Advertisement
Columns

Defense Cuts Demonstrate Mistaken Priorities

Share
Tweet
email Email
Print
Advertisement
82775210

Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel demands dramatic cuts in the nation’s military to bring the number of personnel to the lowest levels since before Pearl Harbor.

He never acknowledged, however, that the population 73 years ago was only 132 million—compared to 315 million today. That means the Hagel-Obama military, as a percentage of our overall population, would shrink to much less than half the vulnerable forces that tempted the Japanese and Germans in 1941.

Hagel candidly acknowledged that other nations now challenge U.S. strategic dominance through technological advances, and agreed that a weaker military brings bigger risks, but nonetheless urged reductions in forces, weapons programs, and even military pay and benefits. National Security should always be top priority for the federal government, but the Obama administration prefers investing in wind farms, high-speed trains and more food stamps.

Share
Tweet
email Email
Print

Comments (7)

Leave a comment
  1. gary  •  Mar 4, 2014 at 7:07 pm

    Cut the budget by cutting the corruption,6 to 8 trillion,some one needs to be held accountable,the last 3 administrations are a joke.When will we ever get someone in office that at least pretends to care about this country.

    • JGUY  •  Mar 9, 2014 at 12:30 pm

      Gary, What do you really think? Amazing punctuation!

  2. nick heller  •  Mar 6, 2014 at 2:38 pm

    Fat should be cut from the defense budget, but now is not the time to weaken the military

  3. Chris Douglas  •  Mar 7, 2014 at 1:42 pm

    The constitution has providing for the common defense language in it. All the social programs do not. All the President is doing is robbing the defense budget to pay for the social programs. The administration is still “providing for the common defense,” to satisfy his constitutional requirements, however, our military will be overrun when another country hits our shores. I guess we can fight them off with Food stamp cards.

  4. Michael S, Smith  •  Mar 7, 2014 at 1:54 pm

    Sorry I totally disagree I think that we can even do with a smaller military and that we are not spending enough of Education and social programs for the poor High Speed rail, Wind Farms and solar energy will create thousands of jobs more then building the Keystone XL which would only contribute to Global warming even with the reductions our military would be bigger the next 10-13 nations combined and do not forget most of them are are allies and would be on our side in any major conflict I my not agree in what is being cut like eliminating the A-10 or U-2 for example we could reduce the number of super carriers from 11 to 5 or cut the number or Nuclear subs by about 255 we have too many Generals and Admirals so we should reduce the number or them. only have token forces say a brigade in Europe and Japan, Korea we still need a large force but maybe only a couple of Army Divisions and a brigade or 2 of Marines we should only have no more then say 500 men in Iraq and Afghanistan as well as other Moslem countires

    • JGUY  •  Mar 9, 2014 at 12:24 pm

      Michael s. Smith
      Did you ever wonder why more money for education would cause
      teachers to teach more effectively? Does this mean they are
      holding back now until they get more pay? If it is within them to
      teach with greater effectiveness would it not be morally honest
      for them to do this regardless of current or projected payment?

      Would increasing the spending for “social programs for the poor”
      not make becoming poor possibly desirable thus increasing
      the percentage of the population considered to be “the poor”.

      Your listing of military cuts is interesting…..I do think Hegel is
      correct but I believe the reason is because the US should
      not continue to police the world…ie forces in Germany and
      Japan….why? Also…technology is making the need for
      massive ground forces obsolete.

      Enjoyed the artistry of two pseudo-sentences to cover several
      topics. Interesting.

  5. Mark Dougherty  •  Mar 7, 2014 at 10:37 pm

    Michael – Well done – your first sentence is a 144 word run-on sentence. I think that’s got to be a record. It’s as well constructed as your thought process on the size of defense.

Tell Us What You Think

All fields required. The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. By using this website you agree to accept our Terms of Use.

Medhead - Michael Medved's Premium Content

Login Join
Advertise with us Advertisement
Advertisement

Follow Michael

Subscribe to our Newsletter

Get Medved weekly movie reviews, columns, and special offers delivered to your inbox.

Subscribe

The Michael Medved Show - Mobile App

Download from App Store Get it on Google play
Advertisement
Advertisement
Michael Medved's History Store Also available on TuneIn