January 9, 2012
Last week at the Pentagon, President Obama made the claim that the world is a safer place thanks to his efforts with the war on terror. In his speech, he declared victory over our enemies and paved the way for draconian cuts to the U.S. military.
In short, we’ve succeeded in defending our nation, taking the fight to our enemies, reducing the number of Americans in harm’s way, and we’ve restored America’s global leadership. That makes us safer and it makes us stronger. And that’s an achievement that every American — especially those Americans who are proud to wear the uniform of the United States Armed Forces — should take great pride in.
This success has brought our nation, once more, to a moment of transition. Even as our troops continue to fight in Afghanistan, the tide of war is receding. Even as our forces prevail in today’s missions, we have the opportunity — and the responsibility — to look ahead to the force that we are going to need in the future.
Providing for “the force that we are going to need in the future,” however, does not mean cutting half a trillion dollar in defense funding, as the President proposes.
Writing in the New York Post, Heritage Foundation national security expert James Carafano explains why the United States is not in any kind of position to slash military funding, especially with things so volatile in the Middle East.
On the President’s claims regarding Iraq, Carafano writes:
Thanks to the imprudent total withdrawal of US forces, the fragile coalition trying to hold that country together may now fall apart — squandering a decade of effort to make the Middle East less of a threat to US interests.
On the President’s claims on pulling out of Afghanistan, Carafano writes:
[T]he coming US pullout from Afghanistan is rapidly looking like a replay of the Paris Peace Talks — the negotiations that set the stage for the collapse of South Vietnam. Apparently, all the president wants is for there to be enough of an interval after we leave that he’ll be able to argue that the next collapse into an orgy of violence and terrorism wasn’t his fault.
On the President’s claims regarding Osama bin Laden, Carafano writes:
He also trotted out the killing of Osama bin Laden — who even before Obama took office had been reduced to al Qaeda’s propagandist-in-chief. Are we to believe that half-a-trillion in defense dollars went to getting al Qaeda’s chief speechwriter?
In his speech, the President didn’t mention Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons and its threats to cut off a quarter of the world’s oil supply. The President also didn’t mention North Korea’s new 28-year-old leader whose untested leadership and volatility puts America at risk. And the President didn’t mention China’s growing military might.
Read more of Carafano’s “Gutting defense — O’s lame claims that we’re safer“ at NYPost.com.