New Pentagon Strategy reflects the New Age of War

Often times we hear the talking points of those opposed to anything and everything this administration has attempted to do as something naive or careless.  The recent battle over the budget and deficits seem to have been forgotten as the new Pentagon strategy was released.  Some of those very same people crying about the deficits and demanding cuts are now crying foul because their wish has been granted.

David Alexander and Phil Stewart of Reuters article titled New Pentagon strategy stresses Asia, cyber, drones details some of those same voices finding fault with this new strategy without defining what it is they do not like, why they do not like it, what they would do differently and the proof of their rethoric.  The American public deserves a better defense of their position and should demand that they provide more than just lip-service when they publically demean the actions of our Commander-in-Chief in front of the world.  Words have consequences and when they publically demean any actions taken by those in power to the world, they demean this nation as well.

The article reported that “President Barack Obama unveiled a defense strategy on Thursday that would expand the U.S. military presence in Asia but shrink the overall size of the force as the Pentagon seeks to slash spending by nearly half a trillion dollars after a decade of war.  The strategy, if carried out, would significantly reshape the world's most powerful military following the buildup that was a key part of President George W. Bush's "war on terrorism" in Iraq and Afghanistan.  Cyber warfare and unmanned drones would continue to grow in priority, as would countering attempts by China and Iran to block U.S. power projection capabilities in areas like the South China Sea and the Strait of Hormuz.  But the size of the U.S. Army and Marines Corps would shrink. So too might the U.S. nuclear arsenal and the U.S. military footprint in Europe.”  While this paragraph explains it all there are still those who make the accusations as if they had not the knowledge that appears above.

People like Senator John McCain saying “the United States could not afford a "budget-driven defense" which he voted for along with his fellow Republicans to reduce the budget or Senator Joe Lieberman who warned “it would "greatly increase the risk" that a U.S. adversary would underestimate the U.S. resolve to fight.”  I take offense at such statements being a former US Marine because this nation has never refused nor had any problem with finding the resolve to fight if we feel threatened.  This coming form those who will not be the ones dodging the bullets when it comes time to pick up our arms.  Representative Buck McKeon calls it a “lead-from-behind strategy for a left-behind America” and says that this “president has packaged our retreat from the world in the guise of a new strategy to mask his divestment of our military and national defense."  This is the same president that accomplished what the past president dismissed. 

"The Pentagon is trying to put on a brave face that this is a pure strategy that has informed the 2013 defense budget," said Mackenzie Eaglen, a national security expert at the conservative Heritage Foundation think tank.  "Everyone knows that the cart was before the horse on this and that Congress and the president picked a budget and this is a strategy to chase down those numbers," she said.”  My issue with that statement is why then did it take so long for this individual and her organization to get around to really addressing this issue?  She also failed to mention that “even after enactment of the $487 billion in reductions over 10 years that was agreed with Congress in August, the defense budget would still be larger than it was toward the end of Bush's administration.”

Regardless of what ends up happening, it should be quite clear that nothing this administration does will ever please those in opposition.  The only thing left for us as voters are to demand that any decision made by those we hired to represent us is done so based on one major criterion and that is what’s in the best interest of the nation as a whole.  That requirement should never be of any particular party and should be the mantra for everyone serving and those wishing to serve.