"Army to Cut Its Forces by 80,000 in 5 Years" is the headline over a New York Times news article reporting on an announcement by the Pentagon of a force reduction.
Absent from the article is context that would hold President Obama accountable for breaking his campaign promise. In 2008, while running for President, Mr. Obama said, "I've said that we need to increase the size of our military." In June 2009, President Obama said, "As a nation, we have a sacred trust with all those who wear the uniform: To always take care of them as they take care of us. And that's why my administration is increasing funding for our military, including the Army, and increasing the size of the Army two years ahead of schedule."
In 2009, Mr. Obama said it was a "sacred trust" to increase the size of the army; now, he's cutting it by 80,000. What changed? The Times doesn't really say or explain.
In 2008, the Obama campaign's defense position paper said, "Barack Obama supports plans to increase the size of the Army by 65,000 troops...Increasing our end strength will help units retrain and re-equip properly between deployments and decrease the strain on military families."
I'm not saying the president should never change his mind. Maybe circumstances have changed. Mr. Obama has had similar conversions on gay marriage and on the need for an individual mandate to buy health insurance, both of which he opposed in his 2008 campaign but now favors. But when the president changes his public position on a matter like this, it would be nice if the Times would point it out rather than ignoring it.