The exponential growth in executive power under the leadership of President Obama is a daily fact of life to which Americans must daily adjust. New offenses against the Constitution and liberty are sustained nearly every week, and almost every day, by the lusty and lawless individual claiming the hallowed title of “President of the United States.”
But how does a President of the United States whose allegiance is to his country knowingly and in plain sight sabotage his nation’s defenses? Until recently, the discussions of severe military cuts remained in the appropriate realm of working groups, and few seriously considered Obama’s radical campaign promises to eliminate nuclear weapons from the US arsenal to be of any real validity. After all, many Democrat presidential contenders before Obama had pandered to pacifists and the armies of the naïve swelling the Democratic base in order to get elected. But none of these individuals actually took proactive steps to completely remove America’s nuclear triad from the list of strategic options, and our ability to instill fear in the hearts of our enemies, both current and future, was left unquestioned, minor reductions in stockpiles notwithstanding.
Obama has done what no loyal American would do: Systematically tear down the most vital of America’s defenses, all while America’s enemies wait with bated breath for the nation that owes trillions in debt to be left standing defenseless. What happens when America lays down its arms? It seems Obama would like to find out. Americans may be the unintended (intended?) victims of a perverse social experiment.
Leaks from high-level defense sources reveal that in addition to commitments under the New START agreement, which brings the total number of deliverable US warheads to 1,000–an unacceptably low number that prevents the US from being able to destroy the 3,000 priority strategic targets identified by the DoD–Obama now plans to implement an 80 percent force reduction that will leave America with only 300 deliverable warheads. Such a move is suicidal. Such a low number is wholly insufficient to protect America from the growing list of dangerous and erratic nuclear regimes with global ambitions. Even more crucial to understanding the risk inherent in such a decision is the role of US nuclear weapons stockpiles as a deterrent.
Americans have been able to live the cushy, blissfully ignorant, carefree existence of the last half-century–now taken for granted by new generations of youngsters who have only known prosperity and for whom Cold War politics are moot–only because the US possessed a credible nuclear arsenal capable of devastating any adversary. It is because of, not in spite of, America’s nuclear assets that America has survived multiple existential threats.
The danger of nuclear confrontation has increased, not decreased, since the end of the Cold War. The likelihood of nuclear exchange has increased rapidly, mirroring the acquisition of nuclear weapons by small and medium-sized states, with multiple hostile nuclear powers now vying for global influence. Obama is either gravely naïve, or more likely holds foreign allegiance that has yet to be revealed, if he is pursuing drastic and suicidal cuts to our arsenal at the present time.
In order to obtain expert analysis of the proposed cuts underway, I conducted an exclusive interview with former NORAD director Brig. Gen. Jim L. Cash. General Cash views the situation thusly:
I consider even consideration of such a move in this day and age to be absolute treason, especially if supported by the President of the United States. I have watched President Obama closely for the past three years and seldom agreed with the far-left decisions made by his administration. However, I feel he is now actually threatening the National Security of this nation. We have already severely cut our nuclear weapons capability under the lead of Obama. More cuts in the near future should not even be considered…If Obama and his left wing progressive cronies are not voted out of office this year and replaced…we will be past the point of no return.
Obama has been busy gutting American conventional forces as well.
The Army and the Marines are to be significantly downsized, even as their global commitments expand. Obama has implemented levels deemed insufficient to meet the goals set by the current and previous administrations. Respected generals and DoD officials are on record communicating the dangers of this single move.
America can no longer simultaneously fight two major wars in two theaters of deployment, a capability deemed vital to ensuring America’s defense against coalitions of aggressor states, now a plausible scenario owing to the Russian military buildup in the Middle East and the increasingly belligerent actions of China on every front. Both nations are in a Warsaw Pact prototype alliance called the Shanghai Cooperation Organization that openly challenges US leadership and engages in maneuvers in which the United States is the target. Iran is also a member of this organization. Eliminating the two-war capability would seem ill-advised. But then, Obama probably knows this.
The Navy thinly escaped Obama’s hacksaw. Recent studies commissioned by DoD indicate that the present number of aircraft carrier battle groups is not sufficient to maintain an adequate defensive posture in the Pacific, where US-Taiwanese forces are under constant threat of nuclear exchange with China.
Even though the number of carrier groups is already below capacity, Obama had wanted to cut another carrier battle group from the fleet. The Navy torpedoed the move, but not without cost. Modernization efforts have been canned, and shipbuilding will be greatly slowed, decimating replacement capability.
Enter and exit the US Air Force. The Air Force has been forced to lose several hundred planes, even though its present number is already below the threshold admittedly needed to carry out tactical bombing campaigns. In Bosnia, when the Air Force was a few times larger than today, it took 40 percent of active aircraft to execute the campaign. Can anyone seriously argue that the US Air Force, which needed nearly half of its resources to prosecute Bosnia, can actually manage a conflict involving multiple major powers at one time, especially if cuts of the magnitude enacted go unchallenged?
America’s President has done more to harm American security than our greatest foes could ever dream of doing, and he has done it with both eyes wide open, willingly, with full knowledge of the implications, which begs the obvious question: What word describes a President that will do this to his own country?
Obama admittedly seeks the eradication of American superpower status. Even if a case can be made for a reduced US footprint worldwide or for a less interventionist foreign policy, would a loyal American knowingly seek to undermine his or her nation’s greatness merely to satisfy some philosophical pretense to equality with “everybody else”?
Can it be said that Obama is actually an American in this sense of the word? Yes, he claims to have a piece of paper saying he was born in Hawaii, but do his actions identify him as a man that loves his country and wants it to survive? It is with great trembling that I must conclude the answer to be a resounding no.
As I asked in my previous piece for WND, “Why else would Obama willfully share top-secret information on U.S. missile defense technology, thereby enabling America’s enemies to identify strategic weaknesses and calibrate their plan of attack accordingly? What purpose could such transfers of information have other than to critically weaken and expose the United States?”
It is upon this basis that I must conclude that Obama’s systematic deconstruction of America’s defenses is not simply a policy difference to be shrugged off with clichéd avoidance phrases like, “let’s agree to disagree.” When President Obama made it his mission to expose America to multi-pronged attack by hostile foreign nuclear-armed states, small and large policy differences between the two major parties gave way to more essential questions of patriotism, and most importantly, loyalty. Some things are non-negotiable and should not be politicized. America’s survival is one of those things. Loyalty is another.
The time for pretense is over. Obama is no friend of America.