Pentagon Official: The Facts Are In, And Obama’s Policy Is A Direct Danger To The United States (Guest Post)

By 14 Comments 1,047 views


A bi-partisan panel, partially appointed by Obama Secretary of Defense appointee, Chuck Hagel has found that his policies have left America vulnerable and should be reversed immediately. Strange how the MSM is silent on this one…

This article is by Joseph Miller.

Joseph Miller is the pen name for a ranking Department of Defense official with a background in U.S. special operations and combat experience in Iraq and Afghanistan. He has worked in strategic planning.

So what exactly does this report say?

The report is in, and the review of the president’s foreign policy is clear: If there is not an immediate course-reversal, the United States is in serious danger.

In 2013, the United States Institute for Peace, “a congressionally-created, independent, nonpartisan institution whose mission is to prevent, mitigate, and resolve violent conflicts around the world,” was asked to assist the National Defense Panel with reviewing the Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR). The National Defense Panel is a congressional-mandated bipartisan commission that’s co-chairs were appointed by Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel.

On July 31, the National Defense Panel released its long-awaited report on the effects of the QDR and delivered its findings to Congress. The panel pulled no punches — its findings were a scathing indictment of Obama’s foreign policy, national security policy, and defense policy. The panel found that president Barack Obama’s QDR, military force reductions, and trillion-dollar defense budget cuts are dangerous — and will leave the country in a position where it is unable to respond to threats to our nation’s security. This, the panel concluded, must be reversed as soon as possible.

Wow, that’s something you don’t usually hear in Washington – the unvarnished truth. The main flaw, the report found, was our inability to fight a war on two fronts at the same time.

In particular, the report addresses the need for the administration to return to the flexible response doctrine — a policy where the military was tasked with being capable of fighting two wars at the same time. Given the current state of affairs and the threats posed to our nation, the panel felt that the two-war doctrine was still required to meet our nation’s national security challenges. The man-power reductions and budget cuts are both reflections of this change in policy, so it must be altered before that is possible.

A little history on the Flexible Response Doctrine:

In 1961, the Kennedy administration sought to remake U.S. defense doctrine after concluding that former President Dwight D. Eisenhower’s “New Look” doctrine, which focused on mutually-assured destruction, was inappropriate for the Cold War. Kennedy decided that the United States would adopt a “Flexible Response Doctrine,” in which we would hold adversaries at bay through strategic deterrence and the ability to fight two wars — plus a smaller conflict — at the same time. That doctrine carried the United States through the Cold War and all of the other so-called shooting wars that followed, despite numerous challenges from nation states and non-state actors alike.

In 2012, the Obama administration decided to change the two-and-a-half war policy of the Flexible Response doctrine, in part due to the nation’s war fatigue, after having been at war for over a decade, and also in response to budgetary constraints exacerbated by a sluggish economy. The administration announced its intentions to significantly reduce the defense budget and re-examine the acquisition of major defense systems and hardware, shaping the future size and scope of the U.S. military. Given that Obama was first elected on an antiwar platform, this decision seems reasonable.

Well, I for one would hardly find that reasonable, but I think Joseph Miller, the author of the cited article, was giving President Obama some benefit of the doubt on this. He goes on to say:

What is even more distressing is that this doctrine will trickle down into military acquisition strategy. The U.S. Navy purchases ships that will be in service for 50 years. That means that the ships we buy today will make up the Navy’s fleet in 2065. The change in military doctrine that Obama directed will have a negative effect on the size and shape of our armed forces for decades to come. With a rising China, a re-emerging Russia, and a continued threat of global terrorism, who knows if at that time, the U.S. will be able to meet the challenges that lie ahead.

Former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld said, “You go to war with the army you have, not the army you want.” He was criticized for that remark, but it reflected the reality that he had to go to war with — an Army that had been hollowed out after the Gulf War by the Clinton administration. War is not a video game. You cannot hit the pause button on a crisis and ask the defense industrial base and the armed services to give you what you need to fight a war. That only comes from long-term acquisition strategy driven by doctrine that accurately reflects future threats.

Well, Obama can’t help but compare himself to President Reagan, whose ‘trickle down,’ supply side economics gave us the longest peace time economic expansion in our history. Now President Obama is practicing some ‘trickle down’ policies of his own. It’s just too bad that they are trickling down to further erode our military.

Miller gives a stark warning as to where Obama’s hollowing out of our military will manifest as.

If the administration does not reverse course on its defense strategy and ask congressional Democrats to reverse defense spending cuts, then our nation will find itself in a position where it is unable to defend itself and could become the victim of terrorism on U.S. soil once again.

14 Responses to “Pentagon Official: The Facts Are In, And Obama’s Policy Is A Direct Danger To The United States (Guest Post)”

  1. 1


    our nation will find itself in a position where it is unable to defend itself and could become the victim of terrorism on U.S. soil once again.

    It’s not a question of if, it’s a question of when. Enemies who hate you and want to destroy you don’t appreciate you because you drop your guard, they consider it an opportunity. Obama proved his strategic thinking with the Israeli-Hamas cease fire.

  2. 2


    Terminating 550 Majors is a serious mistake. These officers will be making military strategy and policy in 10-12 years if they remained. They all have experience in Iraq and Afghanistan that will be valuable. We should be thinning the higher ranks like Sec Def if we are to remain credible.

  3. 3

    Common Sense

    Amazing incompetence but NOT unexpected!! Considering the VA Scandal, Benghazi, and having a Marine still in a Mexico Prison this just adds to his failed legacy!!

