America—Hollowing Out the Military

America—Hollowing Out the Military

Getty Images

Sequestration hollows out America’s military preparedness.

As I downloaded the Washington Post’s article quoted below, an interesting thing happened. A huge advertisement for the German industrial giant Siemens popped up at the head of the article. Siemens has been a vital component of Germany’s defense industry for well over a century.

That graphic advertisement was akin to sending a message that even as sequestration will rob the U.S. defense budget of $52 billion over the next two years, Germany is highly gearing for increased expenditure on the expansion of its military hardware.

This is the inevitable pattern emerging in geopolitics as the strength of the Anglo-Saxon nations rapidly wanes and that of the Teutons rises most dramatically.

Over recent weeks we have published a number of items on this website pointing to Germany increasing its military preparedness by expansion of its force strength in terms of both hardware and the wider deployment of the Bundeswehr in foreign theaters.

We have produced a Key of David television program, to be aired later this week, specifically dedicated to demonstrating just how far Germany has come down the road of developing its foreign deployments since initiating the Balkan wars of the 1990s.

We have reported on one of the most recent studies commissioned by the German Ministry of Defense recommending a drastic upgrade of both Germany’s spy networks and its military forces, plus the expansion of their deployment, to fill the gap created by U.S. drawdown in the Northern Hemisphere.

Yet to truly understand the grave dangers this all poses to the Anglo-Saxons, one needs to balance reports of a new German militancy against reports emanating from Washington about drastic cuts in U.S. defense expenditure.

“The Pentagon is likely to face steep, across-the-board budget cuts beyond the end of this fiscal year, the two top lawmakers on the Senate Armed Services Committee warned on Friday, as they asked the secretary of defense to lay out in detail the consequences of slashing $52 billion from its budget next year” (Washington Post, May 3).

Expressing concern at the drastic effect these cuts would have on U.S. force readiness, Sen. James Inhofe declared, “Our military was told last year not to worry about sequestration, that it would not happen. But the failed promise has led to an enormous amount of uncertainty that has prevented our military leaders from properly planning to ensure the capabilities and readiness of our force” (ibid; emphasis added throughout).

The Post quotes Lt. Col. Elizabeth Robbins, a Pentagon spokeswoman, as commenting that “The readiness of our force is rapidly eroding due to mandatory sequestration cuts. We are deeply concerned about sequestration continuing into the next fiscal year.”

The defense budget cuts have America’s military leaders deeply disturbed about the effect on the nation’s security.

The Post further reports that “Since sequestration took on an air of inevitability last spring, military leaders have made dire predictions about the impact the cuts will have on a force grappling with the wear and tear of two lengthy wars.”

Reinforcing this point, “Secretary of the Army John McHugh said that failing to do away with sequestration before the end of next fiscal year would be ‘irresponsible’ and ‘devastating’ and call into question the military’s ability to ‘provide sufficiently trained and ready forces to protect our national interests’” (ibid).

One would surely have to consider that military strategists within the most powerful nation in Europe, having already reacted to fill the gap after U.S. drawdown in that theater, would be very attuned to the drastic effects on America’s military preparedness posed by these current and projected cuts in the Pentagon’s budget.

Such a situation will only work to accelerate the rise of Germany as a military power to be reckoned with. The extent to which Germany may have already developed its future nuclear weapons capability was highlighted well over a decade ago by former weapons systems analyst Carey Sublette. In his well-known analysis on the spread of nuclear weaponry, he noted that “Germany has an advanced science and technology base capable of supporting an aggressive nuclear program should it be deemed necessary to do so. Although hard information about this is lacking, it is likely that Germany has undertaken advanced design work on a full range of nuclear weapon types. [T]his would be almost mandatory for national security reasons if only to create a base of expertise for conducting intelligence assessments of the nuclear programs of other nations. In addition there have been influential proponents of acquiring nuclear arms in the German government, such as the first Minister for Nuclear Affairs Franz Josef Strauss, who would most likely have sponsored such work” (Nuclear Weapons Frequently Asked Questions, Section 7.5; Aug. 9, 2001).

One wonders the extent to which nuclear weaponry was a hot topic at a recent closed-door meeting of German defense elites, billed as an “International Symposium on Ballistics,” dealing with “explosives and projectiles as well as armoring.” Media representatives were refused access to this symposium under threat of using force.

Why such secrecy? Were nuclear ballistics on the agenda? It would be difficult for any “international symposium” on “explosives and projectiles” to not include some reference to the most powerful form of ballistics available for use in a nation’s defense strategy.

Whether or not that was the case, one thing is for sure. The general advice being channeled from German military think tanks to the government is to spend more, not less, on armaments and military preparedness.

