Been a while since my last post. Life and Facebook have sucked out time for more lengthy reflections.
However, the occasion of Veteran's Day has also brought together three articles that deserve greater analysis in juxtaposition.
Exhibit 1:
Hagel Says Cuts to Pay and Benefits are Needed
There are a few things I know about Chuck Hagel: 1) He is a Viet Nam Veteran of not particularly distinguished service. 2) He was a undistinguished senator. During his confirmation hearings his colleagues questioned his intellectual capacity to perform the duties of Secretary of Defense. 3) He replaced Leon Panetta; who, although a former Clinton tool, appeared to take his responsibilities seriously.
From these facts, I quickly determined that Hagel had neither the capacity nor the inclination to do anything but to carry out Obama's instructions to "Fundamentally Transform" the U.S. Military.
Thus, we read this oxymoron: "
Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel warned Tuesday that troops and their families will be asked to sacrifice on pay and benefits to preserve readiness in an era of tighter budgets."
Will someone please explain to the Honorable Mr. Hagel that shredding pay and benefits affects morale, recruiting, retention - all of which are instrumental to... readiness?
"We will need to place more of an emphasis on civilian instruments of power," Hagel said.
Yeah, that worked so well for Jimmy Carter, and has really done outstanding things for the U.S. ability to positively influence events around the globe under Jimmy II. Benghazi is a great example. Syria is another. I could go on, but it seems like Chuck, Barry and Valerie are the only ones who don't get it.
The degree of difficulty in the task increased exponentially under the budget cuts, Hagel said. The Defense Department is "currently facing sequester-level cuts on the order of $500 billion over 10 years. This is in addition to the ten-year, $487 billion reduction in DoD's budget that is already underway."
I'd like to give Chuckie credit that this is merely the normal DoD ante into budget negotiations. But there is no report in the article that he is asking for relief, or that the inevitable damage to readiness will affect National Security. It could be that he doesn't get it. But I think his handlers have no desire to adequately fund our Military.
Exhibit 2: While Chuckie was telling current and future Servicemen that they and their families were about to take it in the shorts - take one for the Boeing, Lockheed, General Dynamics, team, that is; his boss was telling us how much he values the service of our Veterans:
"here at Arlington, and Section 60, we’ve ensured that you can continue to bring the small mementos of your love and affection to the final resting place of these American heroes."
Wow. That's some commitment. But that's not all!
"we join as one people to honor a debt we can never fully repay."
What debt cannot be repaid by a government that feels free to spend $1T more than it collects in taxes, that has no compunction to running up $17T in debt for things it thinks are important? According to Chuckie Hagel, it isn't important enough to spend money on adequate pay and benefits.
"In the life of our nation, across every generation, there are those who stand apart. They step up, they raise their hands, they take that oath. They put on the uniform and they put their lives on the line. They do this so that the rest of us might live in a country and a world that is safer, freer, and more just. This is the gift they’ve given us. This is the debt that we owe them."
Oh. Sorry. This platitude is, well, lame. It could describe Barney Fife, or a bus driver, or the guy who feeds the lions at the zoo. Barry really can't relate to the men and women who commit themselves, for four years of forty, to the defense of their country; who accept the demanding training, deployments, deprivations, discipline, and danger. He said if he had a son, he'd look like Trayvon. More likely than any son of Barry's would ever look like Micheaux Sanders, who was awarded the Silver Star for gallantry in Iraq.
"And that’s why, as Commander-in-Chief, I’m going to keep making sure we’re providing unprecedented support to our veterans."
And that's why he's kept Eric Shinseki as head of the VA despite his presiding over the abject failure of the VA to improve its automation systems or to solve the growing backlog of Veterans' cases. You want unprecedented support? You want VA health care that is above average? You got it. Because for those of us who are ineligible to be maltreated by the VA, Obama promises,
"that veterans not covered by the VA can secure quality, affordable health insurance."
Feeling the love, Vets? As the news brings daily reports of the collapse of Obamacare under its own mal-design, mis-management and ill-conception, this line of the president's is more of a threat than a promise.
So, Hagel promises to cut pay and benefits for those serving in the Military while Obama promises to inflict Obamacare on Veterans. Some thanks.
Actually, Obama never thanked Veterans on Veteran's day. Do a word find on the transcript of his speach and discover that the word "thank" is used four times: He thanks the sycophants and props trucked in for the benefit of the TV cameras twice at the beginning of his speech. He thanks Eric (black beret, tanks are archaic, ballooning VA backlog) Shinseki and he thanks his audience once again at the end.
But then, that is actually to be expected that he would refrain from thanking Veterans. Justin Doolittle (fitting name) writes in the Progressive magazine, The Nation:
Well, apparently Obama and his administration have taken Doolittle's advice.
