Independent panel calls Obama’s downsizing of military “dangerous”

Obama Doctrine

Rowan Scarborough reports for The Washington Times that on July 30, 2014, an independent panel appointed by the Pentagon and Congress said Obama’s plan to downsize the armed services is too weak for today’s global threats.

The National Defense Panel called on Obama to dump a major section of his 2014 Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) and write a broader strategy that requires the military to fight on multiple fronts at once.

It also said the downsizing of U.S. armed forces to fit strategy and budget cuts is a “serious strategic misstep on the part of the United States.” The forces’ numbers spelled out in the 2014 QDR are “inadequate given the future strategic and operational environment.”

Congress authorized the panel of outside experts to review the QDR, a strategy for shaping the active and reserve force. Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel appointed the panel’s two co-chairmen:

  • Former Defense Secretary William Perry, who served under President Bill Clinton.
  • Retired Army Gen. John Abizaid, who ran U.S. Central Command during the U.S.-led occupation of Iraq.

The panel also included national security experts who were in the Pentagon when some of the Obama administration budget decisions were being made, including retired Marine Gen. James Cartwright, former Joint Chiefs vice chairman, and Michele Flournoy, who served as under secretary of defense for policy until 2012.

The panel’s report said the past several years of budget cuts and mandated reduction in personnel and weapons have stirred deep unease among allies who would count on the U.S. in a crisis: “Not only have they caused significant investment shortfalls in U.S. military readiness and both present and future capabilities, they have prompted our current and potential allies and adversaries to question our commitment and resolve. Unless reversed, these shortfalls will lead to a high-risk force in the near future. That in turn will lead to an America that is not only less secure but also far less prosperous. In this sense, these cuts are ultimately self-defeating.”

The report calls the defense cuts “dangerous” as “global threats and challenges are rising,” and points to China’s and Russia’s new territorial claims, nuclear proliferation by Iran and North Korea and al Qaeda’s rapid rise in Iraq.

The panel also criticizes Obama’s QDR for reducing the military’s global mission from being able to defeat two enemies nearly simultaneously to defeating one and denying the objectives of a second. The report says the international security environment has deteriorated since the release of the 2014 QDR earlier this year. “In the current threat environment, America could plausibly be called upon to deter or fight in any number of regions in overlapping time frames.

On the two-war requirement, the panel said: “We find the logic of the two-war construct to be as powerful as ever and note that the force sizing construct in the 2014 QDR strives to stay within the two-war tradition while using different language. But given the worsening threat environment, we believe a more expansive force sizing construct — one that is different from the two-war construct but no less strong — is appropriate.”

It proposes a new overriding strategy of taking on and stopping adversaries in multiple theaters of war.

The panel also maintains both the Navy and the Air Force are too small. Cuts in the number of Army soldiers “go too far,” while “The Air Force now fields the smallest and oldest force of combat aircraft in its history yet needs a global surveillance and strike force able to rapidly deploy to theaters of operation to deter, defeat or punish multiple aggressors simultaneously.”

Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee Rep. Howard P. “Buck” McKeon (R-CA) said the independent review shows the QDR is more concerned with justifying budget cuts than meeting global security needs: “It is the same conclusion many Americans have already reached. There is a cost when America does not lead, and there are consequences when America disengages. What the president fails to understand — which the report points out — is that a strong military underwrites all other tools our nation has for global influence.”

Click here for the PDF of the Department of Defense’s Quadrennial Defense Review 2014.

See also:

~StMA

Advertisements

13 responses to “Independent panel calls Obama’s downsizing of military “dangerous”

  1. I have ceased to be amazed at American stupidity. 10 million dipshit liberals versus 10 million dipshit conservatives who managed to experiment on the throw of the dice to produce the likes of satanic obama. For 6 years you have allowed this fake subhuman to flush this nation into the sewer of the White House into the cesspool of the Congress and Senate. You, America are reaping what you deserve. Damn you all!

