The Steadfast Patriot

Dear Main Street,

     The preamble of the Constitution reads: “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense [emphasis added], promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.” The Founding Fathers immediately order government to provide – not for health care or education, but for defense. The government is to be a bread-defender, not the breadwinner – protecting wealth, not providing it. Thus, national security should be the federal government’s top priority.

     As commander-in-chief, President Obama plays an important role in the federal government’s responsibility to provide for defense. Yet Obama, like many who want to increase government spending, seems to think that an adequate defense system, unlike other government programs, can be procured rather cheaply. During his presidential campaign, Obama declared that, if elected, he would “cut investments in ‘unproven’ missile defense systems,” “slow our development of future combat systems,” and would “not weaponize space.” In setting “a goal of a world without nuclear weapons,” he would “not develop new [ones].”

     Instead of strengthening the military in order to protect the country, should the need arise, Obama has taken it upon himself to be the nation’s sole guardian. In order to accomplish the formidable task of allaying all international feuds, as he seems to believe he can, Obama has made himself the main spokesman in a campaign to appease and “restore our image” to a world, as Obama claims, is angry and bitter over the fact that “America has shown arrogance.”

     During his presidency, Theodore Roosevelt’s foreign policy was, “Speak softly and carry a big stick.” Obama claims to want to speak softly, but by downsizing our military capabilities, as he plans to do, Obama does not help give the U.S. bargaining power in confronting hostile nations, to whom whether or not we have a stick is the most influential factor in whether they are willing to cooperate with us. Something more reliable than Obama’s servile speeches is necessary for the country’s protection.

     Whether we fight a war is not dependent on what the war will cost, but on whether it is necessary. Nathan, “a small business owner” who disagrees, posted the following on the Steadfast Patriot website: “…I didn’t see any blog posts on this website about how spending trillions of dollars on war is bad. Personally, I would rather have new computers and books for kids in the classroom than a [shiny] new aircraft carrier.” 1 What Nathan apparently fails to realize is that we won’t have computers or books, nor need them, if we don’t exist because an enemy from which we couldn’t adequately protect ourselves blew us off the map. Yes, it would be great if we could spend $10 on a war instead of $1,000,000,000,000. But if something needs to be done, it needs to be done – no matter what the cost. If we have an aircraft carrier, it will provide a way to protect our computers and books. If we just have computers and books and no way to defend them, it won’t be long before we have nothing. We must be able to protect our wealth before we actually accumulate it.

     The fear of costly but necessary combat (or the lack of a military with which to combat) encourages a dangerous “compromise.” This is best illustrated during the unstable years preceding World War II. In response to Adolf Hitler’s demand for more “living-space” for Germany, he and Italy’s Benito Mussolini, France’s Édouard Daladier, and Britain’s Neville Chamberlain signed the Munich Pact in 1938. This agreement essentially gave Hitler control over what was then Czechoslovakia. Czechoslovakia itself had no say in the matter, and was informed that it could accept Hitler’s rule or fight Germany alone. Due to the inferiority of their military as compared to Germany’s, they were forced to capitulate. 2

     Back in London, Chamberlain, who had been a leading voice in calling for the “peaceful” German occupation of Czechoslovakia, declared that the Munich pact meant “peace for our time.” There was one man, however, who disagreed, and could hardly believe that Hitler had been given Czechoslovakia: “The German dictator, instead of snatching the victuals from the table, has been content to have them served to him course by course.” Winston Churchill, who had been warning of the coming dangers of Nazi Germany, also declared, “We have sustained a defeat without a war, the consequences of which will travel far with us along our road…And do not suppose that this is the end…This is only the first sip, the first foretaste of a bitter cup which will be proffered to us year by year unless by a supreme recovery of moral health and martial vigor, we arise again and take our stand for freedom as in the olden time.” In a speech to the House of Commons, he said, “You were given the choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor, and you will have war.”

     Churchill’s words would prove true – a year later, in 1939, Hitler, whose idea of sufficient “living-space” for Germans was the whole world, invaded Poland. Thus World War II began. Fortunately, by that time Churchill had replaced Chamberlain as Prime Minister of Britain, and saw his country through to the end of the war six years later. But by that time, over 60 million people had been killed, and hundreds of billions of dollars had been spent to fight the war and would be spent to recover from it.

     Churchill realized from the start that there was no point in delaying the inevitable confrontation with the Nazi regime by continuing to appease Hitler. If instead of pandering to his demands, Britain and France had stood up and confronted Hitler, there would have been a war – but likely one much smaller in cost than World War II. By stalling and delaying the inevitable confrontation with tyranny, Chamberlain had only made things worse.

     What helped defeat Hitler was not Chamberlain’s efforts to “compromise” and appease him, but Churchill’s determination to defeat him.

     Harry Truman, however, had more in common with Neville Chamberlain than Winston Churchill in his management of the Korean War. Up to that time, Korea had been divided along the 38th parallel, with the Communist nation to the north and the free one to the south. In June 1950, North Korea determined to bring her southern neighbor under Communistic control, and invaded South Korea. But later that year in November, Gen. Douglas MacArthur and the U.S. and United Nations forces under his command had reclaimed almost the entire Korean Peninsula. In an effort to preserve her fellow Communist neighbor, Red China sent 300,000 troops, with another 700,000 as a backup, to assist the North Koreans. Realizing that more was in the balance than simply the Korean Peninsula, MacArthur advocated bombing China’s means of supplies and transportation. Truman, however, was unwilling to let the conflict with Communism escalate beyond Korea, and vetoed MacArthur’s plans for an absolute victory against Communism. The war ended much like it had begun, with North and South Korea divided closely along the 38th parallel. A chance to stop Communism, if not just in North Korea, but perhaps even in China and worldwide, had been squandered.

     The effects of the Korean war are still present, as we face dangers from a North Korea with nuclear capabilities – a nation hostile to the U.S. that might not even exist today if it were not for Truman’s reluctance to stop Communism in its tracks back in the 50’s. Chamberlain’s reluctance to confront Hitler in 1938 only escalated the conflict into a world war in 1939, necessitating the likes of Churchill. Truman’s reluctance to confront Communism during the Korean War has only escalated the conflict for 2009.

     Providing for defense remains the federal government’s most important responsibility, mandated in the first paragraph of the Constitution. Maintaining strong national security will require that our leaders have the mettle to act courageously, and not appease enemies in order to prevent war at whatever cost. For the longer we wait to get a job done, the harder the job gets. As we face dangers from hostile nations such as North Korea and Iran that are striving to build nuclear weapons, we will do well to “speak softly [yet] carry a big stick” and not neglect the importance of keeping our military strong. The military was necessary to gain this country’s independence; it is still necessary to maintain it.

1 The military is not such an enormous recipient of tax dollars as Nathan implies. Whereas the federal government spent $5.25 trillion for defense from 2001 (when the war in Afghanistan began) to 2009, we have spent $6.53 trillion for education during that time span. If spending trillions of dollars for aircraft carriers is so bad, why isn’t spending more trillions for computers and books bad? Spending for defense was only 80% of spending for education, and consumed 13% of total spending as opposed to education’s 16%, health care’s 16.4%, and welfare’s 9%.

2 Despite receiving Czechoslovakia, Hitler was furious because he thought he had been forced to make a fool of himself. He said, “If ever that silly old man [Chamberlain] comes interfering here again…I’ll kick him downstairs and jump on his stomach in front of the photographers.”

Until Next Time,

Michael Davis