Analyst's note:  Our thanks to our friend Adolf Peter Sgambelluri, Colonel, USMC, Ret. for this article.  Leave it to a U.S. Marine to write an article spelling out the issues in words we can all understand.

As our centuries old "tides of war" with the Islamist jihadists approach yet another high-water mark, we can put our defense spending (gutting our Army and Marine Corps ... that would be the 'pointy end of our spear') all in perspective without the political spin.

In July 29, 2010, the Quadrennial Defense Review Independent Panel clearly identified five global trends facing the military:

1. Radical Islamist extremism and the threat of terrorism,
2. The rise of new global powers in Asia,
3. Continued struggle for power in the Persian Gulf and the greater Middle East,
4. An accelerating global competition for resources, and
5. Persistent problems from failed and failing states.

Now for just the numbers associated with one of the primary purposes of our federal government -- that of our national defense.  They have a constitutional duty to defend this nation.   

Semper Fidelis.  The article follows:

===================================================================================================

"The President and Secretary of Defense outlined a plan on Jan. 5 to cut $450 billion in defense spending over the next decade. No specifics were provided, but troop strength, pay and health-care cuts will certainly be key pieces of the "plan ahead."

Further, they presented an outline that shifts greater attention to the Pacific theater while reshaping the uniformed services to become smaller and cheaper in the years ahead. Panetta stated the "country is at a strategic turning point after a decade of war and therefore we are shaping a joint force for the future that will be smaller and leaner, but will be agile, flexible, ready and technologically advanced."

They were short on specifics of just how the Defense Department would carry out the $450 billion in cuts over the next 10 years (and potentially another half trillion dollars) and neither Obama nor Leon Panetta were willing to provide any real details.

The specifics of their proposal likely won't be known until the president submits his budget request in mid-February. Panetta outlined that the cuts would be made in a way that would follow four overarching principles: maintain the world's finest military; avoid hollowing out the force; generate savings in a balanced manner with everything on the table, including politically sensitive areas; and, preserve a high-quality, all-volunteer force and not breaking faith with our men and women in uniform or their families.

But it was abundantly clear there would be major changes to nearly all facets of defense programs and forces. Over the next decade, particularly for the Army and the Marine Corps, there will be cuts in total personnel. Pay and health-care cuts are also likely part of the plan as the report calls for "reducing the growth of compensation and health-care costs."

Government spending needs to be curbed to reduce our nation's debt, but the National Association for Uniformed Services and the Military Officers Association of America are concerned these cuts, coupled with sequestration, will put a disproportionate burden on those who have already sacrificed so much in service to our nation.

Additionally, veterans organizations believe the Pentagon plan has the priorities reversed. The new strategy garners big savings from personnel programs and troop cuts, yet is relatively silent on any savings from eliminating redundant programs or improving management and cost overruns of high-profile programs. Hopefully, the president's budget submission will contain such improvements.

Obama's unprecedented trip to the Pentagon's briefing room to make the announcement was significant and newsworthy, but there is no evidence the military officials were there voluntarily in support of Obama's defense cuts. On the contrary, there is reason to believe they would not support Obama's plan.

While the details of the Obama unilateral disarmament program remain to be fully fleshed out, the broad outlines are bad enough: Our military will be cut sharply in size. And it will be denied vital modernization programs -- the absence of which ensures the remaining force will be ill-equipped to contend with present dangers, let alone those in the offing.

The retrofitting of existing equipment, much of it badly degraded in the course of a decade of war, will be stretched out or abandoned altogether. This will exacerbate the risks associated with the Obama failure to modernize the armed forces' kit.

The United States will no longer be present in the places and/or numbers necessary to safeguard our interests around the world.

The administration risks breaking faith with the men and women in uniform by reneging on commitments made in the way of health care, pensions and other benefits. When combined with other assaults on the culture of the military, pursued in furtherance of the administration's domestic political agenda (and without regard for the impact on readiness, recruitment or retention), these changes may make a continued reliance on an all-volunteer force unsustainable.

The nation's nuclear forces will be allowed to atrophy further through: a failure to modernize, test and properly maintain them; and as a result of further cuts in their numbers. The latter will probably include the elimination of an entire leg of the strategic triad. The result will be not the president's publicly stated goal, namely of "ridding the world of nuclear weapons." Rather, it will simply be to rid the United States of its deterrent forces at a time when they are likely to be more needed than ever.

This potentially disastrous aspect of the Obama program for unilateral disarmament is being compounded by one other phenomenon: the president's continuing and deeply ideological hostility toward missile defenses that might mitigate the danger posed by ballistic missiles now proliferating among states -- and even terrorist groups like Hezbollah -- that are virulently hostile to this country and our friends.

Worse yet, the administration is reportedly determined to flout a statute governing the sharing of missile defense-related information and technology with the Russians. In the process, Team Obama will almost surely compromise what little there is of our capabilities to provide defenses against missiles delivering electro-magnetic and other weapons of mass destruction.

We shouldn't kid ourselves. We can walk away from conflicts, but that does not mean they are over. We can hollow out our military, but that does not mean that others won't see it as an invitation to pursue their interests, at our expense.

In the past, our so-called "peace dividends" have proven illusory. And we paid not just in national treasure but lives. We literally can't afford to do that again.

The American people and their elected representatives -- and those who seek to represent them -- must categorically reject the plan for unilateral U.S. disarmament espoused by President Obama. If ever there were a time for "peace through strength," this is it.

There is a need to be rational, consistent, in control, and in charge."

Adolf Peter Sgambelluri is a retired Marine, a former Guam police chief and president of the Guam chapter of the National Association for Uniformed Services.

A few Related article:

Historical Look at U.S. Defense Spending: Familiar Rough and Dark Road Ahead

Shocking GROWING gap in U.S. defenses: U.S. risking catastrophe

U.S. Military: Slashed and Burned

Obama strategy will gut U.S. armed forces

Why are U.S. Taxpayers Subsidizing (hundreds of millions of dollars) Overseas Mosques?

Isolationism vs Non-Interventionism 

'Now Hear This' - OBAMA TO SHARE U.S. MISSILE DEFENSE SECRETS

2012: 'Top 10 Threats' in no particular order