Military cutbacks

Get real, Hagel tells nation in proposing military cuts – CNN Security Clearance - CNN.com Blogs



The US Secretary of Defense is proposing to cut the Army back to levels it hasn't seen since before World War II and if that doesn't say something about what role this administration wants the US to play in the future around the world, nothing does.



Understand, I have nothing against downsizing the Army as we disengage from Afghanistan. It is quite traditional for the U.S. to gut its military capabilities in the wake of conflicts. It is something we do after every war, which of course makes the next one (and there will be one, make no doubt of that) all that the more costly as we rebuild our capabilities.



About 20 years ago, I wrote an opinion piece which got inserted into the Congressional Record (I have a copy suitable for framing around here somewhere signed by Sen. Fritz Hollings (D-S.C.) who inserted it in the official journal of the federal Congress). The thesis was that while it probably was good to downsize the active components of the Defense Department, it really should be beefing up the reserve components. Unfortunately, now, as 20 years ago, the yahoos in the Pentagon want cut back on the National Guard and the Reserve while eviscerating the active side as well.



But then various and sundry governors already are in dither because the drones in the
five-sided puzzle palace on the banks of the Potomac have decided, once again, that is better to
chop those pesky National Guardsmen than even more Active Component
types ... even though they get a far better bang for the buck with the
Reserves than they do with the Regulars.



I could go into all the political and social benefits of enlarging
the "militia" of the country, but who would be listening ... not the
people in Washington, that is for sure.





For example, the Air Force will try - yet again - to divest itself of the venerable A-10 Thunderbolt II close air support attack jet that ground pounders like the infantry have come to love so much. The Air Force has been trying to get rid of this ugly but useful - and very survivable - Warthog of a plane for about 35 years. It doesn't fly fast enough, or look sexy enough, or nor is stealthy enough, for the jet drivers who run the Air Force.



I suppose the Air Force could give them all to the Air National Guard, but I think they already have done that, so now it is time just to throw it in the ash bin of aircraft; just like the C-27 cargo planes they just bought for the Guard.



Understand, I am not knocking the Regulars. Especially, since over the last decade they really have been rode hard and put up wet. It doesn't matter which branch of the service they serve in, all of those volunteers have had to put up with a lot of fecal material that they shouldn't have to ... and their families have to go through even more.



Of course, the
last decade and a half have not been all that kind to the National Guard
and the Reserves either, because they truly have become a part of the total
force and have spent a lot more time than they used to on active service
in combat zones. (Which is one of the reasons it should be a whole heck
of a lot larger than it is now, and is proposed to be in the future).



Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel promises that the force of future will be more tactically proficient as the military faces the realities of the fiscal difficulties faced by the federal government, once again trying to trade troops for technology, ala Donald Rumsfeld. Hey, Secretary Hagel, as Gen. Eric Sinseki once warned Rumsfeld before going into Iraq: Quantity has a quality that can't be overlooked. (Note that Sinseki was sacked for telling Congress that little fact)



However, I think the secretary is overlooking a couple of things. First, it appears the cuts will be coming on the warfighting side of the house, leaving the civilian bureaucracy (which is unionized - although in my experience with it, that union really sucks) relatively intact. Secondly, all that new stuff costs a bunch.



In addition, technology is great, it really is. But as soldiers probably will point out to you, it only works as long as the batteries do. Then it is back to basics, the basics of being a soldier. Of course, we could just automate all the tasks and run all the robots out of some conexes in Nevada or somewhere (but they run on batteries too). That is what this president likes to do: You know, death from above (and I don't mean the good old airborne) but I digress.



Still, I should take note that the progressives are getting what they have been advocating for most of my life now ... but then they have been in control for going nigh on eight years now. I just hope all their kumbayhya stuff works out for them, because - unfortunately - I am a bit too old, and definitely too battered and beaten - to be taking up arms for them again. I am not all that hopeful, mind you, but that is because I look at the world right now and don't see much to be hopeful about.



Still, we are living in a relatively peaceful lagoon here in North America (well, at least north of the Rio Grande - or is that the Medina River valley these days ... heck for all I know it may be the Red River Valley) and maybe it will stay that way. I hope so, but as I said, my reservoir of hope in this age of hope and change is getting mighty low ... you almost would think I was back in California and farming in the Central Valley.

It is all about the language

Calling immigrants criminals is insulting

Simple definition of illegal immigration

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor recently said calling those people who have immigrated to the United States without the proper documentation criminals was insulting.

I am not sure I agree. I mean in more ways than one, immigrants without documentation have broken the law in the United States.

First, they failed to get the appropriate documentation at the border. That is in violation of federal law.

Now, if they got a job without a work permit, then they violated another law and subjected their employer to possible fines and legal sanctions.

If they gave a Social Security number to anyone, then that would have been fraud and another crime.

If they drove a car without a valid driver’s license, then that is a violation of state law.

I mean you really can go on and on, making such a list. The question then becomes at what point does such a person become a “criminal”?

I suppose you have to find them, arrest them, try them, find them guilty of violating whatever laws they have broken and then you can call them a criminal. I suppose if you do it before such a determination then you are defaming them … which is insulting them.

But the real issue here is about the language. You see if you call a person a criminal – even if they have done something criminal – then you putting them in a lower status then those people who don’t break the law.

Unfortunately, we all break the law, probably daily. Of course it is little laws like speed limits, jaywalking and improper lane changes, but it still is breaking the law. Most of us just wink at people who do such things and just rack it up to their not getting caught.

My take from what Justice Sotameyer is saying is that we should just “wink” at those people who are violating US immigration law.

However, I don’t agree, but then I have a different perspective. I am married to a non-citizen. We had to get the proper documentation and then go through the process to get first a work permit and then a permanent residence card … which took more time than I hoped and cost more than I expected, but we paid both prices in order to stay within the law – before all the post-9/11 changes that went into effect in the the latter half of the Oughts.

I read these stories, truly sad stories, about families torn apart when parents are deported but their anchor children remain behind and I don’t have a solution.

I really don’t think we need to ignore our law, because if we ignore it, what other laws should we just start ignoring? And if we as “men” (meaning individual people) decide what laws we will obey, then we truly become a nation of men and not of law.

Being a nation of law is what sets the US apart from most other countries. It is one of the good things about the country, although views like Justice Sotameyer’s tend to push the envelope toward less equality before the law and more injustice in name of the law.

What people like Justice Sotameyer and others associated with the progressive view of this issue are doing is seizing control of the language and warping it to hide the fact that undocumented immigrants are in fact illegal aliens. In many countries, if it doesn’t get you quickly escorted to the border, it does get you locked up in jail (with the latter more often than not the consequence).

Once they control the language used to describe those individuals who anywhere else would be called criminals or illegals, then they control the debate and can shape the issue any way they want to do.

The key is that if you control the words, then you control the people. I think George Orwell wrote a book on that called 1984. Well, it may be three decades or so late, but I am beginning to suspect that “newspeak” is become the lingua franca of 21st America.