of course we are doing strikes in Pakistan. The unwise part is to talk about a covert policy in a presidential campaign for political gain. They burnt him in effigy after that in several demonstrations across Pakistan.
You are essentially displaying the same Naivete that Obama does, you clearly have little understanding of strategic concepts. The big one that gives the tin pot tyrants pause across the world: they know we can throw heavy metal on target anywhere in the world within hours. Not days. Indeed, there are protocols that allow us to hit a target in a quarter hour, but I’ll not delve into that here.
Comments are closed.