December 12, 2013

*The Decline and Fall of American Deterrence *

*By* *Richard Winchester*<http://www.americanthinker.com/richard_winchester/>

A few days ago, America experienced the 72nd anniversary of the Japanese
attack on Pearl Harbor.  At the end of September, the world observed the 75
th anniversary of the Munich Agreement, whereby Britain and France
surrendered Czechoslovakia's Sudetenland to Hitler's Germany.  Nazi Germany
annexed most of the rest of Czechoslovakia within months, and invaded
Poland on September 1, 1939, thus beginning the Second World War.

What do Pearl Harbor, the Munich Pact, and Germany's invasion of Poland
have in common?  The common thread running through these events is that
western democracies' military weakness tempted aggressors to strike.

Add to this the fecklessness of western leaders, who did nothing when
Hitler remilitarized the Rhineland, Germany annexed Austria, and Japan
invaded China and murdered thousands of civilians, and one sees how toxic
the witches' brew was.

If that's true, then why are we doing it again?

Most western democracies spend a pittance on their military, probably
because they depend on the United States to defend them and most of their
budgets go for welfare-state programs.

We saw one result of the western allies' skimping on their military in
NATO's performance during the Libyan crisis.  Once NATO's bombing campaign
began, NATO's air force -- always short of reconnaissance aircraft and
aerial tankers -- ran critically low of essential ordinance.   Had the U.S.
not entered the fray -- even though "leading from behind" -- there are
grave doubts that Gadhafi's regime would have fallen.

America's military strength is also being curtailed.  In addition to the
meat-ax approach to America's naval, air, and ground forces required by the
Sequester (which originated in the White House), the Obama Administration
is reducing the Pentagon's budget by hundreds of billions of dollars.
Obama is also slicing the U.S. nuclear arsenal.

Once all the military budget cuts are in place, the United States will have
the fewest naval vessels at sea since before World War I, the smallest Air
Force ever, and an Army and Marine Corps with severely diminished
capacity.  The nation will have only 300 or so nuclear weapons.  The hollow
military which we heard so much about during the Carter years will be back.

The Obama Administration has also manifested a record of diplomatic
fecklessness which compounds the problem.  In 2009, the Administration
canceled installation of missile defense systems in Poland and the Czech
Republic, hoping it could "reset" U.S.-Russian relations.  (American
solicitude did not deter Vladimir Putin from pursuing his goal of
re-establishing Russian hegemony in Eastern Europe.)

We also see America's retreat from the Middle East in the recent surrender
to Iranian mullahs' long-term goal of achieving nuclear weaponry.  Mark
Steyn's<http://www.nation.foxnews.com/2013/12/02/mark-steyn-surrender-geneva>"Surrender
in Geneva" (12/02/13) and Abraham
Miller's<http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/12/the_iranian_agreement_and_the_strategy_of_deterrence.html>"The
Iranian Agreement and the Strategy of Deterrence" (12/07/13) both
highlight just how craven the Obama Administration has been in its rush to
allow Iran to develop nuclear weapons, thereby throwing Israel, Saudi
Arabia, and other middle eastern countries under the bus.

Trouble is also brewing in Asia, where mainland China recently extended its
air defense territory to cover space claimed by Japan and South Korea.
This new manifestation of Communist China's growing military threat has
been correctly assessed by Bill Schanefelt and Gary
Crowder<http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/12/china_sea_crisis_deteriorates.html>on
*The
American Thinker* blog (12/05/13).

America's response to China's expansionism has been minimal.  First, the
U.S. sent two *unarmed* B-52s through the air space newly claimed by Red
China.  Naturally, the Obama Administration apologized for the flight.  The
Administration also ordered U.S. airlines to avoid the territory.  Then Joe
Biden raised the issue during his recent visit to China, only to be told
"go fish" by Communist China's top honcho, Xi Jin-ping.  (As of now,
Japan's response has been more muscular.)

