U.S. military below acceptable standards, according to analysis

Among the numerous troublesome topics bedeviling our lives today is this: “The U.S. military is only ‘marginally’ prepared to defend America’s interests at a time when adversaries are ramping up military capabilities.” This dose of reality comes from the 2022 Index of U.S. Military Strength, an annual 600-page look at our armed forces, started in 2015 by The Heritage Foundation. This edition was released earlier this month.

Of late, the concern for national security has transitioned toward cultural, social and political issues. And “military unreadiness” is the direction our armed forces leadership has moved over the last decade or so.

The military has a very narrow, critical mission. Its overriding concern is national security, and when it comes down to it, effectively fighting and winning against armed enemies. The vision held by any and all nations that might dream of defeating the United States must be that such actions will be met with overwhelming force by what is known worldwide as the most powerful and adept military on Earth. 

That is the goal that must never be sacrificed for political correctness, or social justice distractions.

Throughout history presidents have removed military commanders they viewed as inadequate or insubordinate, based upon the philosophy of the individual president. But that action must never result in weakening our national security.

President Barack Obama, tenure 2009 to 2017, declared at a political rally prior to his election that “We are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America.” Among other things, Obama worked to transform the U.S. military, including imposing significant budget cuts.

An editorial in Investor’s Business Daily in October of 2013 noted that since his inauguration, Obama had purged at least 197 military officers. And that included nine senior commanding generals in 2013.

A senior retired general told The Blaze — on the condition of anonymity, because he provided services to the government and feared retribution — that "they're using the opportunity of the shrinkage of the military to get rid of people that don't agree with them or do not toe the party line.” 

“For President Obama, the military of a once-feared superpower is an anachronistic vestige of an America whose exceptionalism and world leadership require repeated apologies,” the editorial stated. “It must be gutted and fundamentally transformed into a force wearing gender-neutral headgear only useful for holding the presidential umbrella when it rains. It is to be ‘his’ military and used only for ‘his’ purposes.”

As a result, the highest levels of military leadership became dysfunctional.

“The Index of U.S. Military Strength assesses the ease or difficulty of operating in key regions based on existing alliances, regional political stability, the presence of U.S. military forces, and the condition of key infrastructure,” states the executive summary of the Index. “Threats are assessed based on the behavior and physical capabilities of actors that pose challenges to vital U.S. national interests. The condition of America’s military power is measured in terms of its capability or modernity, capacity for operations, and readiness to handle assigned missions.”

The Index’s aggregate rating for all military branches is “marginal.” The individual rankings are as follows: 

Army: Marginal. A force only about 62 percent the size it should be earns the service a “weak” rating for capacity. However, 58 percent (18) of its 31 regular brigade combat teams are at the highest state of readiness, thus earning the Army a score of “very strong” on readiness and conveying the sense that the service knows what it needs to do to prepare for the next major conflict.

Navy: Marginal. The Navy is rated “marginal” on a downward slope to “weak” in readiness. It desperately needs a larger fleet of 400 ships, but current and forecasted levels of funding will prevent this from occurring for the foreseeable future.

Marine Corps: Strong. The score rose from “marginal” for two reasons: 1) The 2021 Index changed the threshold for capacity, lowering it from 36 infantry battalions to 30 in acknowledgment of the Corps’ argument that it is a one-war force that also stands ready for a broad range of smaller crisis-response tasks, and 2) because of the Corps’ extraordinary efforts to modernize and enhance its readiness during the assessed year.

Air Force: Weak, down from “marginal.” Though the Air Force possesses 86 percent of the recommended combat aircraft, public reporting of the mission readiness and physical location of these planes indicates difficulty to respond rapidly to a crisis. Its ability to recruit and retain pilots adds to its challenges.

Dismissal of senior officers that didn’t fit the president’s desires — admirals and generals, primarily — and budget cuts have reduced military readiness.

Retired Marine Lt. Col.Dakota Wood, senior research fellow with Heritage, said “This is not an indictment in any way of the men and women who serve in the military.”

Retired Army Lt. Gen. Keith Kellogg, national security adviser to former Vice President Mike Pence, touted former President Donald Trump’s foreign policy accomplishments, including the rebuilding of the U.S. military after nearly a decade of decline under the Obama administration.

