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.

There’s never a good time for military weakness. Especially now!

A story sent to me by a friend was written by a man with many years of active service in the United States Air Force. His story began, “Tomorrow morning will be the final day I lace up my boots and put on my Air Force uniform. I have now served my country in uniform for years but it is time to go.”

He said it wasn’t the pay and benefits, although he made less than the $15 per hour that some people think every person ought to make, regardless of skill, experience or value of the job. He said he wasn’t thrilled to have been deployed in some 25 countries, but that wasn’t the reason, either.

“I currently am an AMMO troop,” he said. “Our mission is to build bombs and process numerous other munitions to take the fight to the enemy. We pretty much put ‘Warheads on Foreheads!’"

He holds the position quaintly stated by the late Rush Limbaugh, that the military “is designed to kill people and break things.” That description engendered much backlash, and many still argue against it. But the underlying truth still rules: The U.S. military has a very specific, demanding and critical responsibility; it must never be side-tracked from that vital and narrow obligation.

Our airman agrees. “Even though our mission is to kill, we are more worried about upsetting someone’s feelings versus getting the mission done,” he wrote. “We spend more time doing ancillary training than actually training. Even though I have a military driver’s license I have to be signed off in another database to drive a vehicle and then have a competency card saying I know how to drive on top of that. That is just a few examples of why I have decided to call it quits.” 

He said that the country needs to focus on what is really important, not what is politically correct, or we will no longer be tough enough to defend ourselves from those who wish to destroy us. “Perception is reality, and right now we are more scared of speaking our mind and hurting someone’s feelings versus doing the right thing,” he wrote.

Another person with a military background agrees. Josiah LIppincot, writing in The Federalist, said, “Gen. Mark Milley, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told Congress in June that he wanted to understand ‘white rage,’ why ‘thousands of people’ tried ‘to assault this building and … overturn the Constitution of the United States of America.’”

“As a Marine Corps officer who served at the tail end of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan,” he continued, “I saw firsthand the rapid ideological transformation pervading the military in the wake of these disasters in the Middle East.”

Also recognizing the dangerous transformation of our military’s philosophy is columnist Kurt Schlichter, writing for Townhall.com.

“Fire all the generals. Invite a few back, maybe a dozen,” he wrote. “Clean out the Pentagon. Can all the ‘Diversity Consultants,’ ‘Equal Opportunity Officers,’ ‘Climate Change Mitigation Specialists,’ and every other strap-hanging oxygen thief who doesn’t contribute to the only thing the military should be focusing on right now”; protecting America.

This transformation of the military began under the presidency of Barack H. Obama, according to Retired Army Major General Paul Vallely. “He's intentionally weakening and gutting our military, Pentagon and reducing us as a superpower, and anyone in the ranks who disagrees or speaks out is being purged,” he wrote in March of 2014, after listing 99 military officers, including 16 flag officers, who were fired or driven out.

Two others in Vallely’s article agreed: Retired Army Major General Patrick Brady: “There is no doubt he (Obama) is intent on emasculating the military and will fire anyone who disagrees with him.” 

Retired Army Lt. General William G. Jerry Boykin: “Over the past three years, it is unprecedented for the number of four-star generals to be relieved of duty, and not necessarily relieved for cause.”

The Afghanistan mess is also plagued in part by the goofy PC atmosphere that has invaded our military. Critical Race Theory (CRT), gender and racial equity, and other such things have no place in the U.S. military.

We need the most qualified person in every job, whether that is a position fighting the enemy, or a supporting position. And it makes absolutely no difference their skin color, whether male or female, and certainly not whether those categories are equally or fairly represented among active and reserve military personnel.

“A serious organization does not alternate its designation of America’s most serious threat between the weather, ‘racism,’” and other such things, Schlicter wrote.

Rest assured that generals, admirals and national leaders in China, Russia and the rest of the radical nations are not drumming their fingers on the table wondering what to do about alleged “supremacy,” racism, equity, how to defeat climate change, or which historical statues to take down and which buildings and bridges to rename.

We don’t need to be woke; we need to wake up, and get our act together, or before too long we’ll be kneeling before tyrants who kept their focus on what was important to them.