Signer: Defending Obama on defense

There's a great scene in Clint Eastwood's "Unforgiven" where a novice gunfighter loudly proclaims his toughness. "I'm a killer myself," he boasts to the grizzled old bounty hunter Eastwood portrays. Eastwood's character takes a long, slow look at the braggart. It later turns out that the man hadn't killed anyone at all, and when he does, he falls to pieces.

I was reminded of this scene recently when I watched Mitt Romney's victory speech in Tampa. He didn't wait long to launch a political bomb at President Barack Obama. "He is intent on shrinking our military!" Romney shouted to a cheering crowd. He then accused the president of "appeasement" with our enemies.

When I ran for the Democratic nomination for lieutenant governor of Virginia in 2009, I was blessed with the support of retired general and flag officers from all four services, as well as veterans of our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. These brave men and woman abhor politics for politics' sake. They are often more critical of waste in the military than civilians. In other words, they believe that our national security requires more cattle and less hat. But Romney's words are the equivalent of a hundred-gallon Stetson. Should he become the Republican nominee, Virginia's voters should treat him accordingly this November.

Here's the background. Last year, a bipartisan majority in Congress passed the Budget Control Act. President Obama followed with a budget that, while still increasing funding, slows the Pentagon budget's rate of growth, while shifting funding toward tools for the future.

With the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan ended or coming to an end, Obama wants the U.S. to focus on the threats of the future, such as terrorism, Iran, and the Pacific Rim. While his budget maintains the world's strongest military, he also carefully and strategically modernizes the Pentagon for the future. The president would cut wasteful or unnecessary systems and programs and shift funding away from ground troops in the Army and Marines toward special forces, "insourcing" billions of dollars currently spent on government contractors and moving away from ground-force intensive operations like Iraq and Afghanistan.

These decisions were dictated by our alarming national deficit, to be sure. But the president has matched our need for austerity with his proven preference for a lean, mean, smart military. Exhibits include the Osama bin Laden mission in Pakistan, the campaign against Moammar Gadhafi in Libya, the blistering drone missions against terrorist organizations, the build-up of international institutions that strengthen America's hand, and the recent SEAL mission to rescue an American hostage in Somalia.

Romney's attacks, however, ignore all this. He claims that the defense budget must be 4 percent of our GDP, irrespective of what the money is spent on. He protests that any slowing in defense's rate of increase will ineluctably lead to "decline." And he insinuates that anything other is unpatriotic.

Romney ignores the sworn testimony supporting the budget by the uniformed leaders of the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, Reserves and National Guard, as well as the chairman of the Joint Chiefs. He skips over the fact that we will maintain our ability to fight more than one conflict at once. And he neglects that the 2013 defense budget will exceed the military budgets of the next 14 nations combined.

Here in Virginia, the shifts will actually benefit us, due to our investment in the most forward-leaning parts of the military. As Jim Arkedis recently argued in the Virginian-Pilot, Hampton Roads is likely to benefit, due to Secretary Ray Mabus' pledge of increased support for the Navy and the SEALs. Moreover, the administration is committed to an 11-carrier fleet, and the Navy's 30-year shipbuilding plan increased by six ships this year.

FDR said that the only thing we have to fear is fear itself. So it goes with Romney's "American declinism," which is really just a self-fulfilling prophecy. As the conservative analyst Robert Kagan recently argued in The New Republic, the notion that America is in decline is a perpetually regenerating myth, seen several times in the past two centuries, usually by those on the wrong end of history.

In his State of the Union address, President Obama said, "Anyone who tells you that America is in decline or that our influence has waned, doesn't know what they're talking about." Indeed, the only people who seem to be talking about it are those who see political riches in the idea.

A little over a year ago, I traveled to Afghanistan as part of a U.S. government-sponsored mission to monitor their parliamentary elections. As I interviewed election officials and voters in dusty voting booths surrounded by our Afghan "shooters," it was clear that victory would stem not from which Republican or Democrat demonized the other back home, but from actions and facts on the ground.

In other words, trust President Obama's actions more than Mitt Romney's words. In "Unforgiven," it's the grave, proven fighter who comes out on top. President Obama has a few more gray hairs after his four years in office, to be sure. But I'm betting that Americans will again place their trust in him as commander-in-chief, rather than the blusterer from Boston.