in the wrong era. Soundly refuting
liberals online since 2000. NOTE: That is NOT
me pictured at left. :)
| WSJ | World: Europe Girds for Greek Exit |
0 |
| Shark Tank | Developing: Wasserman Schultz On Verge of Being Cancelled at Temple Israel |
0 |
| T’graph | 0 | |
| NYT | Policy: Romney Calls Education ‘Civil Rights Issue of Our Era’ and Urges Shift |
0 |
| RCP | Campaign 2012: Why Tuesday’s Democratic Primaries Matter |
0 |
Audacity of Truth
"Diplomacy":
"People are saying what in the world is going on with North Carolina, we look like Mississippi." - NC Gov. Bev Perdue (D) on the passage of Amendment One, 5-11-12
Democrats Do Two Things When In Power: Raise Taxes And Gut The Military
When it comes to Democrat administrations, you can count on them doing two things: raising taxes and gutting the military. Carter did it, Clinton did it, and now Obama is preparing to do it.
The New York Times thinks Obama isn’t going far enough (go figure) and should cut even more. The Wall Street Journal thinks the cuts go too far. Me? I’m inclined to fall somewhere in the middle on some items, but overall I think they go to far and sacrifice our defense in the name of pushing a socialist agenda.
The F-22 is expensive, but worth it. They should build several more until they at least get the newest plane (the Joint Strike Fighter) in production. The arguement from the left is that these planes don’t have an enemy, that they are so advanced that no other nation is capable of matching them. Well, that’s the idea. That’s why we build planes like this, for absolute air superiority. We don’t build planes like this, then sooner or later someone else will, and we’ll be behind.
The navy should not be allowed to fall below 12 carriers. This plan calls for them eventually falling to 10, and that’s only going to lead to longer deployments, less recruiting (who wants to stay out at sea for eight months or so?), and longer reaction times to a world crisis. The navy plans, or used to plan, for three carriers for every one patrol station: one actually on station, one in transit to or from the patrol station, and one ship in repair/refit. This will stretch our forces to the breaking point.
The DDX, I agree, should be terminated. They are way too expensive, there’s no real need for them (except perhaps a shore bombardament capability, but they may not fill that role properly), and their overall design is questionable. Far better to update the DDG 51 Arleigh Burke designs (or even the CG 47s) and continue to produce them. They’re a proven system.
Missile defense, both for homeland security and battlefield security, should remain a top priority. With nations like North Korea and Iran trying to build long range nukes it’s irresponsible not to do this. The left downplays the threat, that they would only be able to produce one or just a few such missiles. That may or may not be true, but it would only take one missile to end our way of life.
I could go on and on, but for the sake of brevity I’ll just say this: with a resurgent Russia, threats from rogue nations like North Korea and Iran, and a war on terrorism to fight — not to mention the numerous humanitarian missions of our forces perform when called — now is not the time to gut the military in this fashion. Yes, cuts can be made, and every program should be looked at under a microscope. But price tags should not be what determines what stays and what goes. That makes us vulnerable.
(Cross-posted at my blog, Liberty Pundit)
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sadly, the Navy does deploy for 8 months at a time already – my husband is in his 7th month of a deployment right now, actually.
Thanks to previous cuts to the Navy, they’ve already had to change the deployment schedule — instead of one 6 month deployment every 18 months, it’s one 6-8 month deployment every EIGHT months. And because of manning issues and fewer ships around to do the jobs, most ships also go out on “mini deployments” during the time they’re supposed to be home. On my husband’s last ship, in addition to his surge deployment (5 months), hubby also did one 4 month long trip and another 2 month long trip when they were supposed to be in the yards.
Thanks, Democrats!
It should be noted that the F-22 Raptor and the F-35 Lightning II (a/k/a Joint Strike Fighter) are two completely different platforms. The Raptor is an air superiority fighter while the Lightning II is a dual-role fighter (air superiority/ground attack). The latter not being as good as the F-22 in air superiority.
CMS, I was only using the eight month figure as an example, but good point. Regardless of what length of time they deploy now, it’ll be worse in the future (back when we had 15 CVBGs, the deployment time was less, which led to higher recruitment and better retention).
Ryan, I’m aware that both models are different beasts, but I’m sure that there would be variants. For example, the F-15, the F/A-18s, etc., all had multiple variants and were eventually dual-purpose fighter/bombers in the end. I’m sure they could and would do that with the JSF.
But I do agree, the JSF as it currently stands will be nowhere near the fighter that the F-22 is. That’s why I’d like to see more of them built.
God Bless our people in the military.
God help our people in the military.
The democrats just don’t get it and never will.
Regarding the F-35, I seem to recall seeing something on the -A (USAF) version’s dogfighting capabilities (or lack thereof).
As for the DDX battle, I believe the wrong future class was eliminated. The LCS is prime for the chopping block; CDR Salamander can tell you why.
Lest we forget, the Democrat ideal is no military at all. Reduce availability of ships and armament, and less people will be interested in placing theirselves in harm’s way. Prez has already announced his desire for a nuclear free world.
….we’re seeing something of a repeat of the last gasps of the Vietnam war. Back then, the left saw to it there was little money for new ships. That being the case, our Navy was obliged to carry out its missions with what it HAD – ships of the WWII and Korean era, long past their prime. The costs of keeping these old tubs mission capable were staggering in both dollar and crew terms.
Vietnam eventually went down the tubes. Enter Jimmy Carter, who continued to gut our military throughout his presidency. History would have the last laugh on him, however. One of the sorriest episodes in my lifetime was his pathetic attempt to rescue the Iranian hostages (near the end of Carter’s four year term) in an effort to bolster his sagging poll numbers. A poor operational plan and faulty, outdated war machines doomed the effort. And some of our men never came home.
How many people remember the weasily Carter attempting to blame the military for that fiasco? I do…
What separates the F-22 from the F-35 in the air superiority role is stealth. That’s one variant that will not be a part of the F-35, at least from everything I’ve seen/read. There definitely is a need for both fifth generation fighers and it should be noted that Russia is working on theirs.
Ryan, I think (and I could be wrong, I don’t have time to check…dentist appointment in less than one hour) that the JSF does have stealth ability, but nowhere near what the F-22 has. Someone care to check?