This is but one more—yet one very significant—aspect of Germany’s rising power in the face of America’s rapidly waning ability to “protect its national interests.”

I’d like to know, where are the scoffers that held the Bible prophecies predicting this phenomenon in such disdain for decades? Perhaps their heads are so deeply buried in the sand of delusion that even now, with the facts so clearly evident, they find it impossible to admit the reality.

That cold hard reality is that the Anglo-Saxons are on a downward spiral to ultimate enslavement by an old archenemy. An enemy which held them captive over 2,700 years ago (2 Kings 17), and which during the past century sought twice to overrun them by initiating aggressive warfare.

It’s an uncomfortable message, one that is extremely hard for the average Joe to face up to. Yet your Bible, the infallible Word of God, prophesies of a third and final, successful attempt by old Assyria, in its modern clothes as a united German nation, to enact a siege against the Anglo-Saxons to the point of reducing them to slavery once again, as was anciently the case (2 Kings 17:20, 23).

This has been our consistent message for over 70 years—initially under the administration of Herbert Armstrong, and latterly under the direction of our editor in chief, Gerald Flurry. The big difference between the two administrations is that the prophecies that Herbert Armstrong publicly broadcast and published for over 50 years have, since his death in 1986, become, increasingly, the cold hard reality of geopolitics today.

Our general concern is for the ignorance of the public at large to the rapidity with which these events are falling into place, exactly as the Bible prophecies forecast. Our greatest concern is for the effect they are destined to have on the Anglo-Saxons and their brother nations in particular.

Yet, God knows His people—He knows the ways of all nations. He knows the extent of their rebellion against His law, that law of love which is the only true way to genuine happiness (1 John 4:8; 5:3)—and He knows exactly the type of punishment for their sins that will move them to repent, en masse! (Revelation 7:9).

That’s the great hope bound up in all of this inevitable suffering to come, initially brought upon a nation that is in rank rebellion against its God by the one other nation alone that He has selected as the rod of His anger with which to mete out that punishment (Isaiah 10:5-7).

Read our booklet The Epistles of Peter: A Living Hope for a moving vision of that which becomes the greatest of hopes to the genuinely repentant! It may just stir you to the very action which will end up saving you from the drastic effects of the punishment soon to come upon the Anglo-Saxons and their brother nations for their massive rebellion against a loving and merciful God!

Israel Bombs Syria But Still Won’t Confront Iran

Israeli aircraft allegedly bombed targets in Syria twice over the weekend. The incidents mark an unprecedented escalation of Israel’s involvement in Syria’s ongoing civil war.

Although the Israeli government refused to officially comment on the two air strikes, a senior official said that both of them targeted shipments of Fateh-110 guided missiles that were bound for Hezbollah. From Hezbollah’s territory in Lebanon, the Iranian-made Fateh-110 can fly deep into Israel with a deadly half-ton payload and pinpoint accuracy.

Israel has repeatedly threatened to intervene in the Syrian civil war to stop the transfer of what it calls “game-changing” weapons to Hezbollah, an Iranian-sponsored group that battled Israel to a stalemate during a war in 2006.

At that time, Trumpet editor in chief Gerald Flurry wrote: “The Jews have a broken will. America and Britain have the same prophesied disease (Leviticus 26:19). The cause is our ‘immoral and decadent’ way of life, as the terrorists keep telling us. And in this area they are right! So don’t be surprised if the Jews show a lack of will and fail to remove the Hezbollah terrorists. That will mean victory for the terrorists and Iran. The terrorist-fighting nations lack the will to win the war” (“The Only Solution to the Middle East Crisis,” July 19, 2006).

How right that prophecy was. Now in 2013, Israel again is having to deal with Iran and its terror proxy, Hezbollah.

Israel continues to play a dangerous game with Iran. Instead of dealing with the Iranian threat directly, it continues to fight Iranian-made weapons and battle against Iranian-backed proxies.

In the process, Israel’s weakness is being exposed: It does not have the will to take the battle to the radical, theological government that is sponsoring the terror.

Bible prophecy shows that another world power will soon deal with Iran once and for all. To understand more about this prophecy, read our free booklet Jerusalem in Prophecy. Also watch Gerald Flurry’s new Key of David program, “The Whirlwind,” airing May 8-12.

Web Exclusive: Three Antiochus-Types

Russia Builds Up, U.S. Tears Down

Russia Builds Up, U.S. Tears Down


Are the nuclear scales tipping in Moscow’s favor?

As Russia significantly upgrades and modernizes its nuclear forces, the Obama administration is preparing to launch yet another round of nuclear missile cuts, according to reports last Wednesday.

