LETTER TO THE EDITOR: Cutting defense now would be detrimental

OPINION:

During the recent South Carolina Republican presidential debate, the candidates were asked who can defeat President Obama in November. For Democrats, it appears that many don’t care who is in the White House as long as that person calls himself a Democrat; what he does to destroy our economy and society does not seem to matter.

Speaker of the House John A. Boehner pointed out this week that it has been 1,000 days since the Democrats submitted a budget. In foreign affairs, the GOP candidates have pointed out that Iran continues its active 30-year war against the United States and could fit a merchant ship with a nuclear missile to destroy New York or Washington. Meanwhile, Mr. Obama is presenting a new defense strategy that cuts $1 trillion from the military without reducing one penny from wasteful big government spending.

Mr. Obama’s defense strategy cuts almost 490,000 troops from the U.S. Army and the Marine Corps and attempts to substitute drones and cyberwarfare equipment for U.S. capabilities to fight two conventional wars at the same time. Therefore, the present leaders of tyrannical Russia and communist China continue to view Mr. Obama as a weak president. Why shouldn’t they? Look at his defeatist strategy, military retreats during his first three years in office and the dangers we are facing.

Many Americans are alarmed over Chinese and Russian military exercises in our backyard and support American supremacy in our own hemisphere, as called for in the Monroe Doctrine. The Monroe Doctrine of 1823 declared it dangerous to our peace and safety for foreign powers to interfere in any part of the American hemisphere.

In my opinion, there are a handful of major problems with the proposed new defense strategy. First, the U.S. Navy has to maintain a two-ocean fighting capability, as was needed during World War II and afterward. Second, Russian naval incursions into the Caribbean Sea, Latin America and Cuba threaten the sovereignty and security of the United States, and communist China’s control of the Panama Canal threatens U.S. security and sovereignty. President Obama will probably not seek to modify the Panama Canal treaties to allow the United States to reclaim our former military bases in the Panama Canal Zone.

Furthermore, the ratification of Mr. Obama’s Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START III) has left Russia with nuclear superiority over America. It is doubtful Mr. Obama has the fortitude to deal effectively with Russian or Chinese military aggression and might seek permission from the United Nations before responding.

Cuts in defense and the setting of arbitrary dates for troop withdrawal are detrimental to our armed forces as they fight in the Middle East and while there is great potential for war with Iran and possibly North Korea, too.

LT. COL. DOMINIK GEORGE NARGELE

U.S. Marine Corps, retired

Arlington