How Obama is Transforming America's Military from Superpower to Paper Tiger. Jed Babbin

      Table of Contents

       Title Page

       Epigraph

       OBAMA’S WAR AGAINST THE INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY

       IS “NEXT-WAR-ITIS” A MENTAL DISEASE?

       GATES AND “NEXT-WAR-ITIS”: THE PENTAGONHAS THE “HAVE BLUE BLUES”

       OBAMA AND GATES ARE CUTTING INVESTMENT IN CURRENT FORCES AND PLAYING POLITICS ...

       OBAMA’S MISSILE DEFENSE SCAM

       NUCLEAR DREAMER

       DIVERSITY ÜBER ALLES?

       CONCLUSION

       Copyright Page

       We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal, and it is our duty to follow them.

      British Prime Minister Henry John Temple, Lord Palmerston, in a speech to the House of Commons, March 1, 1848

      IT ’S NOT OFTEN that we get a glimpse into Barack Obama’s mind. In 2008, Samuel Wurzelbacher-A.K.A. “Joe the Plumber” - fell into one when his question to then-presidential candidate Obama about taxes resulted in the famous “spread the wealth around” answer, revealing Obama’s redistributionist economic beliefs.

      And, at the close of his flashy multinational nuclear “summit,” Barack Obama had another “Joe the Plumber” moment.

      Speaking of Middle Eastern conflicts, Obama said, “It is a vital national security interest of the United States to reduce these conflicts because whether we like it or not, we remain a dominant military superpower, and when conflicts break out, one way or another we get pulled into them. And that ends up costing us significantly in terms of both blood and treasure.”

      Not that America is rightfully proud of its ability to protect ourselves and our allies, to protect freedom, and pursue our interests around the world. Not that we are a force for good. “Whether we like it or not, we remain a dominant military superpower.”

      Not that we will defend our freedom-loving allies from aggression, but “when conflicts break out, one way or another we get pulled into them.”

      President Obama does not believe we have the right or the obligation to influence other nations, protect our allies, and pursue our interests abroad. After more than a year of reducing the future capabilities of our military and intelligence communities, his administration’s actions make it clear that he seeks to end America’s role as a global superpower.

      It’s wrong to accuse Barack Obama of naivete. The consistency with which he and Secretary of Defense Robert Gates have acted to reduce the capability of our armed forces - now and in the future - defines his objective: to reduce America from a superpower to an also-ran, a nation that is incapable of defending its interests or its allies around the world.

      He may think of himself as the “un-Bush,” but in historical context, he is the “un-Palmerston.” At the top of Obama’s agenda is to transform our military and intelligence capabilities from those of a superpower to the claws of a paper tiger.

      The proofs are comprehensive.

      Casting the Pentagon’s future not in steel but in glass, Obama and Gates have reduced or eliminated most of the key weapon systems - ranging from the F-22 fighter to the Navy’s DDG-1000 stealthy combatant ship - which would have maintained the technological superiority that our forces have depended on since Korea to win quickly and decisively on the modern battlefield.

      President Obama does not believe we have the right or the obligation to influence other nations, protect our allies, and pursue our interests abroad.

      They are delaying the purchase of the most urgently needed tool for maintaining our superpower abilities - the Air Force’s replacement for the Eisenhower-era KC-135 airborne tanker - to allow the makers of the French-made Airbus A330 to compete, despite its physical inability to perform the mission.

      They have reduced our missile defense program and abandoned the defense of Europe. They have promised, instead of the anti-missile defenses based in Poland, a sea-based system that they know cannot be deployed in the foreseeable future.

      Obama says he wants to rid the world of nuclear weapons. But instead of moving decisively against Iran’s nuclear ambitions, he has revised our nuclear doctrine to reduce the value of our deterrent and has prevented the modernization of our nuclear arsenal, leaving its effectiveness in doubt.

      Obama and his congressional allies want to reengineer the military culture, repealing the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” law that prevents homosexuals from serving openly in the military. He and Gates have already rescinded the rule that prohibited women from serving on submarines. Both of those initiatives will hurt morale and readiness of our forces to fight.

       OBAMA’S WAR AGAINST THE INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY

      Nothing will hurt more - or cost more lives sooner - than Obama’s war against our intelligence community.

      There is insufficient room here to fully explain that war. A few examples suffice.

      One of Obama’s first acts upon taking office was to ban the “enhanced interrogation techniques” (EITs) used successfully on al Qaeda bigs during the Bush administration. That action cut off the single most valuable source of intelligence on terrorist activities. Of the EIT program, former CIA Director George Tenet wrote, “What [the terrorist detainees] gave us was worth more than the CIA, NSA, the FBI and our military operations had achieved collectively.” By ending the use of the EITs, Obama has made us more vulnerable to terrorist attacks.

      In pre-confirmation meetings with Republican senators, Attorney General Eric Holder promised he would not seek prosecution of CIA interrogators who had used the EITs. But after a reported profanity-laced screaming match with CIA Director Leon Panetta at the White House, Holder broke that promise.

      House Speaker Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) has helped break the bond of trust that must exist between the White House and our spies. Resisting allegations that she had known that waterboarding was being used on al Qaeda terrorists while it was going on in 2002 and 2003, she accused the CIA of lying about briefing her. The CIA subsequently proved it was not lying by releasing summaries of contemporaneous documents. Nevertheless, Pelosi won that battle by refusing to recant her accusation, leading Panetta to write an unprecedented op-ed in The Washington Post.

      In it, Panetta said there was “an atmosphere of declining trust, growing frustration and more frequent leaks of properly classified information.” But Obama didn’t support Panetta. Pelosi’s accusation hangs in the air, just like Holder’s ongoing “investigation” of CIA interrogators.

      These blows to the CIA’s morale were not healed. Instead, Obama made it worse