Justin Levi Levi would like you to write to
[email protected] if you
wish to question his infinite wisdom. Click
Here for more articles by Justin Levi
Well, you knew it was bound to happen sometime. Not even a month
has gone by and our esteemed president, George
“Strategery” Bush has already reneged on a fundamental
campaign promise. Jeez, I don’t even think Bubba Clinton was
that quick.
Yes, friends, I’m talking about the current state of the
armed forces, or as I like to call it, the Hail Mary Military. If
we ever get into a really tight spot, pray to whatever god you
believe in that we’ll come out okay. Yep, it’s that
bad.
Before we get into the specifics, you’re probably
wondering what I’m talking about. After all, we defeated the
USSR, and we are now an international hegemon. Who needs a large
military, right?
Yeah, sure, tell that to Saddam and the Ayatollah, not to
mention the leaders of India and Pakistan, who are currently
engaged in perhaps the most dangerous game of “nuclear
can-you-top-this” the world has ever seen, not excepting the
Cold War. And there’s also that little problem known as
China, the country that won’t rest until it has taken all of
America’s military secrets (thanks, Bill) and successfully
challenged U.S. hegemony.
So now that we’ve established that our military needs to
remain at the level at which it was before the end of the Cold War,
let’s start examining the current state of the armed forces
by engaging in my favorite recreational activity ““ slamming
Bill Clinton and his absurd policies.
The military budget, increased by Reagan, allowed the Persian
Gulf War, without a doubt the most decisive military victory in
American history, to be fought with such success. By organizing
such a massive force, the United States was able to strike quickly,
bring Saddam’s Iraq to its knees within a matter of months,
and avoid unnecessary loss of life on both sides of the
conflict.
 Illustration by JASON CHEN/Daily Bruin Senior Staff This
is very important to remember, given that virtually any other major
military engagement in the near and somewhat distant future will
most likely be of the scale of the Gulf War. In addition, given the
overwhelming amount of poorly rationalized foreign policy
entanglements that we can blame on Clinton (and don’t think
Bush is likely to withdraw from every one any time soon), it is
very easy to see how our military has been stretched wafer
thin.
As usual, we are going to let the facts speak for themselves.
Here are some rather frightening statistics from the National
Center for Policy Analysis and the Quadrennial Defense Report.
First of all, the Pentagon has been forced to remove four out of 14
entire Army divisions from its combat-ready list, representing
nearly 500,000 troops. Twenty-five percent of all fighter jets have
been grounded. Since 1989, basic combat training has dropped to
such a degree that there has been nearly a 33 percent decrease in
the number of active troops.
In addition, we can look simply at the virtual catastrophe of
1998. That year, 434 combat aircrafts were decommissioned, 10
percent of all submarines were retired, and the number of ground
combat vehicles, namely tanks, fell by over 13 percent. This is
especially interesting considering that 1998 was perhaps
Clinton’s most active military year. In fact, according to
the National Center for Policy Analysis, the necessary Kosovo
peacekeeping force of 4,000 will require at least $50 million per
month alone.
Fundamentally, however, the real problem with the current state
of the military lies with modernization. In order to maintain a
military that adapts to the current international political
climate, we require a military that perpetually adapts to
technological superiority over time. Michael O’Hanlon of the
Brookings Institution has estimated a required $30 to $40 billion
per year increase in the military budget in order to maintain
current modernization plans.
Yet, our government chooses to “modernize” by simply
retiring old equipment without replacing it. Anyone see the lack of
intelligence here?
Experts have also estimated that readiness levels are the worst
they’ve been in nearly 20 years. How anyone can expect to
maintain current foreign commitments with such a pathetic reality
simply boggles the mind.
Continuing our analysis, it is very important to examine
military spending in the context of what is precisely necessary to
maintain the kind of military we need. As the state of warfare
evolves, military engagements will become much more centered around
so-called smart bombs and laser guided missiles, which allow a
limit on the loss of life on either side of a given conflict.
A guided missile that can be fired from a naval vessel, however,
currently costs $1 million alone. This is clearly not enough to
maintain the peacekeeping operations that modern liberals tout as
necessary and moral. The contradiction, in this case, is rather
clear. Indeed, the recent Kosovo conflict proved this theory.
Because the United States could not afford guided missiles, we were
forced to use simple laser-guided bombs, launched from
fighters.
Of course, Clinton realized that he couldn’t lose to many
lives in combat, so he ordered the planes to fly so high that the
bombs often missed their targets, killing innocent civilians. A
word to liberals: don’t accuse the military of misdeeds if
you put them in that position in the first place.
Alright, now to the big question. Given that our military is
primarily intended to be defensive rather than offensive, it would
behoove us to devote a significant portion of the defense budget to
just that, defense. This translates to four words: national missile
defense system.
Many liberals have attacked such an idea as outdated and
wasteful. The reality of the situation, however, is that the threat
of a missile attack on the United States is perhaps greater now
than at any point during the Cold War, given the many rogue nations
of the world.
Furthermore, such an investment is also beneficial in that it
will help defend key allies throughout the world, such as Japan,
South Korea, Taiwan and Israel, if we also establish so-called
“theater” defense systems.
The most common criticism of this plan is that it has been tried
and has failed, namely under Reagan. As usual, the facts
don’t support this claim. In reality, only $4 billion total
was spent on the so-called “Star Wars” plan during
Reagan’s entire term in office, out of what ultimately
amounted to nearly $300 billion in total per-year defense
outlays.
And by the way, the current plans for a missile defense system
don’t include the mythical lasers in the sky, as is commonly
misperceived. Please, this isn’t a sci-fi world.
As America enters the 21st century, one fundamental question
must be answered. Are we going to commit ourselves to the famed
Wilsonian principle of spreading democracy throughout the world? If
so, we need to be able to back up such and assertion with more than
just words.
The sword, it seems, is just as mighty as the pen.