Sorry – We don’t do war

Since we heard about the capture of the 15 British sailors by the Iranians, simply because they could, I’ve been waiting for a VDH or Mark Steyn to give us their take on it. Victor Hanson does not disappoint in Houses of Straw.
The paradox now is that, just as no European nation wishes to be seen in solidarity with the United States, so too no European force wishes to venture beyond its borders without acting in concert with the American military, whether on the ground under American air cover or at seas with a U.S. carrier group.

There are reasons along more existential lines for why Iran acts so boldly. After the end of the Cold War, most Western nations — i.e., Europe and Canada — cut their military forces to such an extent that they were essentially disarmed. The new faith was that, after a horrific twentieth century, Europeans and the West in general had finally evolved beyond the need for war.
Oh well, then it’s not too bad is it. So what, if Tony Blair had to go with his hat in his hands to the UN to beg them to scold the bully Iran. Just tell those sailors to hang on, uncle Sam will twist the odd elbow, Bush will say something aggressive and the Mullahs will see the light, no I didn’t mean the twelfth Imam Ahmadinejad. Once they are back we can claim that 'diplomacy works you boneheads' or 'give peace a chance' and go back to carping about the handling of an innocent-till-proven-guilty-plus-numerous-appeals 'freedom-fighter'. Bring out the placards, balloons and no-war-zone flyers; someone has to stand up to that fascist bastard in the White House you know.

Well it’s not quite that simple; firstly there is the uncomfortable reality that the US congress is now controlled by Democrats. Contrary to popular belief, there is no war they will fight, if it wasn’t for the 2008 presidential election, there would be no war they’d fund either. They, just like the rest of us, firmly believe that we no longer need to do war. Even if they did, good luck getting them to fund the tools of war, you know soldiers, tanks, guns, planes etc. Believe me, it’ll be a cold day in hell before Democrats take money away from welfare programs, coddling violent criminals and state-sponsored gay sex-education for toddlers to give it to the military.

On the second reason, Jim Talent elaborates on the need for more money to be spent on the military in the March 5 edition of National Review. Guess which party reduced military spending the most, here's a clue, they're in control of congress now and are in charge of the piggy bank.
America is now reaching a decision point similar to the one Reagan faced in 1981, and it is important to understand clearly what is at stake. America is the defender of freedom in the world and therefore always a prime target for those who hate freedom. The progress of the international order toward peace and democracy depends on American power; and while the basket of Western foreign policy contains many tools, what underpins them all is a U.S. military that the world knows is capable of defeating threats swiftly and effectively.

Judged by this standard, the situation facing the U.S. military is grave. America’s armed forces are, in one respect, better off than in 1981. The volunteer force is a proven, mature, and successful model; America is protected by the finest servicemen and women in history. But because of decisions over the last 15 years — driven more by budgetary than by military considerations — the Army is too small, the Navy and Marine Corps may well be too small, and much of the equipment in all the services is too old and increasingly unreliable. Without a substantial increase in procurement spending, beginning now and sustained over the next five to ten years — an increase measured not in billions but in tens of billions of dollars per year above current estimates — the U.S. will be unable to modernize its forces to the degree necessary to preserve its security with the necessary margin of safety.
So can we really ask the US Army to protect us when we’re not even paying for the tens of billions of dollars they need to be capable of protecting us? Also, an American soldier can rightly point out that some of us marched in the street to highlight the unfairness of a David Hicks treatment, they can point out there was no petition or protest when they are butchered if captured. They can point that no one is dragging an effigy of an al-Qaeda terrorist or burning a picture of Osama bin Laden when many of us call them terrorists, baby-killers and burn the flag they die for. By our actions many of us claim we are on nobody’s side, so why should they fight for we who can't even figured out whose side we’re on?

Stay tuned, I'll have more soon.

No comments:

Post a Comment

All comments containing Chinese characters will not be published as I do not understand them