Unlike former President Barack Obama, Gen. James Mattis has never been known as one who practiced “strategic patience” (aka: “Let someone else take care of the problem”) during his more than four decades serving in the Marine Corps.
To further prove that “Chaos” Mattis is certainly a man to be reckoned with, amid all the whirlwind news regarding the FISA memo release, our secretary of defense announced that in keeping with President Donald Trump’s directives, America’s military would now be upgrading and beefing-up our nuclear inventory.
As reported by The Washington Post, “The Pentagon released a new nuclear arms policy Friday that calls for the introduction of two new types of weapons, effectively ending Obama-era efforts to reduce the size and scope of the U.S. arsenal and minimize the role of nuclear weapons in defense planning. Defense Secretary Jim Mattis said in an introductory note to the new policy — the first update to the military’s nuclear strategy since 2010 — that the changes reflect a need to “look reality in the eye” and “see the world as it is, not as we wish it to be.”
The WaPo also added, “The new Pentagon policy also outlines longer-term plans to reintroduce a nuclear submarine-launched cruise missile called an SLCM (or “slick-em”), which the administration of President George H.W. Bush stopped deploying and the Obama administration ordered removed from the arsenal.”
“This move by the Trump administration flies in the face of eight-years of Obama’s slash and burn policies regarding those tasked with giving their lives if needed for our nation.”
On July 12, 2013, the Heritage Foundation published a report with the surrendurista self-explanatory headline: “Disarm Now, Ask Questions Later: Obama’s Nuclear Weapons Policy.”
Pretty much says it all, huh?
But then there’s this bit of an info-bomb in its own right. Most Americans know generically that Obama had full intentions of gutting the fighting prowess of our military.
Sadly, most Americans haven’t a clue just how badly Obama wanted to turn the American armed forces from a snarling German Shepherd or Pit Bull-Rottie mix, into a yapping Yorkie or a Cockapoo.
Do you support more funding for the military?
US News & World Report cited on Dec. 21, 2011, for example, that Obama was pushing for $1 trillion to be cut from the military budget.
“Pro-defense lawmakers in the Senate have proposed legislation to undo pending defense cuts, and between the defense reductions agreed to in this year’s budget and automatic cuts due to the so-called “Super Committee’s” failure to reach a deal on deficit reduction, the Pentagon is slated to see its bottom line drop by roughly $1 trillion over the next 10 years,” US News reported.
On a personal note, I was (thankfully) already retired from the Marines by the time Obama blew into town. But I sure do remember Bubba Clinton’s eight-years of Pentagon slash and burn.
Just a handful of examples of Democrat priorities when it comes to the military:
One point in time, Officers and SNCOs (senior enlisted) had to pass around the hat to buy toilet paper for troops who lived in the barracks. Supply had no more in the inventory.
Or the time I was exempt from my annual pistol requalification. As it turned out, the fact I’d qualified “Expert” the year before meant I could slide out. Oh, and the bullet farmers over at the Ammo Storage site didn’t have enough bullets for Marines to qualify on their primary personal weapons. On the upside, all the playgrounds in base housing were completely replaced.
Thank God President Trump was elected commander in chief, and thank God the president selected a man the caliber of Jim Mattis to protect our people and our nation.
Please share this story on Facebook and Twitter, especially if you believe America should be the pre-eminent military superpower.
Should the United States spend the money needed to update our aging nuclear inventory? Scroll down to comment below!