  4. 4


    @Randy: It’s akin to the brilliance Bill Clinton exhibited which served us so well before and after 9/11 by gutting the CIA of human intelligence agents. They don’t care; they just like bragging to fellow idiot liberals that they ruined something vital to the nation.

  5. 5


    A drive by. Am biting Doug Ross h/t.

    While President Obama was playing the back nine, and as it was confirmed that the Russians had developed a cruise missile, the R500, which violates 1987’s Intermediate Nuclear Forces treaty, the Chinese were busy as well. They now have a mobile intercontinental nuclear missile with no other purpose than to make war against the U.S.

  6. 6


    The main flaw, the report found, was our inability to fight a war on two fronts at the same time.

    obama doesn’t want us to be able to fight a war on ONE front at the same time. One of the first things Saddam Hussein did when he took power was to kill the generals. He didn’t want the military to be able to mount a revolt against him. obama is doing this BEFORE he takes over the USA. He has gotten rid of captains, now he is getting rid of majors, are generals next?

    Keep in mind that all of what obama is doing, and not doing, is under the republican’s noses. Why haven’t they stopped him on his dismantling of MY country? All of the conservative organizations are saying that we need to elect more republicans so obama can be stopped. The republicans control the house, and the house controls the budget, so they can stop funding ANY of obama’s projects, but they don’t. Why not? Because they have become part of the problem. When people become elite in their own eyes, they only care about themselves, and how much more power and money they can get. Just like many corporate elitists who want to work their way to the top of the company, congress has become an elitist society, competing against each other to gain more for THEMSELVES.

    How can the politicians know what is going on in their state if they LIVE in washington dc? Isn’t there a law stating how long you have to ACTUALLY LIVE in the state you represent to be a member of congress? How many politicians actually LIVE in the state they represent?

    (1) Right after he was elected, he went on his apology tour of the world and apologized for the USA being the great country it is.
    (2) Remember when he said this?
    (3) Every year during the muslim celebration of ramadan his ring goes in for a cleaning, and he does’t wear a watch during it. I’m sure it is just a coincidence that the muslim religion forbids the wearing of jewelry during ramadan.
    (4) obama has said that he will stand with the muslim religion.
    (5) Look at the steps that took place before other countries were taken over by a tyrant, and you will see the same things going on in the USA today: (1) The news media becoming a propaganda machine for the State. (2) The schools becoming a propaganda machine for the State (common core). (3) Take away the citizens guns so they can’t defend themselves against the State. (4) Letting illegals just walk across the border. Many known terrorist have been caught just walking into the USA. (5) Telling our enemies when we will leave the war zones we are in. (6) Reducing down the size of our military. (7) Getting rid of the military officers who are responsible to guide the battles we will be fighting in the future. (8) obama being allowed to choose which laws he will obey, which laws he will ignore, and which laws he will actually CHANGE ON HIS OWN. Only the rulers of dictatorships or socialist countries can do that.

    I say we need a NONE OF THE ABOVE vote, and we need to have non-politicians run for offices. I would love to see the returning vets see that the USA is being attacked from within, and have them attack congress, and run for office.

  7. 7


    obama was raised by a communist mother, grandparents and mentors. He was mostly raised in foreign countries. He has no idea what it is to be an American citizen (and whether he is, is still under debate) or to love this country. obama was also raised muslim. As he stated in his own autobiography (who cares who wrote it, he says it is his) he will side with muslims when the ill winds blew.

    No one really knows who this man is, or where he came from (be it Kansas or Mars). No one that he supposedly went to school with remembers him. Those pictures of him cuddling up to that one foreigner and him smoking with his weed buddies could have been taken anywhere. Regardless the question is and remains. Who is this man? where did he come from and who was backing him all of these years? Think this is a conspiracy? There were and probably still are people that are born in foreign countries such as Russia and raised in a US “environment” so they will learn the ways and then they come to the US and infiltrate. Who can say that obama isn’t one of those? (not from Russia from another country, a muslim country) It is not far fetched and I for one see every day where his main goal is to destroy this country and turn it into a third world cess pool.

  8. 8

    Nanny G

    We just lost a Two Star General in Afghanistan.
    And 15 other American soldiers.
    All killed by an Afghani-uniform-wearing murderer.

  9. 9


    You mean the cuts Republicans forced on the country by taking the debt ceiling hostage? Do you guys even remember events you participated in?

  10. 10



    You mean the cuts Republicans forced on the country by taking the debt ceiling hostage? Do you guys even remember events you participated in?

    No, Jeff, these would be the cuts that Obama PERSONALLY recommened, aka the “sequester”, which was intended to bluff Republicans into not allowing cuts in the military so they (the fiscally retarded liberals) could continue to spend to THEIR heart’s content, buying votes. No, Jeff, these would be the cuts Obama engineered, then denied having anything to do with. These would be the cuts he blamed on Republicans for the benefit of dumb-asses that he was certain would believe it… “Jeff”.

  11. 11

    another vet

    @Nanny G: It was bound to happen sooner or later. I know of two in Iraq who just missed becoming the first. One was wounded pretty bad. The other was unscathed but two others in his convoy weren’t that lucky. The Green on Blue violence was virtually unheard of in Afghanistan until someone (guess who?) announced a withdrawl date. It became a major recruiting tool for AQ and the Taliban. There is a big difference between ending a war and winning a war. Obama and the left haven’t figured that out yet or they just don’t care.

    Sympathies to the families of our fallen patriots.

  12. 14


    @enchanted: #7

    It is not far fetched and I for one see every day where his main goal is to destroy this country and turn it into a third world cess pool.

    I’m reading of more and more people who now feel the same way about obama.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *