According to Webster: per·son·i·fied, (in context) To be the embodiment or perfect example of.
Obama unveils strategy for slimmed-down military…
WASHINGTON – Top Pentagon officials stressed Thursday that even the shrinking military they envision under President Obama’s new strategy will be strong enough to take on all comers, a view (not shared) by some leaders on Capitol Hill.
For decades, fighting and winning two wars at once has been an underlying tenet for Pentagon planners. The strategy announced Thursday foresees a smaller Army and Marine Corps, far less appetite for wars like those in Iraq and Afghanistan, greater emphasis on special operations forces and intelligence-gathering, and shifting focus to China and the Pacific.
Obama’s Goal – An Army of One.
The new strategy was necessitated by the need to cut military spending by at least $480 billion over the next decade and the winding down of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars.
Obama takes flak on defense downsizing…
Even the downsized military will be strong enough, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Army Gen. Martin Dempsey maintained.
“We can confront more than one enemy at a time,” Panetta said. Dempsey was more explicit, saying the military could handle a war in Korea and problems with Iran in the Persian Gulf.
“Our strategy has always been about our ability to respond to global contingencies wherever and whenever they happen,” Dempsey said. “This does not change.”
Some in Congress challenged that assertion…
Rep. Randy Forbes, a Virginia Republican who chairs a committee on military readiness, said the strategy is inappropriately based on budget cuts rather than challenges the U.S. faces.
“To me this is not a strategy for a superpower,” Forbes said in an interview. “This is more a menu for mediocrity.”
Rep. Buck McKeon, chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, echoed those remarks in a statement, saying the strategy does not account for threats America faces.
“This is a lead-from-behind strategy for a left-behind America,” McKeon said in a statement. “The 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.”
(Sidebar) As the far left, (after decades of campaigning to eliminate) ..the Second Amendment from our Constitution; “The Right to Keep and Bear Arms,” ..even with the help of (super control freak – anti-gun – anti-freedom – anti-America Barack Obama in their corner, “they” still can’t get it done.
So where do “they” go? Apparently to one of their little smoke-filled back rooms with the door closed like they did with the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.
Because, ..having successfully shoved “Obamacare” down America’s throat, ..(although it is only conjecture on my part,) I believe that “they,”(the left) understanding that they cannot eliminate the Second Amendment and take “our” guns from “us” (the law abiding American citizen) ..”they” came up with the brilliant idea to take “funds” away from our military. Thus in (reality) ..taking the guns that our military (Keeps and Bears) ..to protect America, ..away from us, ..(the rank and file, taxpaying American citizens).
Question:
What’s next? Is Barack Obama going to follow his buddy Hugo Chavez and sign a presidential edict establishing (Bolivarianism) in America the Way, Hugo Chavez did in Venezuela?
Question: What is Bolivarianism?
Bolivarianism is a set of political doctrines that enjoys currency in parts of South America, especially Venezuela. Bolivarianism is named after Simón Bolívar, the 19th century Venezuelan general and liberator who led the struggle for independence throughout much of South America.
Chávez’s version of Bolivarianism, although drawing heavily from Simón Bolívar’s ideals, was also drawn from the writings of Marxist historian Federico Brito Figueroa. Chávez was also influenced by the South American tradition of cooperativism early in his life, such as that practiced by Jorge Eliécer Gaitán, Fidel Castro, Che Guevara and Salvador Allende. Other key influences on Chávez’s political philosophy include Ezequiel Zamora and Simón Rodríguez. Although Chávez himself refers to his ideology as Bolivarianismo (“Bolivarianism”), Chávez’s supporters and opponents in Venezuela refer to themselves as being either for or against “chavismo” Chávez supporters refer to themselves as “chavistas.” (Source Wikipedia)
(In simple English, Hugo Chavez is a Dictator).
(a.k.a. ..a Thug).
Sorry, ..but in my world, ..an (individual) ..is judged by the company that he keeps.
More than friend? ..you decide.
Continuing…
The previous peak in U.S. defense spending was an inflation-adjusted $517 billion in 1985. It fell in real terms the next 15 years but jumped after the 9/11 attacks, growing an average 4.4% annually. Fifty years ago, defense spending accounted for 47% of total federal spending. Today, it accounts for 19%, according to the White House Office of Management and Budget.
The Heritage Foundation, a think tank, states in a report based on figures from the federal government that defense spending is already at a low compared with the past 45 years. It says defense spending is now well under 5% of gross domestic product, down from a high of 9.5% in the late 1960s.
Geographically, the new strategy sees a need to counter China’s growing influence in the Pacific by expanding U.S. presence and bolstering alliances with countries in that region.
Question: Is bowing to China an adequate countermeasure?
Continuing…
“We’ll be strengthening our presence in the Asia Pacific, and budget reductions will not come at the expense of this critical region,” Obama said.
He called the new strategy an attempt to combine the need to cut defense spending with a revised assessment of the threats the U.S. will face in coming years. “Even as our forces prevail in today’s missions, we have the opportunity and the responsibility to look ahead to the force we need for the future,” he said.
The Army and Marine Corps already had been scheduled for downsizing. The Army has about 550,000 soldiers, up about 40,000 since 2006. There are about 200,000 Marines, up from 175,000. The Pentagon plans to cut 27,000 soldiers and 20,000 Marines by 2015 to save about $6 billion in 2015 and 2016.
(Nanny Mc Obama)
The new strategy signals a shift from labor-intensive wars, such as Iraq and Afghanistan. “The attitude is no more Iraqs,” said Andrew Krepinevich, president of the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments.
Pentagon leaders did not specify cuts, but the president’s new strategy will drive decisions about specific reductions, which will be announced in coming weeks.
(Welcome Home)
Military analysts say the Pentagon will attempt to pace the personnel reductions so as not to throw large numbers of service members into the labor force or abandon the non-commissioned officers who have borne the burden of fighting the nation’s wars for the past decade. “These are people who held the Army together,” Krepinevich said.
Deserving, ..albeit disenfranchised, ..and/or,
..(thrown under the bus) ..veterans.
The Pentagon also will have to consider cutting military benefits. And with smaller military forces, military analysts say the armed forces will try to counter threats with lower-cost alternatives, such as partnering or advising foreign militaries.
( All Hail, ..the Commander-in-Chief ).
“Wherever possible, we will develop (low-cost) and (small-footprint) approaches to achieving our security objectives, emphasizing rotational deployments, emphasizing exercises, (military exercises) ..with these nations, ..and doing (other innovative) approaches to maintain a presence throughout the rest of the world,” Panetta said. (Source USA Today)
( Low cost – Small footprint )
..and why not, ..Obama has turned our economy over to foreign nations, ..so why not our security?
Continuing…
White House sacrifices military community for budget cuts…
Saturday, March 10, 2012
Citizen Warrior by Tiffany Madison
DALLAS, March 10th, 2012 – Recently, the White House honored 200 of the 1.2 million Iraq and Afghanistan veterans with a special meal and high words of praise.
In a moving speech, President Obama spoke of sacrifice and struggle, reminding his audience that new veterans would not be abandoned like the Vietnam generation. “That’s a mistake that we must never repeat,” he stated.
Meanwhile, (behind closed doors) a series of policy actions (contradict) these statements, exposing government intentions to unnecessarily sacrifice the military community at the altar of budget cuts.
The first betrayal of trust involves outrageous increases to TRICARE, the health insurance benefit program for active and retired military personnel. A proposed “tiered increase” in annual payments would dramatically raise rates from 30% to 78% for the first year, and 94% to 345% after five years.
In addition, new annual fees, increased prescription co-payments and the elimination of generic drug incentives would render TRICARE virtually useless. Some benefits would also become “means-tested” and therefore categorized as a welfare system, not a benefit. The price hikes would affect 1.5 million active-duty service members, 21.8 million veterans, and their families.
(thank you for your service)
Tenured veterans and activists see the move as blatant betrayal. The Military Officers Association of America calls the proposed changes a “breach of faith.” VFW leader Richard DeNoyer, a Vietnam combat veteran and retired Marine, issued the following statement, “there is no military personnel issue more sacrosanct than pay and benefits.
Messing with military pay and benefits is a clear signal to the troops and their families that the budget is more important than people. That is going to seriously hurt recruiting and retention, and potentially end the all-volunteer force, because nobody wants to work for an ungrateful employer in a vocation as inherently dangerous as ours.”
Good point, ..no, ..GREAT POINT!
Accordingly, as a combat veteran of Vietnam, (1965) I would strongly suggest that anyone reading this that have served in the military or even if you only know someone who has served or is serving in the military, it would be my advice in this situation to follow the golden rule.
“Do unto Obama, ..before he does unto you.”
Okay, so I modified it a bit, ..sue me.
..and this doesn’t simply (apply) to (service members and veterans,) ..if you are not working due to government policy, ..when you go to the polls to vote in November, ..if you are unemployed, ..it seems fair to me that the folks that work for you (Obama, ..and every other Liberal “I’ve got mine” screw you Democrat that is responsible,) ..should be unemployed as well.
Continuing…
Slashing Defense Budget Puts Nation at Increased Risk…
By; Fred Ferreira
February, 2012
Heritage’s James Carafano recently wrote that President Obama’s proposed defense cuts are tantamount to a gift to America’s enemies. These cuts reduce America’s military capabilities in a dangerous world and bring greater risk to the nation.
The President’s new defense budget raises the risk level for the U.S. and its allies. In his budget preview, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta acknowledged this reality. Prior to this, military officials had already raised red flags.
For example, during General Martin Dempsey’s confirmation hearing to be the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, he characterized impending cuts as “extraordinarily difficult and very high risk.”
Carafano states that it is important to wring inefficiencies out of Pentagon spending—but not at the expense of national security. Libya is the case in point. The Department of Defense said it spent about half a billion dollars to oust Muammar Qadhafi; however, it requested authority to reprogram only about $80 million in spending. To pay for the Libya war, “[t]he Pentagon robbed training, maintenance and operations accounts and that resulted in shortfalls that directly reduce military readiness.
It is like shorting the mortgage payment to pay your credit cards.”
Contrary to popular belief, there is not a lot of money just sitting around at the Pentagon. While undoubtedly there are areas of waste in the defense program, the President’s defense budget is overwhelmingly about reducing U.S. military capabilities. Of course Congress should strive to make the federal government efficient; however, slashing defense spending should not be confused with wise fiscal policy. (Source heritage.org)
Think about it, (seriously), I’ll be back tomorrow
Crusader Rabbit…
pearlsofprofundity 