Barack Hussein Obama has agreed to temporarily expand the United States Army by 22,000 troops — an important move to help ease the burden on soldiers serving multiple tours of duty overseas. But to pay for this increase, expected to cost about $1.5 billion, the ”annointed one” will redirect funds from important programs to purchase new equipment and modernize the military. 

“It’s terrible policy to scrimp on acquisition in order to pay people,” writes Mackenzie Eaglen, a national security expert at The Heritage Foundation. Why add more men and women in uniform, she asks, “if we’re not going to give them the tools they need to fight and win?”

“Instead of discussing what the military can do without, sacrifices often paid for with life and limb,” she continues, “the real debate should focus on how to best pay America’s military and ensure that new enlistees retain the military superiority possessed by today’s forces.”

Spending four percent of GDP on defense, Heritage experts argue, would provide sufficient resources to protect the United States from current threats and prepare our military to meet tomorrow’s dangers.

Join over 100,000 concerned Americans and sign the petition to protect defense spending.

Obama’s administration would further slash defense funding in coming years. His “budget blueprint drastically reduces defense spending to just three percent of Gross Domestic Product in 2019, far below the current spending levels of approximately four percent,” Eaglen explained in an April analysis. This means that needed investment in critical tools like the F-22 and missile defense — which Obama called “lower-priority” programs — would fall by the wayside.

Strengthening the military by bringing on additional troops is an important step, but it is not enough. Such an expansion needs to be coupled with increased funds to equip all servicemen and women with the tools to defend this country.

“The military deserves more than enough to barely get by,” argues Eaglen.

“Congress will regret any decision to continue cutting equipment at the expense of people.”

Plenty of “Cash for Clunkers” but to hell with the men and women of the United States Armed Forces. Indeed!