Letter: America needs a strong military to stay safe, free

Editor,

Editor,

I’m writing in response to the Arcese and Campbell letter, South Whidbey Record Dec. 29. Exactly what do these letter writers think is the purpose of our military? Do they not realize the military defends our country from external enemies? China has become increasingly aggressive of late, Russia is contemplating incursions into the Ukraine, North Korea is nuclear, belligerent and threatening, and Iran is furthering development of nuclear weapons and supports and promotes terrorism.

And now here we have two American citizens proposing our military budget be reduced to further socialist goals at a time when aggression is on the rise? Our national security does not hinge on environmental impacts, free college, federal jobs training programs, behavioral patterns of wildlife, climate change or how many metric tons of CO2 are emitted. Do they think any enemy cares about these things?

If our country is attacked or overtaken, none of that will matter. Our military needs to be strong, well trained, and funded as a priority. It is there to protect and defend us and our country and proposing diverting military funding for social programs weakens our defenses and is ridiculous to even consider, even by those who view the military budget as a fat target. Government free stuff is Socialism and indicative of those with wrong priorities who are oblivious to what is happening in the real world and how it all affects our country and its security. There is absolutely no benefit to a smaller military except to our enemies, real and potential. A weak America is ripe for attack in many ways and not having the ability to deter or respond to aggression, armed or otherwise, is foolhardy.

Our strong military, in the past, has been a major deterrent to the ambitions of those who would do us, or any other country, harm. Our military requires adequate funding, places to train to maintain proficiency and to keep them at peak performance. Complaining about the amount of noise, CO2, and any of other myriad objections to the military presence and proposing a reduction in our armed forces funding testifies to the ignorance of reality by the letter writers. No funding of any social programs, especially at the expense of our military and law enforcement, should be ever considered as they are the ones protecting us.

Ed Hickey

Oak Harbor