Obama’s “Kantian” decision to kill Tomahawk and Hellfire missiles

Getty Images

Two different schools of thought clearly define the ideological separation between Barack Obama and Vladimir Putin.

Obama follows the school of philosophy of Immanuel Kant who believed that experience is purely subjective without first being processed by pure reason. He also said that using reason without applying it to experience only leads to theoretical illusions — in Obama’s case delusions.

Putin, well, he certainly follows Niccolo Machiavelli and his beliefs, as articulated in The Prince, that violence may be necessary for the successful stabilization of power and introduction of new legal institutions. Force may be used to eliminate political rivals, to coerce resistant populations, and to purge the community of other men strong enough of character to rule, who will inevitably attempt to replace the ruler.

Advertisement - story continues below

Through these lenses, it’s easy to understand the actions of Obama and Putin. Obama believes that “reason” by way of economic sanctions will influence the actions of Putin. Putin believes he is stronger and is facing a weak opponent whom he can easily thwart by use of violence and coercion to achieve his desired end state: resurrection of the Russian empire.

And so in the perceived use of “reason,” Obama, who believes if we bury our weapons of war we will be liked, has decided to cancel two very successful missile systems for our military.

As reported in the Washington Free Beacon, “President Barack Obama is seeking to abolish two highly successful missile programs that experts say have helped the U.S. Navy maintain military superiority for the past several decades. The Tomahawk missile program—known as “the world’s most advanced cruise missile”—is set to be cut by $128 million under Obama’s fiscal year 2015 budget proposal and completely eliminated by fiscal year 2016, according to budget documents released by the Navy. The Navy will also be forced to cancel its acquisition of the well-regarded and highly effective Hellfire missiles in 2015, according to Obama’s proposal.”

The proposed elimination of these missile programs came as a shock to lawmakers and military experts, who warned ending cutting these missiles would significantly erode America’s ability to deter enemy forces. However, reason trumps experience in Obamaworld.

“The administration’s proposed budget dramatically under-resources our investments in munitions and leaves the Defense Department with dangerous gaps in key areas, like Tomahawk and Hellfire missiles,” said Rep. Randy Forbes (R., Va.), a member of House Armed Services Committee (HASC). “Increasing our investment in munitions and retaining our technological edge in research and development should be a key component of any serious defense strategy,” he said.

No, Rep. Forbes, my former colleague on the HASC, Obama is not serious about our American defense strategy, his objective is “investing” in the growth of the welfare nanny-state.

The Navy has used various incarnations of the Tomahawk with great success over the past 30 years, employing them during Desert Storm and its battle zones from Iraq and Afghanistan to the Balkans. “It is definitely short-sighted given the value of the Tomahawk as a workhorse,” said Mackenzie Eaglen, a former Pentagon staffer who analyzes military readiness. “The opening days of the U.S. lead-from-behind, ‘no-fly zone’ operation over Libya showcased how important this inventory of weapons is still today.”

Obviously, Obama forgot about using these weapons in the ill-conceived and unconstitutional Libya excursion.

“It doesn’t make sense,” said Seth Cropsey, director of the Hudson Institute’s Center for American Seapower. “This really moves the U.S. away from a position of influence and military dominance.” The cuts are “like running a white flag up on a very tall flag pole and saying, ‘We are ready to be walked on,’” Cropsey said.

And just so you know, the experimental anti-ship cruise missile meant to replace the Tomahawk program will not be battle-ready for at least 10 years, according to some experts — which means more like 15 years.

Hey America, we sure did pick one heck of a doozy for President, let’s learn a very important lesson and not repeat this faux pas again!

Trump's UN speech: The world reacts

Trump's UN speech: The world reacts

[WATCH] Left freaks out over Trump's NoKo speech, forgetting comments by Clinton and Obama

[WATCH] Left freaks out over Trump's NoKo speech, forgetting comments by Clinton and Obama