Early Budget Cuts could have Stopped Sequester and War
It has been 2 weeks since the sequester sequestered (does making up words, like Congress, make me sound smart too?) and, despite what President Obama and the military promised, the world has not ended; but there is still time for that to happen. It is not that forcing the Pentagon to cut $40+ billion of their budget will ruin the world, but a nuclear and violent North Korea might.
Despite our only major national interest in a war between Communist North Korea and Democratic South Korea being the steady supply of Samsung Galaxy phones and tablets, we may be days away from our third war of the 21st century. The United States still holds a Cold War mentality in our treaty with South Korea. I mean that literally; the same treaty that pulled us into the Korean War is still in place today. I am not making light of a potential war, or being callous to the plight of South Korea, but the third world defenseless nation of post WWII is now a thriving modern nation with a vibrant economy, and very much developed enough to defend itself. There is no reason we need to be their first line of defense.
It seems apparent that North Korea has successfully tested nuclear weapons, and now they have promised to use them against their neighbors, and the U.S. After declaring the 1953 armistice invalid, North Korea is reportedly sitting in their tanks waiting for the word from leader Kim Jong-un to mount an attack against South Korea. Because of our alliance with South Korea, Americans will be some of the first to die, should this actually happen, making it a national security issue, and forcing us to respond by declaring another war we cannot pay for. War is never a trivial matter, particularly when it involves an ally, but why should we care more about the loss of life through war in the Koreas any more than other parts of the world? Why would people dying in South Korea require any more action than the people who died in Libya, or Egypt, or the Sudan, Congo, or the people who are dying in Syria?
Durring a budget crisis these decisions need a second look. If the military is worried that they will not be able to fully train our troops before sending them into battle, does it make sense to be spending so much money maintaining bases in nations where we no longer serve our national security? The Commander in Chief is willing to pull troops out of Iraq, but maintains areas of opperation in South Korea? It makes about as much sense as a technology giant pulling investment on the nearly-out-of-date-but-still-relevant CD, but continuing funding for floppy disks. The logic does not compute.
South Korea is not alone. If China were to attack Japan–despite having the world’s fifth or sixth largest military (depending on how you measure it)–Americans would be some of the first to die, pulling us into a war with China. There is also no national security justification for massive bases in Germany, Italy, Australia or many other nations. We are no longer in a nuclear arms race, why maintain these forward areas of operation? We do not need to police the world, and be dragged into another war. I once had a conservative friend tell me “but this is what America has always done. We stand up for what is right.” This is another Cold War mentality. A mentality sold to us when we were told communism is evil (and it very well may be, that is not my point). Because we stood against communism se stood for what was right. But that mentality also forgets the America before the Cold War. After all, America completely isolated ourselves militarily until WWI, which we only joined after American civilians were killed aboard passenger ships attacked by Germans. We remained nuetral in WWII until the Pearl Harbor attack, and even resisted helping the Jews in their struggle for survival. No, America has not always been the global police force, this is a recent development.
Unfortunately, the military and our government were not wise enough to make sensable cuts; now they are forced to deal with the blind, across the board sequester cuts. Perhaps if these bases had been closed or cut, as they should have been, we would not have a Department of Homeland Security with a classified budget, and charge over an entire top secret intelligence world that spends ever increasing amounts of money so american citizens can be spied on. Maybe if the troops at all of these overseas bases were brought home we would have enough boots on the ground here to monitor the borders, or protect the people–you know, like the Constitution suggests (sad that I feel like I have to use that word). Instead, we have the Department of Homeland Security buying a 100 year cache of ammunition (much of which is illegal for international warfare) or an entire fleet of armored military vehicles.
However, as the last decade has made painfully clear, there is no common sense left in Washington D.C. So now we have a military which asserts they cannot meet their battle demands in
Posted on March 14, 2013, in Patriotslog Articles and tagged budget cuts, Department of Homeland security buys 1.6 billion bullets, DHS buys 1.6 billion rounds of ammunition, DHS buys armored vehicles, DHS buys tanks, military cuts, north korea, north korea nuclear test, north korea nuclear weapon, north korea threatens to nuke united states, sequester, sequestration, war with north korea. Bookmark the permalink. Leave a comment.