This is yet one more area of governing that President Joe Biden would be well advised to continue. But that doesn’t fit into the Democrat’s play book.

Once upon a time, U.S. border security was an important concern!

The disgraceful chaos at the southern border is a topic of great concern to sensible Americans. It is a given that nations need secure and impenetrable borders, and levelheaded people understand that. And sometimes border policies and practices need reworking, such as after the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

“Unbelievable as it may seem to us today, it was only 15 years ago — with the 9/11 terrorist attacks still fresh in our minds — when Congress came together in a bipartisan effort to pass the Secure Fence Act of 2006.” That comment came from Mark Morgan, in a speech delivered this past July at Hillsdale College. 

Morgan served as acting commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection and acting director of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement in the Trump administration, and as chief of U.S. Border Patrol in the Obama administration, and provided details on this action. “The Secure Fence Act directed the Department of Homeland Security to take appropriate actions to achieve ‘operational control’ over U.S. land and maritime borders to ‘prevent unlawful entry.’” The measure had the support of 80 of the 100 U.S. Senators.

“It defined operational control as the prevention of all unlawful entries into the U.S., including terrorists, instruments of terrorism, narcotics, and other contraband,” he continued. “And it specifically set the goal of providing ‘at least two layers of reinforced fencing, installation of additional physical barriers, roads, lighting, cameras, and sensors.’ It added thousands of Border Patrol personnel, mandated the acquisition of new technologies, and resulted in the construction of more than 650 miles of physical barrier along the southern border of the U.S. between 2006 and 2011.”

With those actions, the southern border became even more secure than it had been, sparked by concerns of additional terrorist efforts to kill Americans. And Morgan noted that there was substantial support for this action in the Congress before and after those actions were taken. 

In 2005, then-Senator Barack Obama said: “We simply cannot allow people to pour into the United States undetected, undocumented, unchecked, and circumventing the line of people who are waiting patiently, diligently, and lawfully to become immigrants in this country.” 

And Senator Chuck Schumer said in 2009: “Illegal immigration is wrong, plain and simple … People who enter the United States without permission are illegal aliens and illegal aliens should not be treated the same as people who enter the U.S. legally.”

And then there was this comment: “Let me tell you something, folks, people are driving across that border with tons, tons — hear me, tons — of everything from byproducts from methamphetamine to cocaine to heroin, and it’s all coming up through corrupt Mexico.” That comment was voiced by then-Senator, and current President, Joe Biden, in 2006.

But since that time, something has happened. Congressional Democrats seemingly no longer care about security at the southern border. “Some attribute the breakdown of the bipartisan consensus on securing the border to the fact that Democrats came to look on illegal immigrants as much-needed Democrat voters,” Morgan said. “For whatever reason, a decade later these same Democratic leaders were lambasting President Trump’s border wall policy as ‘immoral and ineffective,’ even ‘racist,’ and fiercely opposing any and every serious proposal aimed at enforcing immigration law.”

“One of the most ridiculous criticisms I’ve heard.” Morgan noted, “is that the wall is ‘a fourteenth century solution for a twenty-first century problem.’ The same could be said of the wheel, which also still works pretty well.” 

In the minds of at least some of today’s Congressional Democrats, the tighter and more successful border security methods of the recent past are immoral and ineffective, and trying to prevent drug dealers, child traffickers, and terrorists from entering the country is racist. Brilliant!

One of the most effective and sensible programs dealing with illegal aliens crossing the border was called the Remain in Mexico Program. It required people illegally entering or being smuggled into the country with a minor to be returned to Mexico as opposed to being released into the U.S. with only a date for a hearing that most ignore.

Joe Biden, almost as soon as he drew a breath after being sworn in, canceled the Remain in Mexico Program, replacing it with the senseless “catch and release” method that existed prior to the Trump administration’s successful alternative.

Now, however, according to Morgan, “In response to a lawsuit brought by the Texas Attorney General, a federal judge has recently ruled that the Remain in Mexico Program must be reinstated, and the U.S. Supreme Court has refused to overturn that ruling.”

This may be the best thing to occur in the Biden administration’s brief but catastrophic tenure, and Biden had nothing to do with it, other than to have cancelled it early on, and opposed its reinstatement.

