Monday, May 19, 2008

(Not interested in) Fixing the Military

This New York Times editorial with the above title minus that in parenthesis, falls flat on offering any solutions of what our post-Iraq military should look like. It mainly repeats extreme liberal talking points that suggest there is little hope of ever fixing the myriad challenges our great armed forces face.

For instance, there is the usual complaint about the Iraq War from the Left:

"the war of necessity in Afghanistan and President Bush’s
disastrous war of choice in Iraq "

As well as the repetative comment that the military is too worn out from the war to fight:

"So alarming is the deterioration that many military commanders say
the country is unable to sustain the current operation in Iraq let alone face
down future threats. "

Though most experts concede the military is strained, no one, including our Defense Secretary has any doubts we couldn't protect ourselves if need be, since the bulk of the Air Force and Navy isn't engaged in the Middle East fight.

There is the tired lament that the Wars since 9/11 "have made the world more dangerous", which has little basis in fact unless the Times can point to a specific incident outside the Middle east on the scale of the 2001 attacks on US soil. They never can, since facts are out of place in their criticism of our commander in chief.

The Grey Lady does concede, as this blog often argues, what "the country does not need is a military ready to refight the cold war", but doesn't offer any basics. When it says the country should cancel "expensive programs that do not meet today’s threats or tomorrow’s", which pet project does it suggest we cut out of which liberal or conservative politician's district?

The paper then goes into an extended list of the military's woes, without conceding the recent good news of progress on the ground, as Democrat and Republicans have all noticed, including most recently House Speaker Nancy Pelosi having seenthe change for herself.

As a helpful discussion on the Future Force, this article is not. As a partisan attack showing the liberal media's continued bias against our military and President Bush, with no interest in seeing Democracy in the Middle East or preventing a second terrorist attack on the nation, this fits in perfectly.