Our Military Is Weak. That Should Scare You.
Posted on Thursday, February 15, 2024
|
by Outside Contributor
|
50 Comments
Our government isn’t serious about defending the United States and its interests. In fact, it has fallen woefully short in carrying out this sacred obligation. I know this sounds harsh, but as we’ll see, the government’s own numbers prove the point.
That our military is weak is not an indictment of the men and women who have volunteered to serve. It is an indictment of a system largely defined by the government and those elected to high office.
That includes senior military officers whose primary obligation should be to ensure that our men and women have what they need to win in war—which is, after all, the primary purpose of our military.
Yes, many people will say the purpose of a strong military is to deter war, but deterrence derives from the belief of the enemy that they would be defeated in battle. So if our military is at great risk of not being able to win … well, it doesn’t have much deterrent value.
Our potential enemies can see this; the American public, not so much.
At present, the U.S. military is roughly half the size it needs to be. Moreover, most of its primary equipment (planes, ships, tanks, etc.) is 30 to 40 years old. Soldiers, sailors, airmen, Marines, and guardsmen are training only a fraction of what they should to be competent in battle.
Yet senior leaders in the Pentagon, White House spokespersons, and even members of Congress who have access to the facts (and should know better) continue to say that we have the best military in the world, as if saying so makes it so. It does not.
Let’s look at the numbers, using references from near the end of the Cold War, when the U.S. last confronted a major competitor on a global stage. Recall that until the collapse of the Soviet Union in the early 1990s, the U.S. maintained forces able to compete with the Soviets in many regions at once, primarily in Europe (in land and air) but also across the seas where naval power was essential.
Back then, Washington had to focus only on one capital and the ambitions of one authoritarian regime. Regardless of where military actions occurred, the signals reverberated to Moscow.
Today, the U.S. must account for regimes in Moscow, Beijing, Tehran, and Pyongyang, and a host of smaller powers and terrorist regimes that challenge U.S. interests. They have different objectives and possess different cultures, values, and networks.
Just because the U.S. acts in the Middle East to thwart Iran doesn’t mean that China alters its activities vis-à-vis Taiwan or its push on territorial claims in the South China Sea, or that Russia lessens its assault of Europe or attempts to divide NATO. They pose different threats to the U.S. in different ways.
What they have in common is the objective of displacing the United States as a global power and reducing America’s ability to shape the future in ways that benefit Americans.
To compete on a global stage against a multitude of adversaries who collaborate against the U.S., at least opportunistically, America must possess military power commensurate with the realities of the current world, not one that is imagined years from now nor held in fond memory.
Consider the following:
In the late 1980s, the Navy possessed nearly 600 ships, keeping approximately 100 at sea on any given day. Today, it has 292 yet maintains the same number deployed, thus working both ships and crew twice as much. It is not uncommon for ships to be 15% undermanned.
In 1989, the Army had 770,000 soldiers in its active component. Today, it has 452,000, shrinking by 33,000 last year alone. By the end of this year, it will shrink further, to 445,000.
Since 2011, the Army has lost 121,000 troops, 22% of its force. The service is the smallest it has been since the 1930s. Most of its major weapons were purchased in the 1980s.
During the Cold War, the average Air Force pilot flew more than 200 hours a year and often exceeded 300 hours. Our pilots made fun of their Soviet counterparts for flying half that number. Today, the average Air Force pilot flies fewer than 130 hours, while their Chinese competitors fly 200-plus.
The average age of an Air Force fighter is 30, older than the pilots flying the aircraft. The average age of the majority of refueling aircraft is 60 years—as old (or older) than the parents of the pilots flying them.
Fourteen years ago, America committed to modernizing its portfolio of nuclear weapons. Since then, our nuclear enterprise hasn’t produced a single new weapon. Meanwhile, China has produced 100 nuclear missiles just the past year and is on track to quadruple its inventory by 2030.
Iran is near-nuclear, having amassed enough uranium enriched to 60% to make a half-dozen warheads in 30 days if it committed to push the enrichment process to 90%, which it is capable of doing. Iran already possesses the largest inventory of ballistic missiles in the Middle East and is placing satellites in orbit to refine militarily relevant technologies.
Although Russia has taken a beating in its war against Ukraine, it has moved to a wartime economy and is making more missiles and tanks now than before it invaded Ukraine. New equipment is rapidly replacing the old Soviet inventory that Russia has consumed or lost in the past two years.
And the soldiers who have survived the Russia-Ukraine war to this point are battle-hardened; U.S. forces last saw major combat when in Iraq, nearly 20 years ago.
Perhaps things wouldn’t be so worrisome if we could count on strong, reliable allies. Unfortunately, their story is worse.
During the Cold War, West Germany had 5,000 main battle tanks. Today, it has 300 Leopard IIs, of which fewer than 100 are considered operational. But that’s better than in 2021, when only 13 were available for deployment.
Germany’s defense minister has reported that the country won’t be able to field a ready division until 2025. Its military infrastructure is so decayed that it will take 300 billion euros (about $329 billion) and 50 years to modernize.
In the United Kingdom, the army is the smallest since 1710 and leaders have said they would struggle to put a single division in the field. Britain’s military services combined (160,000 service members) are smaller than the U.S. Marine Corps at 174,000. The Royal Navy possesses a mere 20 surface combatants.
France only has 19 large surface warships. In the days since the Cold War, the number of France’s tanks has dropped from 1,349 to 222 and the number of fighter aircraft from 686 to 254. A senior defense leader has questioned whether the French military could operate longer than four days in high-intensity combat.
Japan, a major U.S. ally in the Pacific, reportedly has such a limited inventory of munitions that its ships and aircraft could sortie only three times before having nothing more to shoot.