It is projected that 1.7 million illegal aliens will enter the U.S. in 2021. Border Patrol documents show that more than160,000 illegal aliens have been released into the U.S. since March, often with little to no supervision.

These illegal aliens have not been vaccinated, and they have not been vetted. What could possibly go wrong? 

Need we even ask that question?

Wildly exaggerating things is a cheap, repulsive political tactic

Lately, we have seen two occasions where certain parties have exaggerated descriptions of some events to make them seem more serious than they actually were. Two immediately come to mind: The January 6th “insurrection” at the U.S. Capitol; and the “domestic terrorism” at some local school board meetings.

Let’s take a look at these terms and allegations.

Insurrection: What it is: a violent armed uprising by a group or movement acting for the specific purpose of overthrowing the constituted government and seizing its powers.

What it isn’t: Insurrection is not a lot of people, nearly all of whom were unarmed, who illegally entered a government building, even if they were intent upon interrupting the work of those who occupy that building. The January 6th event at the U.S. Capitol Building was illegal and wrong — perhaps even an actual riot — but it was not an insurrection.

This common-sense evaluation was confirmed by the FBI, which Reuters reported “has found scant evidence that the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol was the result of an organized plot to overturn the presidential election result, according to four current and former law enforcement officials.”

When parents attend their children’s school board meeting and issue complaints against activities, and criticism of the school or the school system, even if they are angry and accusatory, they are not “domestic terrorists.” And if there were threats made against those associated with the school system, they may be minor crimes, but not “domestic terrorism.” This allegation and misuse of the term is irrational and disgraceful.

As reported by The Daily Signal, U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland ordered the FBI and federal prosecutors to meet with federal, state, and local leaders to look into a “disturbing spike in harassment, intimidation, and threats of violence” allegedly being made against “school administrators, board members, teachers, and staff.” 

Garland’s directive followed soon after the National School Boards Association (NSBA) requested President Joe Biden to assist in looking into behavior it absurdly classified as “domestic terrorism.”

And even if there is unlawful behavior at local school board meetings, it is the responsibility and clearly the purview of local law enforcement to deal with it. The federal government has no business or authority to involve itself in local and state affairs such as the goings-on at local meetings.

However, the actions favored by the NSBA, if granted, are likely to inhibit the ability of voters and parents to make their opinions known to the board. Even the foolish mischaracterization of these events is enough to inhibit some from exercising their constitutional rights and responsibilities in speaking out against what their children’s schools are doing.

This is yet one more episode where the federal government is improperly imposing its will over the guaranteed freedoms of the people.

This increasing misapplication of terrifying terms to make things seem far worse than they are is not the proper way to do things in America. It is a cheap political ploy designed to arouse false negative feelings, and to stifle opposition to unpopular policies. This is especially true when these preposterous over-reaches are done by public servants and/or elected representatives.

Most local school boards are elected by voters, and are therefore accountable to those voters and the parents of school children. They do not have the luxury of ignoring complaints and appeals for change. 

They also do not have the luxury of stifling the free speech of those voters and parents simply because they disagree with their complaints. They are elected servants of the people, not the rulers of the people.

This school board hoopla has spurred the idea of finding alternatives to government schools. This authoritarian behavior is the biggest boost to that idea that has come along lately.

An unresponsive school board runs the risk of parents saying they are finished with the arrogant attitude of the board, and will remove their child or children from the public school to one of the alternatives: charter schools, so long as they retain their independence; private or religious schools; or home schooling.

To what are these parents objecting? In what is likely the most reported of these conflicts, Loudoun County, Virginia, the Democrat-controlled board of supervisors and school board are trying to promote Critical Race Theory (CRT), and silence the opposition, as reported by Real Clear Politics (RCP).

“Supporters of [CRT] claim white racism is embedded in American institutions, and some go so far as to blame whites for poverty and crime in black communities,” RCP wrote. “Opponents claim [CRT] is inherently racist, teaching people to judge by skin color: all whites are oppressors, all blacks are victims.”

Much of the thousands of tax dollars related to CRT has gone to “the ‘Equity Collaborative,’ a group that seeks to expose and eliminate ‘the dominant (male, White, heterosexual) ideology’ and teaches tenets like ‘Whiteness as property’ and “Permanence of racism,’” RCP wrote.

