OK right. So how should it react to foreign state or foreign-based terrorist threats if it cannot project military power? That's a weak position to take.
I would argue that projecting military power is different from maintaining a strong defensive stature. I don't think this requires being weak at all.
The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.
The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.
Indeed. Furthermore, they are not going to invade our borders. Conventional defense is irrelevant. All those guns and aircraft carriers and military might projections sure prevented 9/11, didn't it?
“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.”
“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.”
OK right. So how should it react to foreign state or foreign-based terrorist threats if it cannot project military power? That's a weak position to take.
I would argue that projecting military power is different from maintaining a strong defensive stature. I don't think this requires being weak at all.
That's fine if you are confident in a defense that merely defends US borders. The weakness of pure defense is that agression incurs no penalty, and the US would be powerless to intercede proactively. 70 years of history suggests, although I know others disagree, that the presence of at least one superpower has prevented global-scale conflict.
Quote:
Indeed. Furthermore, they are not going to invade our borders. Conventional defense is irrelevant. All those guns and aircraft carriers and military might projections sure prevented 9/11, didn't it?
Same argument, and you seem to be drawing an arbitrary distinction between different kinds of defense. I have no idea what you mean by "conventional" in this context. Tanks? Light armor? Not carriers certainly, nor the modern tactical delivery systems, nor any kind of long-range strike capability. Armies are unlikely to invade our borders; terrorists would love to, and their power base, funding and planning operations lie elsewhere. You think we would be better off if they knew they were safe?
Your 911 argument is catchy but, I would argue, flawed. Just because the US military did not prevent 911, which was primarily an intelligence failure anyway, does not mean that it has not achieved considerable success preventing other actions. In fact the lack of other terrorist actions, both domestically and abroad, especially in view of the vocal and ambitious threats to carry out such attacks, is more likely evidence of success of the combined intelligence/military strategy than of its failure.
That's fine if you are confident in a defense that merely defends US borders. The weakness of pure defense is that agression incurs no penalty, and the US would be powerless to intercede proactively.
I'd argue the only military responsibility of any government is the protection of its citizens and their property domestically. It is not to police the world.
70 years of history suggests, although I know others disagree, that the presence of at least one superpower has prevented global-scale conflict.
Possibly.
The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.
The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.
That's fine if you are confident in a defense that merely defends US borders. The weakness of pure defense is that agression incurs no penalty, and the US would be powerless to intercede proactively.
I'd argue the only military responsibility of any government is the protection of its citizens and their property domestically. It is not to police the world.
Don't disagree, but I'm not talking about policing the world. I'm arguing that the capability to reach out and strike at an aggressor (against the US) anywhere in the world (either proactively or retroactively) is an invaluable deterrent against attack, and much more effective than sitting back and waiting to fight them on the beaches, figuratively speaking.
So, with power comes also responsibility, to some extent. For everyone who complains that the US should not be meddling abroad in other countries problems you will find someone else with equally strong moral views asking how the US can allow <insert alleged atrocity> to continue without helping the abused and oppressed to escape from tyranny. There is no easy answer to that dilemma.
I'm arguing that the capability to reach out and strike at an aggressor (against the US) anywhere in the world (either proactively or retroactively) is an invaluable deterrent against attack, and much more effective than sitting back and waiting to fight them on the beaches, figuratively speaking.
I understand the theory. I'm just not convinced and disagree. One problem here is that this power often ends up being used to meddle and manipulate other governments around the world creating resentment that results in attacks such as 9/11.
So, with power comes also responsibility, to some extent.
Just "to some extent?"
For everyone who complains that the US should not be meddling abroad in other countries problems you will find someone else with equally strong moral views asking how the US can allow <insert alleged atrocity> to continue without helping the abused and oppressed to escape from tyranny. There is no easy answer to that dilemma.
I agree the the dilemma seems morally complicated. One of the problems here is the presumption that stepping into these situation is the role and responsibility of foreign governments. The first issue here is a moral question of whether governments have a moral responsibility to step into these situations. That's not entirely clear. The second is the pragmatic question of whether it can ever effectively do so even if you believe there's a moral responsibility to do so. The final issue is the practical reality that governments have a tendency to get corrupted by this level of power and, additionally, often become hypocritical and grossly inconsistent in its application (e.g., condemning and intervening against other countries for one wrong action while perpetrating the very same in another way and in another situation while claiming some moral high ground.)
The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.
The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.
I'm arguing that the capability to reach out and strike at an aggressor (against the US) anywhere in the world (either proactively or retroactively) is an invaluable deterrent against attack, and much more effective than sitting back and waiting to fight them on the beaches, figuratively speaking.
