Nugent: Don’t Depend upon French to Rescue Slimmed Military

U.S. Rep. Richard Nugent, R-Spring Hills, sharply criticized President Barack Obamas proposal to downsize the military and reshape how the armed forces respond to crisis, including an increased dependence on coalitions with allies.

I don't ever want to have to depend on the French to come to my rescue, Nugent stated in a release Friday.

Nugents release:

In April 2011, the president ordered a sweeping 'strategic review' of the nations military. On Thursday, that report was released by the Pentagon. I spent yesterday reading through it. Here is my reaction to the presidents more 'lean' and more 'agile' military.

Weve heard this song before and it hasnt worked out that way. A 'lean' and more 'agile' military has meant a hollowed-out force that wasnt ready for unforeseen conflicts. To be plain about it, the White House and the Department of Defense have managed to repeat decades-worth of mistakes in only eight pages.

Can we save money? Absolutely. Do we need to prioritize investments? You bet. But that's not what is going on here.

They envision a slimmed down Army and Marine Corps (among other things) that will shift its focus toward Asia at the expense of everything else. The president expects to focus more exclusively on Special Forces, cybersecurity, and intelligence.

I dont believe those things can ever be mutually exclusive.

After World War II, and again after Vietnam, the United States made the assumption that the wars were over and we didnt need such a powerful military anymore. But before long, we inevitably found ourselves in the next unforeseen conflict and had to spend the first years of that war rebuilding our capability to fight. We found that we had hollowed-out our force and we werent ready for our enemies. Those mistakes cost the lives of far too many.

As the chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, Buck McKeon (R-Calif.), put it yesterday, the presidents strategic review is, 'a lead from behind strategy for a left-behind America.' Ive gotten to know Buck pretty well over the last year and I can tell you, he calls it like he sees it.

To paraphrase his response yesterday: In America, we dont figure out how much money wed like to spend on the nations defense and then develop a strategy to fit that budget. In this country, we look at what the threats are from our enemies, what our commitments are to our allies, and then we allocate the resources necessary to get that job done.

To give you a good example of what I'm talking about, consider this: The pesidents review is a dramatic departure from our longstanding strategy of being able to respond to two simultaneous threats. In other words, if we find ourselves engaged with an enemy in one region of the world, we wont ever leave ourselves vulnerable to an aggressor in another.

So lets say, for instance, we do allocate resources to counter a rising threat from China over the medium- and long-term. What precisely are our capabilities going to be elsewhere? If Israel is attacked or Iran decides to shut down the Straits of Hormuz, are we able to respond? Or better yet, were we able to prevent it in the first place by having a strong deterrent?

If your only answer to that question is 'we hope it wont happen,' then you dont have a strategy, you have a hollowed-out force. And Im not sure about you, but I dont ever want a hollowed-out force. I don't ever want to have to depend on the French to come to my rescue.

Would it be nice to live in a world where you could trust somebody else to provide for your security? Sure. Is it a burden that America has been and remains the worlds great superpower? Of course it is. And do the Europeans need to pull their own weight? Without a doubt.

But at the end of the day, if you don't want to allocate the resources, what is your alternative? To trust China? Rely on Europe? Hope for the best?

Thats not a strategy. And its not an America or a world I would ever want to see us living in."