Such a radical change in the history curriculum, without even notifying parents, let alone asking their opinion, does not sit well with true Americans, who expect — and deserve — transparency from their elected public servants.

We must not allow public education to become indoctrination.

The transformation of the United States of America is ongoing

Today, we are living in crazy and dangerous times. Tens of thousands of people from many countries travel many miles to get to Mexico so that they can enter the United States illegally.

There are different reasons why they want to be here, just as there are different types of people coming here. Some come with criminal intent, such as gang members and drug dealers. Some come because they know they can get a lot of stuff for free.

The most desirable ones, however, realize that America is so much better than where they came from. They can have a good life here. We have freedom, jobs and opportunities, due to the crystal-clear vision of the Founders.

The number of illegal entrants coming into the country is likely above any previous level, with more than 1.4 million people coming in illegally the first nine months of 2021, according to U.S. Border Patrol and the Office of Field Operations Encounters.

This high number is due to the failure of the Biden administration to do its job of providing border security, whether that is through ignorance of why borders are important, or is a deliberate effort to attract illegal aliens to our country.

Of course, the Biden administration insists that the borders are not open. Perhaps one of them can tell us how open borders, as they imagine them, would actually look, and be worse than what we see with our own eyes.

Even as those migrants from socialist, communist and otherwise poor countries come here to enjoy living in what is regarded by many as the best country on Earth, people in the government of this country continue to increase the control of the government over its people, gradually moving it toward the kind of places these illegal migrants could not wait to get away from.

The Democrats in Congress and the administration are busy transforming America into a government-controlled “paradise” where many things are free, except, of course, the individuals under the thumb of a government that seeks to control important things like healthcare, jobs and many current freedoms.

U.S. Senator Joe Manchin, D-WV, is a strong opponent of the Democrat’s multi-trillion-dollar efforts to increase dependence on government, calling these proposals that total some 5.5 trillion dollars "fiscal insanity" paid for with "vindictive" tax hikes, that will basically change “our whole society to an entitlement mentality." 

In a shocking display of abysmal ignorance about economics, White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki responded to a question about raising taxes on businesses by saying, “In the past, companies have passed on these costs to consumers… We feel that that’s absurd and unfair, and the American people won’t stand for that,” she said.

She apparently perceives economic matters like most “progressives,” which does not include understanding economics, specifically that every cent a business spends — for materials, wages, advertising, loans for new equipment or expansion, taxes, etc. — is paid for with income from consumers that buy its product or service. And when taxes and other costs go up, prices have to go up to pay for them.

Perhaps this is why they see no problem with humongous spending bills that will add trillions more to the already-gigantic national debt of $28.8 trillion.

A New York Post opinion column by Betsy McCaughey had this to say about the spending bill: “The colossal bill Democrats in Washington, DC, are assembling this week is a slap in the face to Americans who work, pay taxes and support their families. It demeans the work ethic and glorifies government handouts, sending the message that work and self-sufficiency are for suckers: better to climb on Uncle Sam’s gravy train, which will now provide cradle-to-grave benefits.”

McCaughey mentions “Biden bucks,” which are monthly payments to almost all parents, based on how many children they have. Unsurprisingly, it doesn’t even matter whether the parents work or not. She notes that Democrats also promise “virtually free child care until the children turn 5, free community college and, for seniors, new Medicare and elder-care benefits,” and “12 weeks a year paid leave for anyone who claims a family member — even a distant relative like a spouse’s grandmother — needs care.”

“This bill pours money down a rathole,” McCaughey wrote. “It allocates a whopping $45 billion to make community college free. Students won’t have to spend a single dollar on tuition or fees — or pursue studies that prepare them for work. Only about one in five students now finishes community college within two years. A big reason is lack of academic skills when they enter. Nothing in this program will change that.”

Manchin urges “needs testing” to see who really needs these freebies and financial bonuses. That’s moving in the right direction, but the real question that needs an answer is, “are these measures, which will dramatically increase the peoples’ dependence on government, really a proper role for our government?”

The answer to that is a definite “No!” Our government is supposed to be as small, inexpensive and unobtrusive as possible. That’s how it started; that’s what built the country to which so many want to come;  and that’s how the country works best.