"The Nation" Attacks the Military
Posted by Greg Reeson
February 19, 2008 at 12:34 pm

An editorial set to come out in the March 3rd issue of the Nation reveals with great clarity the far left's disdain for all things military.

In "More Guns, No Butter," we are told that "The ever-voracious Pentagon is using this fragile moment as cover for seizing an even greater share of the nation's dwindling resources--trillions more in federal indebtedness to fight a phantom 'war on terror.'" The failure to recognize the strategic importance of fighting terrorism leads to an all-out attack on the nation's defense budget. The editorial derides our investment in expensive weapons systems with the allegation that platforms designed for use against the now-defunct Soviet Union have nothing to do with fighting terrorism. That statement is only partially true. Some of the systems designed for conventional warfare are not suited to irregular fights like Afghanistan and Iraq. But others, like UAVs, close air support aircraft, and precision guided weapons are taking the fight to the enemy while minimizing U.S. and civilian casualties. The systems that lack a practical application in irregular warfare are still necessary to counter the rising military threat from China and a resurgent Russia. To focus our long-term military efforts exclusively on terrorism and irregular warfare would be foolish and would leave us exposed to conventional threats that we may well have to deal with in the not-too-distant future.

One of my favorite lines from the editorial reads as follows: "If the generals get away with this, the next presidency will be wretchedly compromised before it starts." Am I the only one left with the impression that The Nation believes our generals are not acting in the best interest of the country they are sworn to defend?

The editorial also lambasts the idea that current defense spending levels might need to be maintained if and when we leave Iraq. What The Nation fails to understand is that our military establishment is paying a heavy price in Iraq and Afghanistan in terms of personnel, equipment, training, stockpiles of ammunition, etc. Current funding allows us to fight the war on terror right now and does nothing to restore the military to where it was before 9/11. A high level of fiscal commitment will be required for years after we leave Afghanistan and Iraq in order to take care of our wounded, fix broken equipment, replace platforms lost to enemy activity, replenish prepositioned stocks around the world, and build up our stockpiled levels of ammunition, including missiles and bombs.

In closing, the editorial says, "Citizens must fight the militarism that's choking our democracy." I have just one question, who do you think the anti-military folks will turn to for protection and defense when this nation is attacked again or when China or Russia take action against critical U.S. allies or the United States itself?

http://www.gopusa.com/theloft/?p=667