When we were injected into World War II, after the attack at Pearl Harbor, we were about as unprepared to fight a war as one could imagine. Our troops were still being equipped with weapons developed for use in the Spanish American War and World War I...when there were arms to distribute. Early training was done using wooden rifles and mortars. American industry far outstripped expectations by the government, however, and we began getting up to date aircraft and weapons in the spring of 1942.
By the end of the war, we had so much equipment we didn't know what to do with it all. Naval ships were put into "mothballs"; gun turrets were covered with aluminum domes and sealed, and other preservative measures were taken to keep a large fleet at hand, even though out of commission. A ship of the line in the Navy is commissioned when it is put into service, and may fly a pennant showing its status at all times. When a ship is taken out of service, it is decommissioned, and its pennant is taken ashore.
Whole shiploads of trucks, jeeps, tanks, and other vehicles were given the deep six - simply dumped overboard in the ocean - rather than to pay the expense of bringing them home. Surplus vehicles and airplanes were sold for ridiculous prices in war surplus sales. Untold numbers of jeeps were sold at $50 each in such sales, and aircraft could be bought for hundreds of dollars, instead of the thousands they cost. Pilots started their own businesses in air freight using G.I. loans, and buying surplus warplanes as their transport aircraft. G.I.s were put into "mothballs" as well, with Reserve units and National Guard units being used to keep those well-trained soldiers up to date and at the ready.
It didn't take long for that strategy to pay off, because when North Korea attacked South Korea in 1950, we not only had troops in Japan, we had reserves who could be called into service and ready within weeks. There was a strong military presence already there.
At the end of World War II, we had the strongest military force not only in the world, but in history. We had fought a major 2-front war, and had provided very strong manpower and the money to supply our troops and most of the Allied troops. We fought a no-win, limited war in Korea. It started at the 38th Parallel and ended at the 38th Parallel. We did the same thing in Vietnam, only we withdrew our forces and ceded the territory south of the 17th Parallel in another no-win war.
Still, we had the strongest military forces in the world. McNamara was incredibly stupid in the way he conducted the war in Vietnam. There were "rules of engagement" which prevented our troops from doing what they were trained to do. We reacted to the VC, instead of carrying out definite missions, with definite objectives.
Skipping to Desert Storm, there was the largest assembly of combat troops since World War II. Our media told us that 50,000 of our people would come home in body bags, because they would be going up against the "seasoned veterans" of the Iraqi army. We had a coalition of allies from World War II, and the British and Americans are so well trained as to negate the "seasoning" the Iraqis had. For those of us who had been through the training, we knew it would be a cakewalk, compared to the war in Europe and the Pacific.
Since that time, our troops have been committed to mercy missions in Somalia, what amounted to a garbage detail in Haiti, and illegally assigned to foreign commanders in Macedonia. The troops who were sent to Bosnia have been assigned guard duty at checkpoints, and they themselves have been complaining about not being combat ready! The commandant of the Marine Corps has complained that his men are so spread out over the world that they would be ineffective if trouble developed somewhere. The same might be said of the Army as well.
Just recently, it was announced that our army will be reduced to only 10 divisions, from 12. (There are approximately 15-18,000 men in a division.) The air Force will be reduced by 3 wings. Experts have said that if we were confronted with trouble spots in two areas of the world, we could not handle it. And we have a situation where North Korea is being troublesome, and both Iran and Iraq are being troublesome. What if they gave us serious trouble?
In addition to all that, there are stories, and many of them have been confirmed, that there are 2 Luftwaffe bases here in the United States. An Air Force general was quoted as saying, "We've had bases in Germany. Why shouldn't they have bases here?" We don't need their protection. Why are they here? There are stories about Russian troops, and other U.N. troops being trained at Fort Polk, Louisiana; at a secret base in a national forest in Mississippi; at Fort Riley , Kansas; and there are Russian tanks in some numbers in a National Guard camp in Michigan. There have even been stories that Russian troops are stationed at Ft. Campbell. Most of those locations have been confirmed.
Let's play "What if". What if a situation did develop which caused Clinton to declare an emergency, and because our troops are so spread out, he asked the United Nations to give him assistance with the presence of U.N. forces in our country to prevent any upheaval. What would happen if those troops we have mentioned did occupy the country? What would happen if those air bases in New Mexico and Texas had aircraft waiting for a call across the borders in Mexico and Canada? We could have a serious problem in this country!
