It is a truism that Freedom is not Free and we have neglected to make the necessary efforts to defend our freedoms ever since the Leftists in the Country declared a “Peace Dividend” and severely cut the size and strength of our military. We are paying the price for that short-sightedness today.

To win back the majority in November Republicans should stand foursquare for strengthening our national defense operations. That means:

1. Increasing the size of our full time military forces so that we don’t have to put as must pressure and reliance on our reserve forces.
2. Funding national defense at a level that is sufficient to meet all our expected needs over the long term. The Heritage Foundation suggests that this level should be somewhere around 4% of GDP.
3. Improving integration between our diplomatic and military operations
4. Ensuring that we have the right mix of forces for our expected needs. We should take into consideration not only the current conflict, but potential conflicts in the next few decades.
5. Strengthening our national intelligence operations especially with regard to human intelligence gathering.

Increasing the Size of Our Full-Time Military Forces

We do not now have the number of soldiers, sailors, marines, and airmen that we need to perform that tasks that the Defense Department is being asked to perform. Thanks to Bill Clinton, we are something like four divisions smaller in the Army, at least two Air Wings smaller in the Air Force, and God knows how many ships went out of services and sailors were let go.

We are using our National Guard and reserve units as frontline troops in conflicts that do not immediately threaten our homeland. While I am sure that these men and women are patriotic Americans, I believe that it is an undue burden on those who volunteer to serve in an emergency. I view an emergency as a relatively short duration event unless we are willing to put the entire nation on war footing as we did in World War II.

While we should always be judicious in the use of military force, this is a very dangerous world and it is always better to be prepared and not have to use force then to be unprepared and then to need the forces we do not have them. 

Funding National Defense at an Appropriate Level

I agree with members of the Heritage Foundation that a certain percentage of the budget each year should be set aside for national defense. The Heritage Foundation sets this value at 4 percent of GDP. Given the lack of funding during the Clinton administration and the heavy use of our armed forces during this administration, I suggest that the number might be initially larger than 4% of GDP. What ever the rate is, it should be enough to support a large enough military to meet our need to defend both our homeland and meet growing threats from foreign nations.

China is spending huge amounts of its income on building modern offensive military forces. Reports are that they are spending somewhere around 13% of their budget on their military. Consider the huge trade surpluses that they have with us and your will realize that we are funding their armed forces. They are building a large blue-water navy complete with very quite ballistic missile and attack submarines. Their army is the largest in the world in terms of manpower at it too is modernizing. They are building modern jet fighter aircraft that can compete with our frontline fighters. They have thousands of surface to surface missiles aimed at the island nation of Taiwan, a means of intimidation toward a sovereign nation that they regard as belonging to them. China has been in the forefront on nuclear weapons proliferation. Some people believe that it was China that helped Pakistan become a nuclear nation, and I believe that they have also aided North Korea. It was also reported that of the materials removed from Libya they found plans for a nuclear bomb written in Chinese. The country has demonstrated its willingness to ruthlessly put down dissent and has already taken over the independent nation of Tibet. They aid the government of Sudan that is responsible for the atrocities in Darfur.  They want the Sudan’s Oil reserves. They have prevented any effective U.N. sanctions against Iran for the same reason.

North Korea is a belligerent nation whose military dictator starves and terrorizes his own people and threatens war against peaceful South Korea and other nations. Kim Jung Ill spends on his military while his people starve. Now, North Korea has nuclear weapons and missiles that can reach the west coast of the United States. North Korea has engaged in counterfeiting U.S. currency and has aided and cooperated with both Iran and Syria.  It exists as a threat today because we failed to finish the job of removing the threat during the Korean War. So much for the effectiveness of the United Nations!

Iran is ruled by an Islamic Theocracy even though it is technically a “democracy.” You can’t make it to the parliament without the support of the mullahs. The president of that country tells the world that Israel should be wiped off the face of the map.  He seems to believe that he can bring about the coming of the Twelfth Imam by starting Armageddon. Iran is one of the world worst sponsors of terrorist organizations. It is the primary benefactor of both Hamas and Hezbollah, both terrorist organizations. It aids and supports the Syrian dictatorship that also supports Hezbollah and Hamas and funnels weapons to them so they can attack Israel. Despite its theological differences with Sunni Muslims it aids and shelters members of Al Qaeda. Reports are that at least one of Osama Bin Laden’s son’s lives there openly in a city near the Afghan border. The United Nations Nuclear Regulatory agency has recently reported that Iran in not being truthful about its atomic energy activities, that it is developing high explosives and missile technologies that are incompatible with peaceful uses of nuclear energy, but have everything to do with nuclear weapons. Iran has cooperated closely with North Korea and missile technology and uses North Korean technology in its ballistic missile systems.

In Venezuela, a belligerent dictator with oil money is working to undermine democracies in the southern hemisphere. He is making friend with Iran and building a military force that I s beyond what is needed for purely defensive purposes.

Sadly, even Russia is moving back toward its old autocratic / dictatorial ways. It is nationalizing its oil industry again, and stifling opposition media. It too is cooperating with Iran and blocking effective actions against that country in the United Nations. It shows open suspicion of and even belligerence toward any expansion of NATO even though that alliance has been historically a defensive alliance. This does not bode well for near term relations with Russia, which is still a nuclear nation and potentially very dangerous.

