I read several news articles in the last week to get caught up on what’s going on “over there.” Are American troops really out of Iraq? What is happening in Afghanistan? And what bitter diatribe is Ahmadinejad now spewing towards America?

Well, I remember a few stories. Stories that I didn’t read last week.

An Iraqi mother who sends her child out in the middle of the street, only to detonate a bomb hidden under the child’s shirt because American troops are coming down the road. Terrorists who behead a Shiite family—mother, father, and all six of their children. A father who hides behind his teenage daughter when a fight breaks out in his home between terrorists and troops. Religious radicals who torture and murder a 4-month old baby because of his parent’s religion.

Evil exists. Evil commits heinous acts not in the name of their country, but in the name of god. And they are willing—happy— to die for their cause. How do you talk to that? You don’t. You kill that.

That’s mean. Whatever.

A very popular bumper sticker has the word “coexist” spelled out in religious symbols. The “C” is the symbol for Islam. The “O” is the symbol for peace. The “X” is the symbol for Judaism, the “T” is the symbol for Christianity, and so on. There is one symbol not included on that bumper sticker: the swastika. Because if it did, the rest of the symbols would be extinct.

But we took care of that in 1945. Evil exists. You don’t negotiate with it. You kill it.

Last week, President Obama proposed defense spending cuts—a 14% reduction in troops, reductions in our nation’s nuclear arsenal and a delay in the Pentagon’s most expensive weapons such as the F-35 stealth jet. The proposal would shrink military spending by $487 billion over the next 10 years, and the Army would shrink from 570,000 to about 490,000 enlisted. Obama spoke about his proposed cuts at the Pentagon, but it doesn’t matter what he said. It never really does. We know enough of Obama and his actions speak louder.

The Wall Street Journal reported on his proposed cuts:

Retired Army Lt. Gen. David Barno of the Center for a New American Security, a centrist think tank that often is aligned with the administration, said the plan "fails to address the elephant in the room: whether this strategy can hold up under the weight of further defense cuts," particularly additional cuts contained in the debt-ceiling agreement Congress reached last year.

The report goes on to say that the proposal would restructure the military to fight one war using air, land and sea forces while still providing resources to another region. Mr. Panetta admits that the cuts are “quite steep.” He went on to say, "The capability, readiness and agility of the force will not be sustained if Congress fails to do its duty and the military is forced to accept far deeper cuts...[t]hat would force us to shed missions and commitments and capabilities that we believe are necessary to protect core U.S. national security interests. And it would result in what we think would be a demoralized and hollow force."

I can’t speak to what level of defense spending we can cut and maintain a strategic, powerful and well-equipped military, capable of protecting American soil and Americans against any possible threat. But here’s my question: what’s the risk if we don’t cut defense spending?

Our economy will not collapse. The Obama administration can do that without the help of the Department of Defense. Terrorists will not sympathize. They are quite possibly more interested in winning elections in unstable Middle Eastern nations. Foreign nations will not like us more. Obama already won the Nobel Peace Prize.

Interestingly, the Heritage Foundation created a chart to show defense spending as a percentage of the total federal budget throughout history. And wouldn’t you know— defense spending has fallen dramatically in the last 65 years. The spending teetered around 70% in 1960 to a historic low in 2010 of 19%.

Obama believes our military can be lean; they can do more with less. Is that true? I doubt it. Is the world any less dangerous than in the past? Maybe. Maybe not. Regardless, this is not the dice I’d like him to throw.

In other news, the Muslim Brotherhood, currently leading the elections in Egypt, has said it will not recognize Israel, but rather, “[i]t is an enemy entity, an exploiting, criminal occupier.” Muslim clerics have also emphasized their goal to achieve an Islamic caliphate with Islamic Sharia laws, hopeful that Egypt will become one of these Arab caliphates.

Elsewhere, Iran’s top naval commander, Habibollah Sayyari, recently said that “[c]losing the Strait of Hormuz for Iran’s armed forces is really easy…or, as Iranians say, it will be easier than drinking a glass of water.” The Strait of Hormuz lies between Iran and United Arab Emirates, and provides a passageway for one third of the world’s seaborne oil shipments. Iran’s First Vice President Mohammed Reza Rahimi threatened to close the strait if Iran faces sanctions for its nuclear ambitions.

Cutting the defense budget is not about helping our economy, trimming fat, spending taxpayer money wisely or any other platitude that rolls nicely off the tongue for a Class A politician. The Congressional Budget Office estimates the government will run a $973 billion deficit in Obama’s 2012 federal budget. Entitlement programs constitute 58% of spending and national defense constitutes 19%. In the past two decades, federal spending grew 10 times faster than median income.

Evil exists. But notice where Obama chooses to cut spending. I’ll leave you with Hugh Hewitt:

How can we propose massive cuts in the number of uniformed military when we are paying for NPR? How can he cut the Marine Corps by 10% when he won't cut the Department of Energy or the Department of Education? Answer: This is Obama's strategy for the world, rooted in a deep, profound suspicion of American exceptionalism and American military power. The president's policies of appeasement of our nation-state enemies and hollowing out of the American military must be the central issue of the fall. The president's failed economic policies are already well-known by voters, but his plans to shrink the U.S. military to these dangerous levels isn't well known but must be made so.