Is that so far fetched? Maybe not. In September of 1995 there was to be a demonstration of how to take a city, involving forces from 17 U.N. member nations, as well as our own. That was confirmed on a radio broadcast by a member of Congress. It didn't happen because the Russian troops involved refused to serve under foreign commanders! Why would they be demonstrating house to house combat techniques?
Last summer, 70 or more Green Berets made a practice assault on a section of Pittsburgh, Pa.... at 2 am! They "attacked" a section of town where there were some empty warehouses, and they used live ammunition and explosives! No one had been told there would be such an attack, and it scared a lot of folks a great deal! The colonel who was in command was asked why they did such a thing, and he told reporters their training facilities at Ft. Bragg were "too routine". Those troops dropped in from 9 "black" helicopters. (They were actually a dark green.)
In March, 1997, there was another such raid on Charlotte, N.C. The locals were taking up arms to resist an intrusion before the police finally convinced them it was only "practice". We learned at that time there had been 20 other such raids, including the one on Pittsburgh. Then we learned the mayor of Charlotte said federal agents who told him about the raid in secret had misrepresented the raid by saying it would not alarm any of the local residents. It almost resulted in armed resistance!
Folks here in Kentucky were told last year that the only combat-ready armored unit at Fort Knox would be taken out of service. And a little later, we learned that there would be a school for instructing troops on house to house combat - taking cities. Why?
If our forces are spread so thin they cannot properly execute their constitutional duties, has the Constitution been violated? When the 82nd Airborne was sent to Haiti, it had 105 "casualties" before it ever left Ft. Bragg. 105 women assigned to combat units were pregnant, and couldn't go! What would it be like if those combat units were sent into battle without those people who had been trained as part of the combat units?
Who can say with any authority that there has been an effort to weaken our military by reducing the military budget? We do know that units have not been able to perform field exercises because they don't have the money for fuel and ammunition. We do know that flight readiness training has been curtailed because of budget cutbacks. We do know that defense appropriations have been used for environmental purposes, for which they were not intended.
In some research I have been working on for more than thirty years, I took the debt figure and divided it by the GNP to get a percent of solvency. The lower that percent the better. Because there was so much criticism of the size of the military budget, I did the same thing with it; divided the military budget by the GNP. From 1971 to 1988, the years I checked, the percent of the military budget to the GNP was never more than within a half a percentage point of 6%. The debt/GNP percentage generally runs from 50% up.
Last year, the military budget was about $260-billion. The interest paid on the national debt was $298-billion! And that doesn't buy even a saltine cracker for a kid on welfare! Also, since about 60% of our debt is owned by foreign nations, $178.8-billion of that money left the country! And it isn't called foreign aid! That was the second highest figure of any item in the budget.
Clinton wants to pay our "debt" to the U.N. first. Gingrich wants to pay our debt to the U.N. Rep. Bartlett of Maryland figures the U.N. owes us $4-billion! More than once we have pointed out that since W.W.II, we have had 115,000+ men and women in our armed forces killed in action, and another quarter-million wounded. And we haven't even been at war with anyone! The blood of those members of our armed forces, shed to defend others all over the world, pays any "debt" we might owe the U.N.
Just Sunday, it was announced that there is to be a buildup of NATO, and our share of the expenses will be $2.5-billion! The North Atlantic Treaty Organization was established during Truman's term in office to stop Soviet expansionism in Europe. Now that the Soviet Union has ceased to exist, there is a movement to expand NATO to include our former enemies! Honestly, does that make any sense? Why increase a defense mechanism for which the original enemy has ceased to exist?
When our troops were sent to Bosnia more than a year ago, they were supposed to be brought home last November. Instead, 8,000 more troops were sent over there, and the troops are now to stay until sometime in late summer. And more money is being sent to rebuild Bosnia. If they had the money to buy the military hardware to destroy their own country, why can they not use that money to rebuild it? What justification can there be for the use of our tax dollars anywhere in Bosnia?
In our next broadcast, we will be talking about the technique of accomplishing undesirable goals of the politicians through incremental passage of laws which can be assembled into a more dangerous piece of legislation after the whole package is passed. I call it incrementalism.
That's it for today friends. God bless you, and God bless America!
Note: This was a script used for a broadcast.