The writer poses a question that he already knows the answer to.
Business Cat

Not true! In fact, during the Obama administration (and to some degree, even during the Bush administration) there has been a clear effort to weaken or “demilitarize” the armed forces. This is actually part of the Green party platform and a stated goal of a number of globalist / leftist, anti-American groups in the US and Europe, many of which Obama is beholden to. Consider the “cut acquisition spending first agenda,” which is driven by the clearly false assertion that the world is a safer place now that the Cold War is over.

China is prepping for war against the US and has a far more powerful economy than the Soviets ever did. We have ISIS and other terrorist groups running rampant, and newly provoked tensions with Russia (think Panama Papers). In the midst of this, we have the dramatically failed F-35project (which has failed due to Congress’ unbelievably ignorant, but persistent decision to try to develop all types to 90 percent compatibility with the radically different STOVL design despite years of protests and testimony by engineers that this was a horrible idea.

The FAILED F-35 project is nevertheless being used as the new excuse to lay waste to the rest of the military (The far superior and now cheaper F22 being cancelled with less than 200 built is just one of many examples). The A-10 works, and fills the CAS role wonderfully — a role the F35 cannot even begin to fill. They know this and obviously there is another agenda that takes precedence.

The idea that this is done to increase our capabilities is laughable in the face of the bigger picture. The F22 production had gotten to the point that the next batch would have had a fly-away cost of just 90 million, and cost per flight hour was essentially similar to the F35, despite having twin engines and dramatically superior performance. Most of its issues are worked out (far more so than the F35), and building more would both save money and dramatically increase capabuility over the “extremely weak for air to air” and utterly useless for CAS F35.

At this point the F35 is MORE expensive than anything it was supposed to save money replacing. None of this was inevitable, and these were treacherous political, anti-US-military decisions — not decisions made in the name of new military circumstances and tactics. How the airforce speaks of “treason” for those who oppose the obviously seditious and suicidal tear down of our military capacity is sickly ironic. Who is it that is “aided and comforted” by their decisions to intentionally weaken the military? Yeah, that’s right… I think they have the whole treason thing backwards, and they know it. The Mensheviks in our leadership have done what the Soviet Bolsheviks never could… weaken and send the US military on the path to clear inferiority. I suppose this is what George Bush meant when he said we would “skip a generation” of military technological advancement and procurement due to the imaginary “peace dividend.” We have been at war for 15 years straight! What peace dividend?

This they have not done in blind ignorance, and he who remains naive enough to think so has no understanding of the radical left and its subversive, anti-western agenda. They themselves have made this clear publicly a million times. The people making these decisions at both the military and political levels are privy to briefings and analysis, and understand full well the destructive ramifications. It really is as simple as that!

If you want to understand it, think Occom’s razor… pay attention to what is being done, not what is being said. They are destroying planes that cost virtually nothing to keep in storage. They have to come up with convoluted, rediculous, and dishonest explainations as to why they are doing these things, when simply “to weaken the air force” is the obvious answer and obvious, straightforward result of their actions.