Would you take this SUV into combat?


The Heritage Foundation

Comment by Jim Campbell, Citizen Journalist

As Obama tries to ignorantly sell the masses that the War on Terrorism is over perhaps a member of the military might slap some sense into is thick mush-filled skull rather than salute him.

 

Obama should be the one saluting our men and women in uniform, if they choose to return the salute that would be up to them.

Clearly Obama is in over his head in every capacity with the exception of reading a teleprompter.  That my friends, a Commander-in-Chief, does not make.

That’s my story and I’m sticking to it, I’m J.C. and I approve this message.

Should our fighting men and women be forced to drive unarmed SUVs into war zones, with speed as their only defense against rocket and car bomb attacks? Tragically, that’s a true story of U.S. military readiness today, and America’s defenses will only get worse under the drastic cuts aimed at our armed forces.

In a new video by The Heritage Foundation, combat veteran Kerry Kachejian explains why U.S. military readiness is so crucial. He has first hand experience in the matter from his experience during the reconstruction of Iraq and Afghanistan.

There are those in Washington who believe that America can afford to slash the military in order to shift that money elsewhere. That, though, will leave the military hollow and ill-prepared for growing threats. In a newly released Heritage lecture on the Obama Doctrine of humble engagement with friends and enemies, Kim R. Holmes explains that despite the president’s claim that the world is more secure, serious threats remain, all while the military’s readiness is being depleted.

“Because this unit was organized, staffed, equipped and deployed so quickly, there was no spare military equipment for it,” Kachejian explained. Unable to acquire the necessary armored vehicles, his unit turned to ingenuity, courage and innovative ways to get the job done, all while coming under withering assaults from the enemy.

Kachejian’s story, which is continued in new book, “SUVs Suck In Combat,” illustrates the human impact of an ill-equipped military. He tells of being jolted by a one-thousand pound truck bomb, speeding at 110 mph through the streets of Iraq, ripping tailgates off SUVs and mounting machine guns in back, and men duct-taping their body armor to their vehicles to get even the smallest level of protection. On an individual level, the lesson is clear — our men and women soldiers are risking their lives in defense of freedom, and yet they’re ill-equipped to get the job done.

But from the ground level to the global stage, a weak, unprepared military poses great threats, as well. Unfortunately, the U.S. military is in very real danger of growing weaker, losing its deterrent force, and being left unable to fight and win wars in defense of America.

There are those in Washington who believe that America can afford to slash the military in order to shift that money elsewhere. That, though, will leave the military hollow and ill-prepared for growing threats. In a newly released Heritage lecture on the Obama Doctrine of humble engagement with friends and enemies, Kim R. Holmes explains that despite the president’s claim that the world is more secure, serious threats remain, all while the military’s readiness is being depleted.

Clearly, the military is becoming weaker. You can argue that smaller is smarter, but at some point quantity matters. The military is getting smaller and weaker. It has already cancelled the F-22 and some F-35s, the C-17s are being delayed, and 100,000 forces are being taken out of the military’s end strength.

Yet Iran has become more aggressive and is closer to gaining a nuclear weapon. Russia is far more aggressive and certainly not cooperating where we really need them to cooperate, such as on Syria and Iran. Our relationship with Pakistan has deteriorated sharply. It frankly is already acting as an adversary in some areas and may become even more so in the future. . .

There’s also the question of the future in Afghanistan. The Taliban clearly think that they are winning the conflict and only need to wait us out. It is entirely possible that after 2014, there will be areas in Afghanistan that again become safe havens that the Taliban and other terrorists control.

Despite these threats — not to mention China’s growing strength and North Korea’s erratic pursuit of nuclear weapons — future defense spending will be cut across the board by nearly $500 billion beginning next year, on top of the $487 billion in cuts proposed by President Obama in February. Those cuts will leave America with a military that is less prepared to defend the nation while signaling to our enemies that we have a weaker hand to play on the world stage.

In Heritage’s video, Kachejian explains that “The big picture is, the military really is a national insurance policy. Its primary purpose is to deter war, and if you have to go to war, it has to win it as fast and inexpensively as it can.” That insurance policy is about to lapse unless Congress acts to ensure that the U.S. military has the resources it needs to effectively defend America.

About these ads

2 responses to “Would you take this SUV into combat?

  1. Back in the Ye Olden Days I used to drive an M151A2 jeep. Its only protection was a low profile (with top and windshield down – with a vertical wire cutting bar off the front bumper). We didn’t even have general issue body armor. Of course, the whole tyctical structure of war back in those days was based around he premise that you never let the enemy know you were there.

    Of course, these days nation/empire-building we’re not really there to conduct a war or even to seriously tangle with anybody. The normal Grunt-Work – daily Search & Destroy – which we ALL used to do is done by a handful of SF specialists and most everybody else is there to make a pronounced physical presence in order to scare the locals into being obedient to our politicians’ schemes.

    The New Military has fancy (and expensive – gotta keep the Corporations rolling in taxpayer money!) toys. But in terms of tactical skills (shoot, skoot, and vanish into the terrain) it doesn’t hold a candle to the Old Military. But then again, the Mission ALWAYS dictates the Tactics, doesn’t it?

  2. For the old school militray concepts of visibility in the field, reference this:

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s