Moscow announced in April that it will deploy the first of its new intercontinental ballistic missiles this year, called the Yars-M. The new missile has a range of 6,835 miles, can carry a warhead weighing up to 1.5 tons, and can penetrate U.S. missile defenses. “[W]e achieve the most complex part of the rocket boost so fast that the enemy does not have time to calculate its trajectory and, therefore, cannot destroy it,” said retired Russian strategic forces commander Col. Gen. Viktor Yesin. Under President Vladimir Putin, Russia is also developing new rail-mobile icbms, submarine-launched missiles, Topol missiles and a new strategic bomber.

Trends in the U.S. are moving in precisely the opposite direction.

The American military is short somewhere between $1 billion and $1.6 billion that policymakers had allocated back in 2010 for nuclear modernization. This shortage has already prompted officials to scrap plans to build a plutonium facility in New Mexico and to postpone a test launch of a Minuteman iii missile. The shortage also jeopardizes a new strategic submarine program, and programs for life extension of three key warhead types.

According to reports, President Obama is also expected to soon announce that he aims to cut U.S. nuclear stockpiles to as few as 1,000. Policy experts like Rep. Mike Rogers, chairman of the House Armed Services subcommittee on strategic forces, say the planned cut undermines U.S. deterrence and Washington’s ability to extend a nuclear umbrella to its allies in Europe and Asia. “I find this deeply concerning, given the sorry state of the nuclear modernization commitments made during the last round,” Rogers said.

The U.S. has displayed a further lack of resolve in its nuclear commitment by mysteriously ordering a study on the environmental impact of closing an entire wing for land-based nuclear missiles. None of the announced plans call for closing a missile wing, and no explanation has been offered for the purpose of the study. Could orders for such a study be designed to condition the American people and policymakers for more drastic cuts to the U.S.’s arsenal than have even been announced? Some analysts think so.

As nations in Eastern Europe and beyond see Russian might growing and American will deteriorating, they will be increasingly inclined to abandon the sinking U.S. ship, and to rally instead behind Russia. For more about the significance of Russia’s strides toward resurgence, read “Russia’s Dark Rider.”

The Cost of Supporting Israel

The Cost of Supporting Israel

Getty Images

The tiny natural-gas-rich country of Qatar has made a bold bid to have the headquarters of the International Civil Aviation Organization (icao) moved from Montreal, Quebec, to Doha, Qatar. It set off a firestorm in Canada, with many calling it an attempt by Arab states to punish Canada for its stance on Israel and the Palestinians.

The current Canadian administration is an unapologetic supporter of the tiny nation of Israel. And it’s catching the attention of many Arab and Muslim nations. Arab ambassadors at the United Nations in New York met on April 23 to discuss Canada’s perceived bias toward Israel. “The Arab ambassadors discussed banding together and lobbying other states to join them in supporting Qatar’s bid to send a message to Canada about their displeasure,” according to Postmedia News.

Canadian Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird attacked Qatar’s action by stating, “The way Qatar has gone about this [without any consultation with Canada] demonstrates why it’s not a suitable host for this United Nations organization.” Baird said that in his visit to Qatar only a few weeks ago the issue was never brought up. The bid came as a complete surprise to him.

Maintaining the icao in Canada is so politically and economically important to Canada that the issue is uniting the federal Conservatives and Quebec’s separatist Parti Quebecois, which are traditional political rivals. The icao has over 500 employees and brings in approximately $119 million annually to Montreal’s economy. Losing this organization would be a political kick in the teeth for Canada’s Conservative government and the economy in general.

According to its website, the icao was created to promote the safe and orderly development of international civil aviation throughout the world. It sets standards and regulations necessary for aviation safety, security, efficiency and regularity, as well as for aviation environmental protection.

The Globe and Mail stated that “Qatar has made a gold-plated offer that reportedly includes a state-of-the-art facility and subsidies for employees. It has also asked major Arab nations, including Egypt, to put their diplomatic machines behind efforts to muster votes” (May 2).

“We don’t think that these type of things should be for sale and we’re going to work strongly to convince other countries,” stated Baird. For the bid to succeed, Qatar will need a minimum 60 percent approval from the 191 member states.

“How can an organization that has to defend the rights and safety of workers and passengers be moved to a state whose citizens’ pleas for democracy are answered with batons and buckshot?” lamented David Cockroft, the general secretary of the International Transport Federation.

The nation of Israel and those who support it are increasingly being isolated and even reprimanded for doing so.