    Like

    • “Damn you all!”

      Really?

      “You all” include all the millions and millions of Americans who did not vote for Obama in 2008 or 2012.

      Like

    • Such pleasantries for a Friday afternoon!

      If you understood the American culture, you’d see that there are more factors in force here than “dipshit liberals” and “dipshit conservatives”. 1)You’ve got a government-run public education program that actively pursues a progressive platform creating liberal ideals and voters, 2) a State Run Media that is complicit in keeping voters uninformed and misleads/lies/omits facts about current events, 3) a record amount of entitlement beneficiaries that will vote to keep the government money flowing their way, 4) a voting block that cares more about celebrities than what is going on in DC (LIVs), 5) a republican party that is too entrenched in DC politics to actually take a conservative stand, 6) massive voter fraud, and 7) a cesspool in DC of democrats and republicans (not conservatives) who will do anything to keep their power. I’m sure there are more, these are just off the top of my head.

      If anything, it was conservatives and their formation of the Tea Party that has tried to hold the DC beltway cretins to task.

      But thanks for playing. I ceased to be amazed at those who pull an Alinsky rather than comment on the actual blog post content.

      P.S. This administration is doing just as predicted. Obama has demonstrated no love for our military. After all, he said he’d give us a “fundamental transformation” of America.

      Like

      • WHAT T F? What kind of cerebral vomit is this? Included in the round figure of 20 million dipshits who voted twice giving rise to the tea party whiners, the only good is a dramatic increase in Independent voters who are from all parties as a mixed bag of fed up patrits at the federal assholes. Every city, county, state and federal office has been infiltrated with socialists and atheists since 1900 being given a pass by the asshole moral quiet generation asleep at the wheel. We are all guilty of the deer in the headlights syndrome in politics, academics, media, christianity, and military so called leadership. WE have enabled this dysfunctional nation with socialized demorats and conservatives. Knee jerk reaction is the norm in American issues as well as international issues. A billion scooby doo band aids covering up 20th century mistakes causing the 21st century to arrive at the niagra falls of dysfunction. Is Sara Palin the only true patriot left who is not afraid to cage fight any one? Look in your mirror to see your pied piper behind you.

        Like

        • Talk about “cerebral vomit”…You insult us “dipshit” conservatives and Tea Party “whiners”, then feign some deceitful support for “Sara” Palin (who is a conservative and supporter of the Tea Party whiners). Then claim the conservatives have had some part in forming this “dysfunctional nation”. That’s rich. Talking out of both sides doesn’t win any arguments.

          Like

    • What, you mean like this?

      Like

  2. A. James Gregor

    Our current threat environment includes at least four nuclear armed potential enemies, at least two of which have intercontinental multiple independently targeted warheads that are submarine borne — and can strike the continental United States. At least two potential enemy powers have credible conventional forces plausibly capable of engaging the U.S. military in a land, sea, or air conflict. And that does not even consider the threat of asymmetrical war conceivably to be fought almost anywhere in the Middle East or an increasingly restive Latin America. If the active military could speak freely I think every serious person knows what their recommendations would be.

    Like

  3. It actually has nothing to do with Liberals or Republicans

    But rather that Americans are human and have been deceived

    And in the end all the truth has surfaced

    The best laid plans take time to procure…

    Like

  4. Pingback: Independent panel calls Obama's downsizing of military "dangerous"

  5. Pingback: Independent panel calls Obama’s downsizing of military “dangerous” | Cronyism,Corruption and Lies in D.C.

  6. I think the last decade or so, foreign policy decisions that have been made have turned out to be somewhat of a disaster.

    America deserves to be great, right now key leadership decisions are being made that make America look terrible in the eyes of her peers throughout the world.

    Like

  7. Pingback: D.O.D. Official: ‘The Facts Are In, And Obama’s Policy Is A Direct Danger To The United States’ | pundit from another planet

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s