Dakota Beacon

Volunteers comprise our armed forces today. There is no draft. If these volunteers no longer have a reason to follow their Commander-in-Chief, officers and NCOs, they can choose to not re-enlist. Questionable impositions and poor leadership from the top are reasons enough for an increasing number of military men and women to salute their service farewell. Such an exodus aggravates an already serious retention problem. In turn, this dissatisfaction, passed along by word of mouth, has a tremendous negative effect on future recruitment.

Obama never respected the military and that sentiment persists. His disrespectful attitude even infects his staff. If Obama has little respect for the military, the feeling is mutual. This scenario sets up conditions in which only “yes men” will remain after the good officers and NCOs are purged.

Consider also that Generation X-ers do not embrace patriotism in the same way older generations do. Patriotism is not a major factor in recruitment and cannot be relied upon to motivate young people to serve.

One of the most important factors for the retention of good men and women in the armed forces is quality leadership. Trust in one’s leaders is implicit to good morale and unit cohesiveness. The American soldier is the best in the world when properly led. Often their life is not easy. They want to know that the hardships they endure hold meaning. One thing is certain: They do not appreciate being used badly especially when undergoing hardships.

But how far can service people trust their leaders? Men and women in the military are not blind. They read the papers and hear the news. They know when they are used as political pawns or for social engineering schemes. They also understand when they are assigned missions without adequate resources.

As happens too often, congress raises America’s national debt ceiling in order to borrow more money to spend thriftlessly. To gain Democrat support for the increased debt ceiling and to keep the government running the Republicans agreed to drastic cuts in military spending. These particular cuts in defense spending were known as “sequestration.”

Sequestration is taking a deadly toll as military leaders knew it would. In 2011 the Obama administration proposed a $487 billion cut from the military over 10 years separate from sequestration. Of even greater concern was the congressional Budget Control Act that took effect on January 2, 2013. This required $1.2 trillion in federal spending cuts over 10 years. Those cuts were split between military (50%) and domestic programs (50%), the military alone absorbing a full one half of all cuts. Between Obama’s $487 billion cut and the Budget Control Act $500 billion cut, the effect was a $1 trillion cut in military spending over 10 years with only a modestly reduced mission.

The Marine Corps would experience a 10 percent loss of its force. The Army’s manpower would be reduced to pre-World War II levels. The Navy would shrink to the smallest since World War I. The Defense Department would lose thousands of civilian employees resulting in the smallest defense workforce in its history contributing to increased unemployment. A weak, depleted and demoralized military does not attract volunteers.

That said, the world is dangerous and unpredictable and growing more so. The nuclear threat from North Korea, Iran, China, Russia and an unstable Pakistan continues to grow.

In the face of American cutbacks in military preparedness, why shouldn’t nations around the world see this as a reflection of a society whose priorities no longer include meeting aggression with overwhelming military force? They can easily conclude that military options are in their best self-interest.

Once upon a time America’s strong military discouraged rivals such as Russia and China from swallowing their neighbors. America’s military strength ensured the safety of the seas and protected global commerce for all. This stability is drawing to a close.

Formation of America’s future national security policies begs an answer to a very important question. Is it in our national interest to deter aggression and maintain a stable global order?

If the answer is “yes” then a 4 to 5 percent investment of our Gross Domestic Product, as we have seen for the last 70 years, is acceptable.

If the answer is “no,” then America can no longer meet its responsibilities as a leader in the free world. The world will change, and not for the better. America and the many nations that work together with us will certainly be less safe. Radical cuts in defense spending means America must sit on the sidelines and observe the world growing more dangerous until that danger washes over our shores.

The road to military disaster is paved with good intentions. For voters on November 8 a new administration proposing a well-funded national security becomes a critical judgment call.

Voters take note!

Dennis M. Patrick can be contacted at P. O. Box 337, Stanley, ND 58784 or (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)