Joseph Lavoie, a spokesman for John Baird, stated that “Canada will not apologize for promoting a principled foreign policy.” Although this assertion is courageous, Bible prophecy indicates that anti-Israel sentiments are set to increase to the point that it will break the brotherhood that exists between Canada and Israel. Israel will ultimately look to a most unlikely ally for international support, but it will be a decision it will quickly regret. Read this article on the coming relationship between Germany and Israel.

Germany’s Bold New Counterinsurgency Ideas

Germany’s Bold New Counterinsurgency Ideas


A report commissioned by the German government recommends radical changes in German defense. reports that Germany’s Federal Ministry of Defense has received the results of a study it commissioned seeking advice on counterinsurgency efforts in the wake of U.S. military drawdown in the Northern Hemisphere.

Prepared by researchers at the University of Kiel, “the counterinsurgency study calls inter alia for the stricter centralization of command authority and a drastic enhancement of the espionage apparatus” (May 2; translation ours).

The report reveals a startlingly Teutonic aggression in the language used.

The reason given for recommending the raising of Germany’s counterinsurgency effort is easy to guess. It is in line with the raising of Germany’s military profile that we have predicted ever since the U.S. administration announced a refocusing of its defense priorities to embrace the Asian sphere to a loss of focus on the Northern Hemisphere, in particular Europe and the Middle East., quoting wordage from the Kiel study, states that it was conducted “against the background of the ‘geostrategic realignment’ of the U.S. toward Southeast Asia.” In the light of this realignment of U.S. defense priorities, the report claims that the German government has “in the future more responsibility to take over the maintenance of stability and security of European borders in troubled regions.”

The report claims that “it is in the interest of German ‘foreign policy’ to assist in ending the rebellion and restoring order and safety for the governments of ‘fragile’ respectively ‘weak’ states whose ‘stability’ is being threatened by ‘insurgents.’”

In the author’s view it is obviously a responsibility of the German government to decide which are those “fragile,” “weak” states whose “stability” is being threatened. The recent expression of German attitudes toward Greece and Cyprus comes to mind. With a situation extant in Europe that leads analysts to claim “social unrest and political uncertainty will continue to define the eurozone for the foreseeable future,” any number of EU states could be read to fit that definition.

Not so long back in history, a certain German leader apparently decided that Poland, Czechoslovakia, Belgium and the Netherlands were “fragile,” “weak” states whose “stability” was being threatened, and overran them in Blitzkrieg warfare!

In words not used to describe German foreign policy for 70 years, author of the report, Robin Schroeder of the Institute for Security Studies at the University of Kiel, declares that, “Strategically, one must focus on ‘all means available to the state’ to smash action directed against Western [German] interests by resistance movements, but also of ‘over-ambitious state building project(s)’ such as adopted in Afghanistan” (op. cit.; emphasis added throughout).

Schroeder then observes that the role of the Bundeswehr is critical to the success of Germany’s counterinsurgency initiatives, calling for a wider deployment of the German military to “be placed so that they can be used immediately in potential future scenarios which require the management of a rebellion and the fight against irregular forces.”

Again, the assessment of “potential future scenarios” is left up to the German government to decide. This is highly dangerous reasoning as, if enacted, it could give the German military high command carte blanche in assessing just what comprises such “potential future scenarios.”

For some time now German elites have duped both their own press and mass media and the news media at large into publicizing stories of a reduction in German military capability. This is to hide the reality of a heightened aggression in the strategic planning of the German High Command and the glaring fact of a German industry yet once again highly tooled for the production of military weapons.

Now, using the excuse of the threat of stability in Europe posed ostensibly by “fragile,” “weak” states, Germany’s Ministry of Defense is about to adopt plans that will produce what Spiegel Online once termed a “more assertive Bundeswehr,” deployed not only in current theaters of combat, but even in areas designated by the German government as “potential future scenarios” for conflict.

One vital key to the preparation of the German military for its “more assertive” role has been the Bundeswehr’s involvement in Afghanistan. This has provided German troops and their officer cadre with vital battle hardening not experienced since World War ii. For Bundeswehr officers, it has involved not only the command of the 4,000 German troops in Afghanistan, but also, on occasion, a command extended to the over 11,000 nato contingent deployed in that country.

Maj. Gen. Hans-Werner Fritz was the first German officer to order an artillery salvo in combat in a foreign theater since World War ii. Since that experience in Kunduz, Afghanistan, in July 2011, German troops have been engaged in many more such battles in that country.

As Spiegel observed, “The counterinsurgency operation in Afghanistan is also slowly changing the culture of the Bundeswehr, whose operational thinking had until then been largely shaped by its experience of peacekeeping in the Balkans” (Nov. 1, 2011). The extent to which “counterinsurgency” strategy may be used to justify German military expansion is made very clear in the Kiel report to the German Defense Ministry.