Back at home, 3 out of 4 young Americans are ineligible for military service, without a waiver, due to physical or mental health issues, obesity, criminal records, or substance abuse.
The recruiting environment is so bad that the Navy has increased the maximum age for new enlistees and has begun accepting enlistees in the lowest category of aptitude testing. In the Army, all captains are now automatically promoted to major. In the Air Force, all officers in flight school graduate, with less than one-quarter of 1% failing due to lack of demonstrated proficiency.
Many Americans perceive the military as more interested in pushing social policy agenda programs than in ensuring that our forces are able to win in combat.
Clearly, we have a problem.
All of this is captured in gory detail in The Heritage Foundation’s recently released 2024 Index of U.S. Military Strength. The point of the index is twofold: to inform Americans about the state of their military and to prompt Congress and the Biden administration to do something about correcting the multitude of problems in our country’s ability to defend itself and its interests in a very dangerous world that seems to be spiraling out of control.
Regular citizens can see to their needs for employment, food, medical care, personal protection, and spiritual fulfillment. They help each other in times of distress and routinely come together to celebrate successes in life. But they cannot defend the country at the individual or community level. That responsibility lies with the federal government, which is failing at the task.
This must change, and Americans should demand it. Waiting until the next crisis is upon us will be too late.
This commentary originally was published by The National Interest
Reprinted with permission from The Daily Signal by Dakota Wood.
Justplainbill's Weblog 
analysis of NYS Trump “fraud” trial, by Robert Charles
$355 Million Penalty – Pure Politics
Posted on Monday, February 19, 2024
|
by AMAC, Robert B. Charles
|
10 Comments
Scary. Respect for rule of law is in freefall. Democrats have disparaged Supreme Court rulings. State officials try hijacking a presidential election by misinterpreting the 14th Amendment. Biden tries to imprison his opponent. Now, New York State Judge Arthur Engoron inflicts a $355 million penalty on the leading candidate for president – not a good look.
In his 92-page opinion, following a highly personalized trial, the judge makes a victimless non-crime called “business puffing” – no damages – into a crime. He declines the defendant a jury trial, holds kangaroo court, then inflicts a huge penalty.
To get this result, Americans must swallow never-before-asserted legal fictions, interpretations of law, and a politically hostile state prosecutor and judge overseeing the proceeding, despite their rank prejudice.
Almost certainly, this decision will be revised, perhaps thrown out entirely. It simply cannot stand. Why?
First, the facts are hardly damning. Loans were secured from banks with guarantees based on legal documents, clear representations, comparative values, assessing Trump’s credit, and due diligence.
The judge ignores expert witnesses who said no fraud occurred, the banks were content to lend to Trump, no entity lost money on any transaction, nor did any citizen suffer provable damage.
Despite this, the anti-defendant judge who repeatedly tried to gag Trump (reversed) and consistently insulted him – offers a conclusory view. He says Trump’s statements were “blatantly false… resulting in fraudulent financial statements.” Boom, one and done, over, next.
The whole concept that a biased state judge, abetted by a vengeful state prosecutor, is allowed to target, harass, convict, try to bankrupt, and end the campaign of a political opponent – is revolting, utterly anti-democratic. It violates a dozen principles of ethics.
Still, not a single leading Democrat has said this is wrong, political persecution, like the cases being brought by Jack Smith, a prosecutor sanctioned for a political case in 2014 (9-0, Supreme Court), and the embarrassingly unethical, unrepentant Georgia prosecutor.
What else is wrong with this fantastical $355 million dollar penalty, inflicted with apparent joy by two partisans on candidate Trump mid-campaign?
A lot. Throughout this opinion, the judge miscasts his own behavior, visible to the world, shamefully hostile to the defendant, telegraphing with his words, tone and temperament an intent to demean.
Moreover, the prosecutor and judge target the former president’s sons for punishment, making a crime of something never previously viewed as a crime, also not taught as a “crime” in law schools – including New York law schools, just “business puffing” in the subjective realm of value assessment.
The judge then pretends common law fraud is not under discussion, that his punishment is not a penalty, just a civil act of “disgorgement” – giving back money when it is plainly a debilitating punishment.
Listing elements of common law fraud – including false statement, knowledge that it is false, reliance and damages, he sidesteps the entire thing, saying this is not common law fraud.
Why? Because he cannot prove those elements “beyond a reasonable doubt,” cannot prove the statements were false, anyone relied on them, or any damages.
Instead, the judge and prosecutor create their own non-crime crime, saying the “marketplace,” which has shown no harm, is the victim – of statements never proven knowingly false, or exclusively relied upon, or for which there were any damages or complaints.
This pretzel-like approach to trapping a defendant, making up standards and victims, pretending damages exist, that they were somehow horrendous, that anyone has ever been prosecuted like this – is audacious. It is also profoundly anti-democratic, further eroding respect for prosecutors and the courts.
But, we are not done. This judge cites Executive Law 63 (12), from 1956, to shoehorn defendant’s “puffing” into a heinous criminal act, prosecuted in civil form to avoid proof “beyond a reasonable doubt” (criminal standard, versus “more probable than not” the civil standard), just another cheat.
Insufficient room exists to properly unpack this ugly, disingenuous opinion. It rambles, miscasting much of the trial, demeaning the defendant. It oozes prejudice, undisguised hostility. The words “fair administration of justice” do not pop to mind.
Last, one must look at the whole multi-act play. These two actors have knowingly interfered with an election, which is a federal crime. They take no responsibility for that, just plan to skip away scot-free.
Creating something from nothing – making “business puffing” a crime, trying it on a civil standard, imposing a monster penalty on a political candidate they hate speaks to no integrity.
Net-net, this is a judicial system gone wild. The disarray needs to stop with the next election. What a disgrace, what a sad day for America … a $355 million dollar penalty inflicted for politics. Scary.