Some analysts, noting the Obama Administration's feckless foreign policy,
are predicting that Japan, South Korea, and Saudi Arabia will probably soon
acquire nuclear weapons, and that Israel may acknowledge it possesses these
devices.  (Fifty or sixty years ago, people worried about "nuclear
proliferation."  To quote Eddy Cantor, they "ain't seen nothin' yet.")

No discussion of potential aggressors' threat to western democracies would
be complete without mention of Putin's goal of restoring Russia to the
superpower status enjoyed by the old Soviet Union.  For example, Putin is
planning to expand Russia's nuclear
arsenal<http://en.ria.ru/military_news/20131008/184004336.html>.
If the Syrian imbroglio is any indication, Russia may already have replaced
the United 
States<http://www.i24news.tv/en/opinion/130915-the-russians-are-back>as
the dominant power in the Middle East.

Two new polls indicate that sizable percentages of the public are aware
that American military might and the country's importance and power in the
world have declined.

A poll of likely voters by Rasmussen
Reports<http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/november_2013/37_believe_u_s-doesn_t_spend_enough_on_military_national_security>(11/25-26/13),
for example, found 37% felt the U.S. spends too little money
on the military and national defense, while 29% opined the country spends
too much, and 27% believed America's level of military and national defense
spending is "about right."

Every four years since 1993, the *Times Mirror*/Pew Research Center has
asked random samples of the American public about "America's Place in the
World."<http://www.people-press.org/2013/12/03/public-sees-u-s-power-declining-as-support-for-global-engagement-slips/>
Drawing on polls of American adults sponsored by the Chicago Council of
Foreign Relations and other organizations, some of these questions go back
to the mid-1960s.  Pew's latest poll was conducted between October 30 and
November 6, 2013.

Perhaps the biggest headline to come out of that poll is that Americans'
views of U.S. global power have fallen to a 40-year low.  In 1974, a poll
for the Chicago CFR found 39% of the public believed that "the U.S. is less
important and powerful than 10 years ago."  Currently the figure is 53%.
Moreover, 70% of the public now believe that the U.S. is less respected
around the world than in the past.

Do most people care that America is less powerful and respected than
formerly?  Possibly not, for Pew's latest poll also found that 52% of the
public opined that "the U.S. should mind its own business and let other
countries get along as best they can on their own."  That's up from 20% in
1964 and 30% in 2002.

Should we worry if large portions of the public seem aware that the
country's military might and national power have declined, but aren't
unduly exercised because they think America ought to "mind its own
business?  Yes, according to Mark
Steyn's<http://www.amazon.com/After-America-Get-Ready-Armageddon/dp/B0076TKQ8E/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF87qid=1386607701&sr=1-1&keywords=Mark+Steyn%2C+After+America>thesis,
developed in *After
America:  Get Ready for Armageddon *(2011)*.*

Steyn's book is about America's demise, brought on by economic chaos,
cultural rot, and its collapse as a world power.  The most important facet
of his book for our purposes is that America's end as a superpower will
result in a less stable, more violent, world.

The likely flash-point will be in the Middle East, already a tinder-box,
where we may see a war between Sunni Saudi Arabia and Shi'ia
Iran<http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/12/saudis_to_obama_we_will_not_tolerate_a_nuclear_iran.html>.
We could even see Israel and Saudi Arabia -- both betrayed by Obama --
jointly attack Iran's nuclear facilities.

An old principle attributed to the 4th or 5th century A.D. Roman, Publius
Flavius Vegetius Renatus, who asserted that "*Si vis pacem, para
bellum"*("If you want peace, prepare for war.").  Renatus' observation
resonates
throughout history.  Why, then, can't we learn it and live by it?


*Page Printed from:
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/../2013/12/the_decline_and_fall_of_american_deterrence.html
<http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/../2013/12/the_decline_and_fall_of_american_deterrence.html>*at
December 13, 2013 - 06:34:34 PM CST


__._,_.___





__,_._,___

-- 
-- 
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/  
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. 
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"PoliticalForum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to [email protected].
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Reply via email to