Improving Integration between Our Diplomatic and Military Operations

I understand the sentiments of people like Congressman Ron Paul, who believe that we should not be involved in foreign interventionism. He seems to believe that we are acting more out of the special interests of our own industrial commercial interests than for any concern for security, or altruism. In a perfect world I would like to believe as Congressman Paul does, that we should not get involved in foreign affairs. I don’t think that we ought to be or even can be the world’s policemen. But I do not see the situation as being that uncomplicated. We are a trading nation; that is our lifeblood.  We can no more withdrawal from the world than we can solve global warming, (A subject for another post!). We need a military force that is capable of protecting our people and their property wherever in the world that might be. And it is not practical to play solely a defensive game. If you always wait until you are attacked then you are always playing catch-up.

I do not believe that we were attacked on 9/11 solely for our foreign interventionism; I believe that we were attacked because our presence presented an obstacle to Al Qaeda’s plans for dominion in that region of the world. I believe that was the reason for the 1993 attack on the World Trade Towers, the attack on the Kobar towers, the attacks on the embassies, and the attack on the U.S.S. Cole. I believe that it was our failure to respond properly to those attacks that lead to 9/11.

We need to use all facets of national power to interface with the rest of the world to keep a level playing field. Diplomatic and economic influences should be primary, but the use of military force is just diplomacy by another means. I do not believe in cooperating for the sake of cooperation. I believe that we must always consider what is in the best interests of our people. As George Washington warned we must always be wary of foreign entanglements.  I think that both the State Department and the Defense Department should understand that they both work for the President and it their job to carry out his or her foreign policies. They should not be working at cross purpose regardless of their own beliefs.

Ensuring the Right Mix of Forces

Today’s conflicts seem to require an emphasis on developing and being able to use special operations forces. These are highly trained highly mobile forces that can move in and out of areas of conflict and that can interact closely with the local populations. We also need people with diplomatic skills, with language skills, with skill in civil affairs, police services and public health. Because no war can be won without the support of the population, we need those skills that will help us win that support. And because of the nature of this warfare we need a whole lot of people on our side. That is one of the reasons we should have already increased the size of the armed forces.

I don’t think that we entered these foreign lands just to impose our will on them. We went there because that was where the bad guys were.

We need to be able to transport combat power to any portion of the world where the conflict exists and that means we need sufficient airlift and sea lift capabilities. Because of the very long times it took to build up forces for operation Iraqi Freedom, I question whether we have sufficient capabilities now.

The navy needs new multi-mission warships that may be operated with fewer crews. They need to be able to use their active sonar along our coastal waters because the Chinese subs are now so quite that there is no other way to detect them.

The army needs weapons systems that are highly mobile and yet have effective striking power and that may be air transported if necessary. I believe that we will see even more use of robotics in the future defense forces from UAVs of different sizes to robots dealing with mines and explosives, to weapons that use non-lethal force such as directed sound systems or microwave systems than can incapacitate an enemy fighter long enough to take them prisoner without killing. The Army is also looking at the use of remote sensors to assist in guarding of borders to alert our forces to the presence and perhaps even the nature of enemy fighters.

Given the dangers of ballistic missiles in the wrong hands, I believe it is imperative that we continue to develop and deploy advanced ballistic missile defenses, both land based and sea based. As these are truly defensive weapons systems I cannot see the logic in slowing down or stopping their development as has been suggested by Barrack Obama. That is just simply stupid.

It is not just the danger of a missile or missiles hitting our homeland, but the danger of a nuclear blast at high altitude above our country. The electro-magnetic pulse form such a blast could literally put this country out of commission. Anything that depends on electricity could be damaged to the point of being useless. Vehicles would stop working, phones and radios would not work, power plants could be put out of commission, water and sewer plants would not work. People would die in large numbers due to lack of food and services. Chaos would break out.

The Air Force also needs to update it aging fleet of aircraft. I do not believe in relying of foreign technology for strategic weapon systems and so I would rather see Boeing building the new air tanker aircraft. The A-330 airframe is bigger, but that also means it is more limited as to where it can land.

I am impressed by the capabilities of the F-22 Raptor fighter, but I think that it comes at way too high a price. Surely we can find ways to build capable systems that compete with the best others have to offer, but don’t break the bank. 

The Air Force also needs a new line of heavy, long-range bombers. The B-52s are ancient and should be retired already, the B-1 program was killed by President Carter, which means the ones that exist are old, and even the B-2’s are getting older and we don’t have enough of them. Heavy bombers are useful because they are capable of delivering large payloads anywhere in the world. They would be capable of delivering non-nuclear bunker buster bombs against hardened targets such as the underground nuclear facilities in Iran that currently can not be effectively stopped by any other method short of nuclear attack. Unlike missiles, they can be recalled. As with other programs we need to figure out how to build them at a lower total cost.

Strengthening National Intelligence Resources

We need to engage in long-term improvement of our intelligence gathering capabilities. The biggest weakness here is in the area of human intelligence. It is not enough to know a potential enemies capability, it is essential to know their intentions. This is something that may take decades to improve.

If Republicans want to avoid minority status I suggest they take a strong stand on rebuilding our national defenses.