U.S. Military Cuts Have Consequences
J. Randolph Evans
Column No. 1108 (2/17/12)

With just 11 months remaining in his current term, President Obama announced drastic cuts in the U.S. military, including proposed significant reductions in the U.S. nuclear arsenal. The announcement comes as Iran proclaims, publicly and defiantly, that it is much closer to its own production of nuclear fuel; and as Russia continues its steady march to return as an equal military superpower after President Ronald Reagan pushed the old Soviet Union to dissolution.

Each one of these developments has its own destabilizing impact on an
increasingly fragile world. When taken together, these ingredients
produce a dangerous recipe for spiraling global problems unlike any that
the world has ever faced before. The uncertainty alone makes optimism
difficult in even the most stable countries, and makes hope elusive in
the rest of the world. With a world economy that teeters on the edge of
financial collapse, just one international crisis could tip the balance,
especially with so many nations struggling to just survive under
mountains of deeper and deeper debt.

Throughout history, periods of peace and prosperity have depended on
strength and stability, not weakness and decay. For decades, the United
States has served as an important source of that strength and stability.

The United States economy has powered the world economy through
challenging times. The United States military might has protected and
deterred conflicts that might threaten the globe. Both the economic
might and military power have given U.S. Presidents the ability to speak
and act authoritatively, giving direction and reassurance to an
otherwise uncertain and sometimes chaotic world.

On June 12, 1987, in a speech at the Brandenburg Gate near the Berlin
Wall, President Ronald Reagan did not apologize for a past of airlifts
of food and supplies to the West Berliners in defiance of Soviet rule.
Instead, President Reagan said, "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall."

Indeed, on June 26, 1963, when President John F. Kennedy flew to West
Berlin, he did not speak softly either; instead, he defiantly said "Ich
bin ein Berliner" - "I am a Berliner."

President Kennedy and President Reagan boldly challenged the Soviets
from a position of strength - grounded in economic and military might.
The result was peace and prosperity, and eventually victory over
Communist oppression.

Throughout history, strength has an interesting way of calming troubled
times and opening the door to peace and prosperity. Today, the world
would have been a very different place if either President Kennedy or
Reagan had chosen the path of apology, unilateral disarmament, and
weakness.

That was then, this is now.

The Obama Administration proposes eliminating a minimum of 8 brigade
combat teams from the Army; 6 combat battalions and 4 tactical air
squadrons from the Marines; 130 planes and 7 tactical squadrons from the
Air Force; and 7 Navy cruisers. More cuts are on the table, among which
is the Administration's proposal to reduce the U.S. nuclear arsenal by
as much as 80 percent.

Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta conceded that such drastic cuts
involve risks, but concluded that the Administration believes they are
'acceptable risks.'

Meanwhile, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad made clear that he was
not backing down on his threats. He not only confirmed that Iran is
much closer to successfully processing nuclear fuel, but also threatened
countries who might interfere.

Specifically, Iran's official Islamic Republic News Agency confirmed
that the ambassadors to Italy, Spain, France, the Netherlands, Greece,
and Portugal had been told they would be cut off from Iranian oil.
Iran's official statement was that "Iran warns Europe it will find other
customers for its oil." Many of these countries already face
challenging futures because of economic instability arising from heavy
debt loads.

But, the consequences would extend beyond Europe. If Iran did cut off
the oil, some estimates are that the global price of oil would double.

Meanwhile, Russia and China continue their 'nuclear weapons
modernization' programs. Both countries continue their program of
increasing not only the numbers of nuclear weapons but also the roles of
those weapons in overall military strategies. In addition, both
countries are experimenting with the development and deployment of new
types of nuclear weapons including tactical and 'low-yield' weapons.

Experts openly worry about the degree to which these dynamics - Russia's
and China's increasing nuclear strength (and corresponding international
political clout) in the face of declining U.S. nuclear strength - opens
the door to a new round of 'political adventurism' by the Russians and
Chinese without considering the Iranian risk.

During Jimmy Carter's Presidency, the United States tried the 'shrinking
America's presence' strategy. He cut defense and applied the 'be nice to
our enemies' approach as well. Of course, the result was American
hostages in Iran, and Soviet-sponsored insurgencies followed by the
Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.

The stakes are too high to repeat that mistake.