The propaganda effect of soldiers returning home who have been hardened in combat in Afghanistan is not lost on such as Major General Fritz. He “speaks of a ‘different generation’ of young German officers who, unlike their predecessors, have seen extensive combat. ‘Obviously these young people are affected by what they experience,’ he says. ‘They have a clear idea of the sharp end of our profession. They take their experiences back home to Germany with them, and I think that’s a good thing’” (ibid).

Meanwhile, the fact that Afghanistan offered the German military its most ideal combat training ground since World War ii has not been lost on German defense elites.

“… German armed forces have sent their best generals, officers, corporals, elite units and new equipment to the front at the Hindukush, which shows the priority of this years-long engagement for the government in Berlin and its commitment for success” (World Security Network, March 8, 2011).

The full extent of the command experience that German forces are experiencing in Afghanistan—which partway explains why the German government continues to vote for an extension of Germany’s involvement in that theater—is summed up in the following (ibid):

After the transfer of command from Maj. Gen. Hans-Werner Fritz on Feb. 24, 2011, RC North is under the command of Bundeswehr Maj. Gen. Markus Kneip with U.S. Army Brig. Gen. Sean P. Mulholland as his deputy. They are responsible for nine provinces stretching 900 kilometers east to west and 400 kilometers north to south. Included are 14 cities (like Mazar-e-Sharif or Kunduz) and 9,000 small villages. It borders five neighboring countries: Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Taschkistan, China and Pakistan.

The administrations in London and Washington remain largely oblivious to the dangers of a “more assertive” German military. While they are increasingly diverted by significant financial and economic challenges plus the prospect of increasing social disruption at home—and with the U.S strategic focus transferred largely to Southeast Asia—Germany quietly reasserts itself in its traditional militaristic, imperialist role.

There’s more than a sense of déjà vu about all this. There are certain uncanny parallels with the 1930s. But this time we have no Churchill to sound the alarm. We have no Roosevelt with the vision to steer the mind of a once great industrial nation to rise to battle against the prospective onslaught of tyranny.

Yet there is a voice that is increasingly answering the prophetic call to warn of the impending storm that is even now building in Europe’s heartland. A voice that is but an extension of that which once declared, even as Germany lay prostrate before the victorious Allies’ feet, that Germany would arise to repeat, just one more time, its effort to gain global imperialist rule.

That original voice was Herbert W. Armstrong.

Over 40 years ago he pointed out that “Back in 1934, when the Plain Truth magazine was born, and the World Tomorrow program first started on the air, I predicted the future but somewhat imminent union of the nations of Europe, resurrecting the ancient Roman Empire …. No one believed it, then. People laughed and scoffed and ridiculed. Most thought Germany could not rise again in 50 years …. Look at the result today. Britain, victorious in the war, has lost her empire, and been reduced to a second-rate power in the world. Germany, defeated in the war, has risen to become one of the major powers” (Plain Truth, February 1970).

Now the new Germany, which some are already calling the Fourth Reich, is emerging from behind its European Union cloak.

And what do we see revealed?

Of all things, a newly reassertive, militarizing Germany. The very thing that Churchill and Roosevelt declared they would never, ever permit to reoccur!

In February 1945 at the Yalta Conference of the heads of the Allied powers, in calling for Germany’s unconditional surrender, Roosevelt, Churchill and Stalin declared, “It is our inflexible purpose to destroy German militarism and Nazism and to ensure that Germany will never again be able to disturb the peace of the world. We are determined to disarm and disband all German armed forces, break up for all time the German General Staff that has repeatedly contrived the resurgence of German militarism ….”

What short memories we have.

It was ever so with the Anglo-Saxon peoples.

Herbert Armstrong is dead, but his legacy of warning the world of a revived, militaristic German nation heading up a final revival of the Holy Roman Empire lives on. It lives on in the Key of David television program, the Trumpet magazine and via the numerous outlets over which the voice of our editor in chief, Gerald Flurry, is heard sounding out that same—yet even more up-to-date—warning!

In our November/December 2011 edition, Gerald Flurry declared: “We have told you about the coming Fourth Reich for 65 years! How do you explain that? And what does it mean? It means that we must believe God! Things always come to pass exactly as He says!”

You do need to know what God says about this rising military assertiveness of Germany and what it portends for your future. A good place to start would be a reading of our booklet Germany and the Holy Roman Empire.

For regular updates on this now fast-moving story, keep watching this website, watch the Key of David television program weekly and seek God’s guidance in prayer for understanding!