• The Heritage Network
    • Resize:
    • A
    • A
    • A
  • Donate
  • One Battle Does Not Win a War

    America’s history is plagued by a succession of conflicts for which we have been unprepared or insufficiently committed, having succumbed to the belief that peace is a guarantee of its own existence. Over the last century, from the beginning of the Korean War to post-Vietnam, the military has too often been forced to do more with less, and each time ultimately required a significant expenditure in both blood and wealth to bring them back from the brink.

    With significant defense cuts already during his tenure, President Obama has recently proposed an additional $400 billion in cuts. Perhaps the largest wartime cuts to this nation’s security capacity in history, such reductions belie the fact that Osama bin Laden’s death did not in fact end the global war against terrorists. We are still actively engaged in the fight for freedom across the world, and it is the United States military that leads the vanguard of this fight.

    Operation Geronimo—the operation that killed bin Laden—was the culmination of human capabilities across multiple military and intelligence fields, and there is no substitution for such resources. To argue that the success of these resources is the perfect explanation that they are no longer needed is, to put it bluntly, asinine.

    Voices against these cuts are screaming loudly, and they must continue to do so. Many argue that deployments such as those in Germany and South Korea are excessive, while those in Afghanistan and Iraq are unwarranted. The very presence, and active work, of our forces in these regions, however, is what guarantees the safety of this nation. Our bases in Germany and South Korea serve as forward deployment centers, allowing us to rapidly respond to humanitarian crises from Africa to the Philippines. Our missions in Afghanistan and Iraq, by pinning down the Taliban and al-Qaeda, keep us safer at home by destroying our enemies’ mission capacity.

    These missions, however, depend on the fortitude of our military. No matter how professional, how well trained, how dedicated our men and women in uniform may be, they cannot fight without the weapons that make them a 21st-century military.

    Ayman al-Zawahiri is still at large. Islamist terrorist groups from the Maghreb to the western Pacific remain active, plotting attacks against both us and our allies. Rogue nations such as Iran continue to pursue nuclear weapons in utter defiance of the international community. We have won a battle in the death of Osama bin Laden, but the war is not over. Freedom is won by the blood and tears of those brave few willing to fight—and sometimes die—for the values we so take for granted.

    Now is not the time to make that fight harder. Our men and women in uniform deserve the support they need to come home safely, not politically motivated cuts that needlessly risk their lives. This nation should not wait until we are attacked again to realize that our military is the bulwark of our peace and security. If our military is incapable of performing another Operation Geronimo in the future, it will not be because our military would not want to save us but because we would not let them.

    Matthew Despres is currently a member of the Young Leaders Program at the Heritage Foundation. Click here for more information on interning at Heritage.

    Posted in Ongoing Priorities [slideshow_deploy]

    4 Responses to One Battle Does Not Win a War

    1. West Texan says:

      To treat defense as some discretionary budget item is false thinking. The federal government's committed role is national security. The U.S. Congress should instead be working toward the eventual transfer of all entitlements to the respective states, where these domestic decisions or public programs rightfully belong.

    2. Winston says:

      stop obama's gutting the US defense

    3. Zbigniew Mazurak, Pl says:

      This is a significant improvement over Mr Despres' previous post. Nonetheless, he still appears to rely on the "global role of the United States" argument to argue against defense cuts:

      "We are still actively engaged in the fight for freedom across the world, and it is the United States military that leads the vanguard of this fight."

      This is not a fight for freedom, nor should it be. This is a fight against terrorism. Moroever, it is not the job of the US as a country or of the US military to fight for the freedom of foreigners. The job of the US military is to defend this country and its freedoms.

      The Heritage Foundation, and everyone else who cares for the cause of a strong defense, should instead use the arguments I use, e.g. that a strong defense is necessary to protect this very country; that "defense on the cheap" is not possible (as evidenced by the experiences of European countries, which have been trying defense on the cheap since 1989 and have failed abysmally); that one must adequately provide for the common defense; that defense of the United States is a Constitutional DUTY of the federal government (vide Art. IV of the Constitution) rather than a mere option; that the mythical "military-industrial complex" does not exist.

      In short, the Heritage Foundation should, I believe, use the kind of argumentation which will be most persuasive to the American people at this time, when the federal budget deficit for this FY alone is $1.65 trillion and when Americans want America's global commitments to be scaled back dramatically. Billing a strong defense as necessary to protect foreign countries guarantees losing the debate. These days, the American people couldn't care less what will happen to foreign countries (other than Israel).

    4. Tim AZ says:

      The regime will continue to decimate our military until the next election. I have only arrived at one conclusion as to why they despise our military and that is because our military is sworn by oath to protect the constitution and not the ideas of the regime. Why else would Mao-Bama have called for the creation of a private military as powerful and as well funded as our military? Had enough yet?

    Comments are subject to approval and moderation. We remind everyone that The Heritage Foundation promotes a civil society where ideas and debate flourish. Please be respectful of each other and the subjects of any criticism. While we may not always agree on policy, we should all agree that being appropriately informed is everyone's intention visiting this site. Profanity, lewdness, personal attacks, and other forms of incivility will not be tolerated. Please keep your thoughts brief and avoid ALL CAPS. While we respect your first amendment rights, we are obligated to our readers to maintain these standards. Thanks for joining the conversation.

    Big Government Is NOT the Answer

    Your tax dollars are being spent on programs that we really don't need.

    I Agree I Disagree ×

    Get Heritage In Your Inbox — FREE!

    Heritage Foundation e-mails keep you updated on the ongoing policy battles in Washington and around the country.

    ×