America’s ‘Gentler’ Defense Policy


America’s ‘Gentler’ Defense Policy

The weakening of America’s defense policy is well advanced. The consequences will be disastrous.

In an op-ed piece published in the Wall Street Journal recently, Mackubin Thomas Owens, a senior fellow at the Foreign Policy Research Institute and editor of Orbis, the institute’s journal of world affairs, maintains that we are heading for a “kinder, gentler Department of Defense” that will have serious negative consequences for American security (February 22).

Akin to ancient Israel, America long ago made its decision not to rely on God to fight its battles, rather to rely on its own strength.

That being the case, a fundamental understanding of human nature would lead any reasonable mind to conclude that the nation had better acquire a defensive capability more than equal to the strongest of its enemies.

The shock of Pearl Harbor brought this fact home to the nation back in 1941. It was this realization that impelled U.S. defense policy toward global dominance under President Reagan, resulting in the moral and economic collapse of America’s major enemy at the time, the ussr.

Under the present Utopianist U.S. administration, U.S. military power is being hollowed out, gutted from within. Its present generation of generals are a far cry from those who led the U.S. to victory in World War ii. Indeed, if it was possible, soldierly leaders such as generals MacArthur and Patton would turn in their graves at the sight of U.S. defense policy of today. In fact, they would not be able to effectively operate against an enemy under its conditions.

Having read their own accounts of their personal military history, it is doubtful that even generals of a more recent generation such as Schwarzkopf and Franks could accept such restrictions on action as current U.S. defense policy imposes on its fighting men.

Mac Owens points to three prime examples of bungling by the current U.S. administration that are bound to continue the lowering of both morale and defense capability within the U.S. military.

Speaking of the appointment of a “yes-man/hatchet-man as the likely next secretary of defense whose job is to do his worst at the Defense Department,” Owens muses on a comparison between the Sen. Chuck Hagel nomination for that post and a replay of President Harry Truman’s appointment of Louis Johnson as secretary of defense in early 1949. “Like Mr. Obama, Truman was committed to funding his domestic programs at the expense of military spending” (ibid).

Such a policy is currently having similar results to those that resulted from President Truman’s stance on defense—a reduction in the general morale of servicemen and accelerated attrition of its leadership.

Owens points especially to current early forced attrition of the most talented military personnel, referring to the sacking of Marine Gen. James Mattis from his post as commander of Central Command. Ostensibly this resulted from “General Mattis’s advice, in particular his effort to change the strategic framework regarding Iran. General Mattis thought we should be planning for what Iran is capable of doing—such as closing the Strait of Hormuz or attacking Israel—not just what we assume Iran will do. In addition, General Mattis and the White House clashed over the way ahead in Afghanistan, his concerns about Pakistani stability, and the response to the Arab Spring” (ibid).

Owens also refers to the morale- and discipline-destroying policy of Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta, which he announced as “the opening of most ground-combat billets to females.” Apart from the obvious differences between male and female which render them incompatible for serving together in battle, Owens points to the fact that “the presence of women also leads to lowered—or worse, double—standards that will have a serious impact on morale and performance. Secretary Panetta’s statement that ‘if [women] can meet the qualifications for the job, then they should have the right to serve’ is bunk, and everyone, especially infantrymen (and most women), knows it. … The combined effect of these three events will degrade the readiness and effectiveness of the U.S. military far more than sequestration will.”

It is interesting to note that as the U.S. withdraws increasingly from the European, Middle East and African theaters, Germany is quietly filling the vacuum. At the same time, the Japanese prime minister has recently announced a government policy that is identical to that which it adopted in its imperialist approach pre-World War ii. What a paradox that the very nations that were our enemies just 70 years ago should be now taking advantage of our weakened, feminized, homophile defense policy.

As Herbert Armstrong declared, following World War ii (co-worker letter, Jan. 31, 1968):

And now, (Leviticus 26:19), God says to Britain and America: “And I will break the pride of your power ….”God gave us the most colossal national power and wealth ever possessed by any nation or empire. Already He has taken away that power from Britain. Before World War i they were the world’s greatest power. Today they are a second- or third-rate power—no longer one of the world powers. But the United States still possesses that power! We are the world’s greatest power! Yet we are afraid to use it.God has taken from us the pride of our power!

Speaking of an early incident between pipsqueak North Korea and the U.S. military monolith, Mr. Armstrong observed (ibid),

Had a little nation like North Korea captured a United States Navy ship when Theodore Roosevelt was president, he probably would have issued orders at lightning speed to effect the recapture of that vessel, and had it back even before the world heard the news. Not even a big power would have dared attack or seize a United States Navy ship, then! And we didn’t have but a fraction of the power, then, that we have today! We had pride in our power then!!I have said before, America has won her last war! God in heaven determines the outcome of wars (see Psalm 33:13-19, especially verses 16-19).And now that God has broken our pride in our power ….

Full well Mr. Armstrong foresaw the outcome of the great prophecy for our time penned by the Prophet Isaiah: “For behold, the Lord, the Lord of hosts, doth take away from Jerusalem and from Judah … the mighty man, and the man of war …. For the leaders of this people cause them to err; and they that are led of them are destroyed” (Isaiah 3:1-2; 9:16).

We are literally living out those days today, prophesied so long ago.

But thank the Eternal God that they are but a dramatic precursor to the fulfillment of a far better future. For as Isaiah was inspired to record, they are but the lead-up to a time when the whole governmental system of man, which has wrought so much pain and suffering on humankind, will be suddenly replaced by “The mighty God, The Everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace. Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end …” (Isaiah 9:6-7).

Then, the majority of humankind will yield to its Maker to fight its battles, the outcome finally being the end of all wars (Revelation 20:7-15) and the coming of universal peace for all time! (Revelation 21:4).