What Gutting the U.S. Military Means
Photo Credit: JTF GuantanamoWhen I was growing up in a Midwestern farming village, several World War I, World War II, and Korean War vets lived there. As a teenager, I worked for some of those men. I was struck by their opinions about military strength. They unanimously supported a strong military and rued America’s military weakness before December 7th, 1941.
Years later I visited the National World War II Museum in New Orleans. The museum’s first exhibit shows the relative size of America’s military and those of Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan prior to Pearl Harbor. That exhibit consists of plastic figurines intended to depict the size of the three nations’ armed forces.
The exhibit’s message is simple: relative to the armed forces of either Nazi Germany or Imperial Japan — let alone both — the U.S. military’s size was incredibly tiny. Viewing that exhibit, one wonders how America won against such odds, even allowing for the fact that we had allies.
The disparity between America’s military preparedness prior to Pearl Harbor and that of Hitler’s Germany or Hirohito’s Japan was not limited to numbers. Thanks largely to Congress’ niggardly funding of our military during the 1920s and 1930s, there were qualitative weaknesses of our tanks, naval torpedoes, and warplanes. Sadly, public opinion during those decades buttressed Congress’ stinginess vis-à-vis the military.
No one should underestimate U.S. military personnel’s valor. American soldiers, marines, sailors, and airmen were as good as or better than those they met on the ground, on the sea, or in the air.
Read more this story HERE.
