August 10, 2010- JD Gordon, David Bellavia & Andy McCarthy

Today on Frank Gaffney’s Secure Freedom Radio, Frank talks about the controversial cuts to the military planned by Secretary Gates. Then JD Gordon, former military spokesman for Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld checks in to speak about his former portfolio which included explaining Guantanamo Bay. He will discuss the coming military tribunal of an incarcerated terrorist, which is the first for this administration. Also on the show is David Bellavia, a combat veteran, and writer who will speak about the threats to the US electrical grid, and what that means to you. Then the show finished up with series regular Andrew McCarthy who will speak about the current mosque controversies in New York and North Virginia. How is the State Department reacting to these issues? McCarthy weighs in, and it may shock you.

Monologue:

A few thoughts on the news of the day, which is that the Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates, is proposing major cuts in the United States budget for the Defense Department. He is doing so in a number of different ways. He is proposing to eliminate an entire branch of command, the Joint Forces Command, which is responsible for doctrine, for the coordination of our NATO allies in Afghanistan and ensuring the readiness of our forces, really vital functions. He is also proposing to cut into the numbers of general and flag officers by about 50; cut the number of senior executives in the Defense Department by about 150; cut the number of contractors supporting the military by over 30 percent in 3 years time; and closing two offices of the secretary of defense organizations as well. All of which will, he hopes, together with cuts in actual military programs, produce as much as 100 billion dollars in savings over 5 years. He proposes to have that money plowed back into the military, the savings that is, but we will talk in a minute about whether that is very likely. Now let me just say that I’m quite sympathetic actually with what the Secretary of Defense sees the need to do. He needs to stabilize defense spending. He is trying to propose an arrangement whereby making savings he can get an agreement from Congress to maintain a steady 1% real growth in the defense budget.

Let me examine that stance because what we have done in the past and what we are poised to do yet again, it would appear, is a series of bust and boom spending programs with the defense department. Which is to say, as I think the Secretary put it, that it’s sort of like an electrocardiogram. [It’s] with these peaks and valleys which are incredibly inefficient and wasteful. Not least because when we go through the bust phase, which is to say the draw-down, the peace dividend phases, we invariably signal weakness to enemies and invite them. [We] encourage them; embolden them to believe that there is a vacuum of power that they can fill at our expense. What typically happens is that we realize that it is a terrible mistake, we wind up having to go to war, [and] we throw money at the Defense Department. Needless to say, the loss of lives as well as treasure is ridiculously high, and unnecessary.

The Secretary does not want to do that anymore, and again I am sympathetic. He is, as I said, probably operating under no illusions that he will actually see that money go back into the Defense Department if he saves it. Buck McKeon the ranking republican on the House Armed Services Committee says, don’t count on it. The congressional democrats will spend it on their domestic priorities, and the Secretary of Defense himself has said that he is worried that people will see the defense budget as a “place to solve the nation’s deficit problems.” Well, whatever they may think, what’s actually going to happen, I’m afraid, is that we’ll see these cuts and more done by a congress that is, at least if it remains in democratic hands, all too preoccupied with paying more and more and more for their domestic priorities. [They are] less and less interested in, and less and less concerned about the armed forces of the United States. I am here to tell you folks, I think that these Armed Forces of ours, these magnificent armed forces, in a time of war need our support, not to be further cut. Especially now that the cuts are now coming into the bone, I’m not talking about fat, we’re beyond muscle, but into the bone.

Everyone one of the services has had one major, or the major program gutted under this administration. The Air Force F-22; the Navy’s next generation destroyer; probably the Navy’s only modernization for the strategic forces, namely submarines that launch ballistic missiles all seem to be in peril. Also, the Army’s future combat system and the Marine’s expeditionary fighting vehicle. These are the backbone of the power projection capabilities of the United States, especially when you add on top of it the C-17 transporter that we require to get our forces to distant locations in time. These are the sorts of things we cut at our peril and we’re doing it. In addition, the Secretary of Defense is calling for more base closures. We have had five rounds of base closures; we’ve closed over 350 installations. Again, I’m afraid that the muscle and fat are long since gone. The bone is what is at stake now. In every respect, we’re talking about cuts that the United States can not afford to take. And the irony is that we’re always told that we cannot afford to make these type of investments. I believe now, more than ever, in a world becoming increasingly more dangerous, we can not afford to go down this road. I hope that you’ll help us in pushing back by encouraging your legislators to ensure that we have the forces we need, that they have the equipment they need, that they are trained to use that equipment and they have the culture of the military that is absolutely essential to the future of its viability. See the Military Culture Coalition’s website for more on the latter.