• The Heritage Network
    • Resize:
    • A
    • A
    • A
  • Donate
  • Obama's New Defense Strategy Leaves America Less Safe

    President Obama’s new national defense strategy is a budget-driven exercise masquerading as a strategic plan, writes Heritage’s Kim Holmes, former Assistant Secretary of State, in The Washington Times.

    In trotting out the new strategy, President Obama said the “tide of war is receding.” Accordingly, U.S. forces will “no longer be sized to conduct large-scale, prolonged stability operations” (read: Iraq). But is the tide of war receding on the world stage? And how does he know that the U.S. will not need to engage in another “stability operation”?

    The Army shed much of its counterinsurgency capabilities after the Vietnam War, thinking that such conflicts were a thing of the past. Iraq and Afghanistan proved otherwise. By cutting America’s ground forces by 10 percent to 15 percent to pre-9/11 levels, we are removing the flexibility to respond to unforeseen challenges. We may also be inviting them by ignoring the lessons of history.

    For those not familiar with the details of the strategic guidance report, here is a translation: In stating U.S. forces will “no longer be sized to conduct large-scale, prolonged stability operations,” the Administration is preparing to gut the Army and Marine Corps, while hitting the Navy and Air Force less (for now). The “strategy” basically says we have a four-legged stool, and we’re going to cut off two legs. This is part of the so-called pivot to Asia to deal with a rising China.

    More focus on China is fine and dandy, but there’s a problem with militaries designed to do only one thing well: The enemy gets a vote. Every war the U.S. has fought in recent years was in an unexpected place against an unanticipated enemy. Having a “scalpel” for a military doesn’t help much when what you really need is a Swiss Army knife.

    At the heart of this assessment is the rosy assumption that the future geopolitical landscape will not produce the types of major conflicts as the past. Yet the world is still a very dangerous place.

    Both Iran and North Korea have active nuclear and ballistic missile programs and the ability to reach U.S. allies and forward-deployed troops with ballistic missiles. China is engaged in a non-transparent major military buildup with unclear intentions. A re-emergent Russia is vigorously modernizing its nuclear forces and seeks to intimidate its former Soviet neighbors, Europe, and the NATO alliance. Terrorist threats to the U.S. and its European allies emanate from Southwest Asia, the Middle East, and failed states. Cyber attacks threaten critical financial and communication networks and national security assets in an already teetering economy.

    The strategic guidance jettisons the U.S. military’s longstanding strategy to be able to fight two major wars at one time—a post–Cold War standard that was held even during the Clinton years. What has changed to abandon this policy? Since the Clinton years, the world has seen the rise of China, a resurgent Russia, a nuclear-aspiring Iran, and the 9/11 attacks. If anything, this standard is only more necessary today.

    The problem is that it is not always up to us when we engage in conflict, respond to terrorism, or have to prevent hostilities abroad from flaring into regional conflicts. Even a cursory reading of history shows that authoritarian regimes find it advantageous to have two wars taking place simultaneously. Attack one place and your enemy can’t respond in the other.

    Obama’s strategy is based on the false assumption that excessive defense spending is responsible for our government’s fiscal crisis, writes Holmes. Gutting defense will not solve America’s budget problems. Defense spending could go to zero today, and spending on Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security over the next few decades would still consume the entire federal budget by 2049. Of course, it is much easier to cut defense spending than the proverbial “third rail” of American politics—the big three entitlements.

    Holmes makes clear that the risks to America and its allies added by this strategy are unnecessary. Defense planning should be about planning for an unpredictable future and providing a safety net. Obama’s new strategy and defense cuts are pulling the safety net out from underneath us.

    Posted in Security [slideshow_deploy]

    5 Responses to Obama's New Defense Strategy Leaves America Less Safe

    1. Bobbie says:

      the President doesn't agree to logic how is he going to pretend to agree to defense strategy that isn't his? the President doesn't show much value to human life, even singles out the ones he doesn't value at all.
      His priorities are all about …him and all of his! whoever they are…

    2. Prfssrpah says:

      Obama does not care what happens to the US in 2017 or later as long as he can use this to firm his
      liberal base and ease his way to reelection in 2012. He is so concerned about his reelection and short term political career he is willing to sacrifice anything and everything to do so.

      • Its scary we have a Commander n Chief that has no clue, even tho BinLaden fell inn his lap. Everything ideolgy he holds is contray to most Americans, so I dont understand wo could vote for such an arrogantly incompetent individual who is trying to con another 4 yrs out of Americans. When we elect a President we expect him to do the responsibilities of his office. What we dont expect is him to assault the very fabric's we hold sacred. He thinks he is a "Rock Star"? Guitting the military you would think would save billions, but his budget for next year is overa trillion in deficit spending? He is a total con and moron or something else is going on!

    3. curt says:

      Do you hear that Iran, N. Korea, Argentina? We are cutting down on our armed forces so play nice or we,ll send our president over to apologize.

    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.

    ×