Military Preparedness

Secretary of Defense Robert Gates has made various comments on why the United States can safely maintain a smaller navy and why we don't need to buy more F-22 fighters, the most advanced fighter plan in the world.

Regarding the U.S. Navy, Gates has said:

"It is important to remember that, as much as the U.S. battle fleet has shrunk since the end of the Cold War, the rest of the world's navies have shrunk even more. So, in relative terms, the U.S. Navy is as strong as it has ever been."

The problem is, the United States hasn't fought a significant naval battle since World War II, yet a powerful navy is critical to our national security. The reason is geography: we are (fortunately) far from many of the places in the world where wars and conflicts occur, and we need a powerful navy to project power from the Continental United States to up to 10,000 miles away.

As example, the United States has shrunk its aircraft carrier fleet from 15 to 11, and with a number of ships out of commission at any one time for refit and maintenance, we have not yet been able to deploy a carrier to the Mediterranean in case it is needed in action against Libya. Such a carrier is not relevant for defeating Libya's navy, but could be critical if we enforced a no-fly zone or provided tactical air support to the rebels.

Likewise, Gates has said we don't need more of the very expensive F-22 fighters.

But one of the problems in enforcing a no-fly zone over Libya is that our military feels it needs to suppress Libyan air defense before allowing our F-15, F-16, or F-18 fighters to patrol over Libya. In reality, such air defense suppression could be done, but no doubt the Obama administration is wringing its hands because more of the enemy might be killed while taking out their air defenses.

However, another option could exist. The Wall Street Journal quotes a former top Pentagon official, who said:

"You could put a squadron of F-22s in southern Italy and it could operate inside Gadhafi's airspace with impunity" due to its stealth, the higher altitude at which it flies, and speed.

So even against a weak military like Libya, we could find great political and military advantage by using the F-22.

The Libyan situation is exposing real weaknesses in America's military preparedness. It is a profoundly disturbing fact.

Either Or

The Obama administration's policy toward the Libyan revolution is a study in inconsistency. We have taken acts consistent with waging war against Gadhafi's regime, such as freezing $32 billion in assets, while at the same time being unwilling to help the rebellion succeed.

Half measures are dangerous because they risk hurting America no matter how the situation turns out. If Gadhafi maintains his grip on power, he will remember how we turned on his regime by freezing assets. And if the rebellion succeeds, we won't get the same credit with the rebels as if he were more forthcoming in our help.

While there are risks that a new government in Libya won't be friendly toward the United States or that terrorists could find a new haven if instability reigns in the country, there are two important reasons for America to support the rebellion with military assistance if requested in addition to the desire we have to see a tyrant deposed.

First, it is important to remember that Gadhafi waged war against the United States throughout the 1980's through terrorism, culminating in blowing up Pam Am 103 in 1988 and killing 270 people, primarily Americans. Let's not confuse ourselves that he didn't fight us in a conventional way, with armies, navies, or air forces clashing, and thus it doesn't somehow count as waging war. Precisely because Libya couldn't fight the United States in a conventional military battle, Gadhafi battled us in a way best suited to their capabilities.

It would have been ideal if the United States had removed Gadhafi from power in the 1980's, and the Reagan and first Bush administrations deserve deep criticism for not doing so. But it is better late than never that America's enemies suffer the consequences for killing Americans and waging war against us, and since the opportunity uniquely presents itself to ally ourselves with the rebels to destroy Gadhafi's regime, we should do so.

The second reason is that if we don't help the rebels, we will be sending a terrible signal to potential revolutionaries in countries, such as Iran, where regime change may be critical to making America safer. If Gadhafi's assaults on his people succeeds and he maintains his grip on power, tyrants in other countries will see that the regimes in Egypt and Tunisia were overthrown when their militaries didn't ruthlessly suppress their revolutions, while the Libyan regime protected itself by unleashing its military on the rebels.

It is time for Barack Obama to protect America's interests and deliver a decisive blow to Gadhafi, one of our leading enemies the past 30 years.