|Flag of the Soviet Union|
What National Security?
Bill Gertz (Washington Free Beacon) is reporting that "A Russian nuclear-powered attack submarine armed with long-range cruise missiles operated undetected in the Gulf of Mexico for several weeks and its travel in strategic U.S. waters was only confirmed after it left the region." Gertz says:
"...It is only the second time since 2009 that a Russian attack submarine has patrolled so close to U.S. shores...The stealth underwater incursion in the Gulf took place at the same time Russian strategic bombers made incursions into restricted U.S. airspace near Alaska and California in June and July, and highlights a growing military assertiveness by Moscow...The submarine patrol also exposed what U.S. officials said were deficiencies in U.S. anti-submarine warfare capabilities—forces that are facing cuts under the Obama administration’s plan to reduce defense spending by $487 billion over the next 10 years..."Gertz quotes "one official" as saying that the submarine (a nuclear-powered Akula-class attack submarine, one of Russia's quietest (stealth) submarines, "...was built for one reason and one reason only: To kill U.S. Navy ballistic missile submarines and their crews..."
Gertz highlights the upcoming defense cuts, and his report may qualify as a cautionary warning that defense cuts are jeopardizing national security. You can see his full report HERE.
However, Gertz does not give a full perspective of the extent and ramifications of Military and Defense cuts, specifically this:
The Department of Defense has long since been operating on a limited budget, and prior to 9/11 our defense forces, with base closings during the Clinton administration, cut-backs in equipment maintenance and development, cut-backs in troop numbers, and in training, intelligence forces, etc., were unable to "adequately and effectively" respond to the 9/11 attacks.
It is a probable factor that lowered defense and intelligence capabilities were a major element in the inability of the U.S. to effectively dismantle our attackers, i.e., al-Qaeda and its terrorist allies, principally the axis of Russia, China, North Korea, Iran, and their allies, Cuba, Venezuela, etc.
It was not until our Reserves and National Guard forces were "federalized" that an "adequate," albeit crippled response was able to occur.
Our last line of defense "troops," which were "back then" referred to as week-end warriors, had to be "federalized" and activated to pad our regular forces in order for us to respond to enemy attacks. That means that troops with inadequate training and experience were sent into combat, and thus we had the resultant casualty rates that we saw and are still seeing today. We were well into the Iraq war before our troops saw adequately armored vehicles (MRAP's) to counter insurgent mines and improvised explosive devices that accounted for numerous American casualties.
Even with limited capabilities and training our defense budgets were still being targeted for cuts. It is no secret that exacerbating this situation there was also rampant waste and corruption, which also has taken a toll on troop and operations effectiveness and in casualties and lives.
And before you make this about the Democrat/Republican, point-counterpoint, understand that the Defense Cuts started under the Bush Senior administration, and then were continued by the Clinton administration with Chief Defense Budget Butcher Leon Panetta, who is now our "Secretary of Defense," and who now has the gall to warn Congress and Americans that "sequestration" and massive defense cuts will endanger our national security.
He should know.
The Defense cuts were started after the first Gulf War, for the purported reasons that the Cold War was over and the U.S. had no need for a "bloated" military. Subsequently we had military base closures en masse, troop reductions, and consequently our defenses were lowered, and thus we had 9/11, which our enemies calculated they could pull off without an immediate response, and, it seems, to lure us into an ambush in protracted wars. Add to that our "enemy within," those within our nation, who can be counted on to oppose and push for our disarmament and surrrender, despite urgent threats manifesting themselves in hot spots internationally,
Instead of adopting a policy of winning battles/wars and holding and maintaining the territories conquered, i.e., the Soviet Union, no tribunals were effected, no Soviet officials were held accountable for the millions of murders, war crimes, and crimes against humanity; nor were the defenses of the Soviets dismantled so that they could not rise again, as was done to Japan or Germany after the U.S. defeated them in WWII. Nor were our defenses shored up, re-grouped and honed, and reinforced, modernized, updated, and secured to face the rest of the predatory enemies, who were waiting for the chance to strike against the now, lone "Super Power," the United States of America.
The U.S. should not have stopped with having bested the Soviet Union, but moved on to diffuse, deactivate, and diminish any other power that had the potential to rise up and threaten world peace.
Instead, our forces were dismantled, and the crowning jewel on those policies are, not just terrorist attacks on our mainland, but an administration with a President at its head, intent on apologizing to the world for preceived wrongs, and consequently adopting a policy of disarmament and surrender.
What did the U.S. do wrong? It rid the world of a war-mongering Soviet Union, who with its vast nuclear arsenal was capable of wiping out the earth's populations several times over. The Soviet Union was also arming and financing a substantial chunk of the terrorists and terrorist states that existed at that time, not to mention a host of "revolutionary" wars and conflicts throughout the globe.
And so, welcome to the "current scene," a President with his allies in Congress and throughout the nation, bribing potential voters and campaign contributors with tax payer funds to secure a second term.
To do what? Can you guess?
The result is: a Neo Soviet Submarine on our coastline. I can almost guarantee you that they did not come here just for show.. If you happen to catch any photos of that sub you are likely to find that it had more antennae sticking out of it than your Thanksgiving turkey has toothpicks: devices that monitor not just our defense capabilities, but our electronic transmissions, and our operations (both military and civilian).
Would you like to start a discussion about the extent of that breach of "security?" (Which, by the way, the presence of that sub and other Russian craft on our perimiters, as Mr. Gertz explains, demonstrate that we have none).
It is beyond a tragedy, that while the sharks circle the sinking raft, as it's tossed to and fro in tumultuous waters, the occupants of that raft are bickering about spending less money to plug up the holes, as the salty waters continue to gush into the raft. And it is tragic that others are throwing tantrums about the health care of the raft's occupants, who are about to drown and/or become shark food. It is further tragic that those charged with the sea-worthiness of the raft, keep admitting into its ranks those whose intentions are to sink the raft, and are busily busting holes in the raft's hull to make sure it sinks.
Up from the bowels of the fragile raft emerges a group of raftees with a couple of inner tubes, marked "Romney" and "Ryan" respectively, and, a dozen or so others with "lifesavers" marked "Tea Party."
Do you think that will make a difference without you making the decision and taking action to take over your neighborhood, town, village, county, burrough, state to ensure the raft, not only stays afloat, but that it gets safely to its land base?
If I weren't so ticked off I would send Comrade Vladimir a thank you note for that sobering submarine, and for helping to put things in perspective. Maybe I will anyway.
What else should I tell him?
What do you think I should put in the envelope with that note?