by Zalman Shoval
On the eve of World War
II, the American army numbered fewer than 175,000 and was ranked
somewhere between the armies of Mexico and Bulgaria. Even at the
beginning of 1941, the U.S. army was still relatively small, and its air
force was a joke compared to those of Germany, Britain, Russia, and
Japan. The situation changed fundamentally only after Pearl Harbor and
the declaration of war on Germany at the end of 1941.
This historical data
takes on a current-day significance in light of the decision by U.S.
President Barack Obama and his defense minister, Chuck Hagel, to shrink
the American military to its World War II size, as well as reducing the
offensive capability of the air force. And if we are talking about World
War II, the question arises: Does this mean a return to prewar
personnel, when the military numbered fewer than 200,000 people, or its
size at the end of the war? Hagel's answer was in the middle -- the
American military will be cut back to 450,000 soldiers, which will
certainly not be enough for a large-scale operation on multiple fronts,
should one be necessary.
"A senior Pentagon
official," as he was dubbed in the media, said nonchalantly that "you
can't carry a large land-war Defense Department when there is no large
land war," which clearly shows the current government's conception of
America's role as a world power, or as it was known in the past -- the
"world's policeman."
As we know, a picture
is worth a thousand words, and the ironic cartoon published recently in
The New York Times International Edition -- a paper that in the main
supports the Obama administration -- indeed says it all. The president
is depicted sitting around a table at the White House with his advisers.
One adviser observes that the terror threat is growing, another claims
that Putin cannot be depended upon, a third mentions North Korea, a
fourth brings up Iran's nukes, etc… until one of them finally asks the
president, "So what should we do?"
"Downsize the army," the president says, a wide smile of satisfaction on his face.
The government says
that the main reason for the decision to cut back the size of the
military has to do with economic and budget constraints -- which cannot
be taken lightly -- but this raises questions about the administration's
priorities and, no less, about how the current government sees
America's place on the world map. Another explanation for the downsizing
is that the nature of war has changed (which is correct) and that in
the future it will behoove America to a "small, smart military." This
lofty expression is familiar in our parts, as well, but sometimes the
practical result is an army that is small but not all that smart.
In the interim between
the two world wars, most Americans tended toward isolationism, a
disinclination to get involved in adventures overseas -- the same sea,
or ocean, that in effect protected them from foreign attack. It would be
an exaggeration to say that the America of today has returned to those
times, but sometimes it appears that remnants of that same mentality are
not completely absent from the mentality of the people making decisions
in Washington.
National Security
Adviser Susan Rice said in a television interview that the war in Syria
is "horrific," but that "to intervene with American boots on the ground
... is not in the United States' interests." Richard Cohen, a senior
analyst at The Washington Post, says that the world is gazing at the
"retreat of American power."
Zalman Shoval
Source: http://www.israelhayom.com/site/newsletter_opinion.php?id=7651
Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.
No comments:
Post a Comment