It is fitting that the Wall Street Journal should be the
vehicle through which the clock is turned back on America to look at a history
that never happened. No, this time the feat was not achieved by a work that was
authored by the Journal editors; it was achieved by the choice they made from
among all the material that is submitted to them on a daily basis.
The submission in question came from Mackubin Thomas Owens
who wrote a piece under the title: “America's Kinder, Gentler Department of
Defense” and the subtitle: “Cutting the military to fuel the welfare state
doesn't instill fear in a nation's enemies.” It was published in the Journal on
February 23, 2013.
You see immediately in the subtitle of the piece that the author's
preference would be to spend the resources available to the nation on the
military rather than spend them on social programs. And Owens would do this, he
says, because he wants to instill fear in what he calls the nation's enemies.
But this is not the only reason why he is upset at what he says is happening to
the U.S. military; he cites two other reasons which he equates with shoes
dropping at the Pentagon.
The first shoe to drop, says the author, is what appears to
be the reason why General James Mattis was relieved of his duties. According to
Owens, that decision came because “the administration … doesn't want smart,
independent-minded generals.” And the proof of this, says he, is that: “White
House officials … weren't happy with Gen. Mattis's advice … [He] thought we
should be planning for what Iran is capable of doing – such as … attacking
Israel – not just what we assume Iran will do.”
Hold it there, mister! Hold it there. For America to plan
for the possibility that Iran may attack Israel because it can do so is not to
be an independent-minded thinker; it is to be a fanatic mouthpiece working for
the Likud-Neocon axis which links Tel Aviv with New York City and the
Washington Beltway. Don't you ever forget it, mister, that years before the W was
persuaded to attack Iraq, a plan was put in place by those same characters to
deal with the possibility of what Saddam might do because he could do it.
And the rest is history; a bitter history that is never
forgotten by those who do not blabber the Likud-Neocon song of American
self-immolation. The truth is that nobody in this world gets scared by a Neocon
that is running at the mouth. All what happens is that the clowns on Capitol
Hill get impressed with the phony picture which results, and they vote like
lemmings to rubber-stamp everything that AIPAC asks for while kicking down the
road everything that America asks for.
Having seen this part of the article, you now understand why
the author started it with this opening sentence: “The Department of Defense
faces some stark choices [but] the sequester may be the least of its problems.”
You see it clearly that Owens wants the Pentagon to prepare for an attack on
Iran when so ordered by the Likud-Neocon axis whether or not it is under
sequestration; whether or not it has enough resources to defend America against
a real danger that may lurk out there. According to these people, Israel should
not only be America's number one priority, it must become America's only
concern.
And this allows Owens to segue to the second dropping shoe.
Having established that Israel must be America's only concern, he returns to
the theme he had in the subtitle, and advocates yet again that the military
should have priority over social programs. This is how he put it this time:
“the nomination of Chuck Hagel to be the next secretary of defense … the real
problem is his likely approach to the defense budget.” And he goes on to lament
that: “The Hagel nomination is a replay of President Harry Truman's appointment
… Like Mr. Obama, Truman was committed to funding his domestic programs at the
expense of military spending.”
What is wrong with that? you ask. But you find that he has
anticipated your question and has supplied you with the answer. Here it is:
“Like Truman … Obama and Hagel … look at the defense budget in the abstract …
the danger is that President Obama has appointed Sen. Hagel … to take an ax to
the pentagon in order to free up money for the President's expanded welfare
state. This is alarming. National security strategy … should drive defense
spending and force structure.” What strategy is that? Israel's aggressive
designs that never take a respite? And what force structure would that be? Will
it be made of units equipped with massive self-propelled guns called the “Crusader”
to be unleashed on the Muslim World, and thus start a global religious war?
Now Mackubin Thomas Owens tackles the third shoe to drop. It
is “the opening of most ground-combat billets to females ... a terrible policy
change.” He gives three reasons why this is a terrible idea without once
mentioning that Israel has had a similar policy in effect since it was
recognized as a state by the United Nations – thanks to the efforts of Harry
Truman no less. So why is it that Truman was right to work for the invented
“Jewish people” and not for the authentic American people? Why is it that Owens
and the traitors of his ilk call on Obama and Hagel to look after Israel and
not after the interests of the American people?
To end his rant, Owens reiterates the things he said Messrs
Obama and Hagel are doing wrong, and postulates that these “events will degrade
the readiness and effectiveness of the U.S. military far more than
sequestration will.” Here we go again with his ambivalence about the possible
effect of sequestration.
I am under the impression that some people consider Thomas
Owens to be a military historian. I would say he may or may not be a good one
when it comes to military history, but when it comes to social and economic
history, he gets an F in my view.
And that is because President Truman put down the structure
for an economic expansion that made America the economic giant it became in the
decades of the Nineteen Fifties and Sixties. What happened after that was the
war in Vietnam which turned out to be an important factor in chipping away at
America's economy.
That history unfolded under the horrified eyes of the people
who fought in the war – one that should never have dragged as long as it did.
Chuck Hagel was there, and he knows a few things that Owens will never know
even if manages to shed his Neocon fanaticism and regain his sanity.
But don't count on it; he is a long way away from that.