I understand the theory. I just disagree. One problem here is that this power often ends up being used to meddle and manipulate other governments around the world creating resentment that results in attacks such as 9/11.
So, with power comes also responsibility, to some extent.
Just "to some extent?"
For everyone who complains that the US should not be meddling abroad in other countries problems you will find someone else with equally strong moral views asking how the US can allow <insert alleged atrocity> to continue without helping the abused and oppressed to escape from tyranny. There is no easy answer to that dilemma.
I agree the the dilemma seems morally complicated. One of the problems here is the presumption that stepping into these situation is the role and responsibility of foreign governments. The first issue here is a moral question of whether governments have a moral responsibility to step into these situations. That's not entirely clear. The second is the pragmatic question of whether it can ever effectively do so even if you believe there's a moral responsibility to do so. The final issue is the practical reality that governments have a tendency to get corrupted by this level of power and, additionally, often become hypocritical and grossly inconsistent in its application (e.g., condemning and intervening against other countries for one wrong action while perpetrating the very same in another way and in another situation while claiming some moral high ground.)
The common theme of your counter-arguments is misuse of power. I agree that is a real problem, whether it be for economic or other gain, or just power applied inappropriately though with good intention. In my view the benefits outweigh the costs, although I understand how one could come to a different conclusion.
Just "to some extent" because the responsibility to which I refer is to help others when able to.
The common theme of your counter-arguments is misuse of power. I agree that is a real problem, whether it be for economic or other gain, or just power applied inappropriately though with good intention. In my view the benefits outweigh the costs, although I understand how one could come to a different conclusion.
Yes, but that's not all. I think there is a basic moral question about whether anyone ought to even be given the "legitimate" right to certain kinds or degrees of power. In part because of the potential for its abuse. But also just as a general moral principle.
The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.
The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.
I'm claiming that we can cut our spending significantly and still have the overwhelming military might that you think is necessary. If we suddenly had 5 aircraft carriers, do you think that the "terrorists" will suddenly feel empowered? That's still 3 more than any other country has.
“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.”
“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.”
This is an interesting take on carrier numbers, albeit from a Navy officer.
- - - - -
The US has lots of programs that could likely easily be cancelled or scaled back considerably. The F-22, for example, has never been used in combat, is very expensive and actually has a safety issue that the Air Force hasn't bothered to fix. The main reason the program is still going is that congressmen from the states where it is built pushed for it.
Bases overseas, such as in Okinawa, could be scaled back considerably. With the rise of China, for example, I don't think these bases should be eliminated, but down-sizing would save a bundle of money.
Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"
You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."
Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"
You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."
The author of the article says this as if it's a bad thing.
“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.”
“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.”
The author of the article says this as if it's a bad thing.
He's a military guy.
He might also mean with the first part that by not projecting there is a risk that things will happen. The whole "deterrence" concept that we grew up under (MAD-mutual assured destruction- was just one part of it).
For example, China is fussing over some islands claimed by Japan. Korea about another group. If the US were to reduce its forward projection, there is an increase in the chance that something might happen. By merely having bases in Japan (too many of them, IMO, but that's another issue) and having a contract with Japan, it holds a potential adversary at bay (if China had any intentions). Both Korea and Japan have US bases, so that might be a different issue.
China is presently prepping a carrier of their own and have announced plans to build several. They have also greatly increased their claims and the strength of those claims to many islands with several nations.
Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"
You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."
Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"
You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."
Apparently you didn't because you aren't in favor of gutting our defense spending to much more reasonable levels.
By all means..let's cut one of the only constitutional things our government does. Let's go back to appeasement and accommodation. That works well.
False dichotomy. We can still be the strongest military power in the entire world even if we were to cut our military spending by 2/3.
“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.”
“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.”
BR is right on this one.
Even with that I believe we could cut defense further if we chose not to project military power throughout the world. If we took a position of armed neutrality with a strong defensive stature. This is a) not isolationism (or even appeasement) as so many are quick to claim, and b) is perfectly consistent with the US constitution and the few powers allowed for the federal government.
All of that said, defense spending cuts aren't going to solve our budget/deficit/debt problems. But it would be a healthy change for this country.
The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.
The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.
False dichotomy. We can still be the strongest military power in the entire world even if we were to cut our military spending by 2/3.
BR is right on this one.
Even with that I believe we could cut defense further if we chose not to project military power throughout the world. If we took a position of armed neutrality with a strong defensive stature. This is a) not isolationism (or even appeasement) as so many are quick to claim, and b) is perfectly consistent with the US constitution and the few powers allowed for the federal government.
All of that said, defense spending cuts aren't going to solve our budget/deficit/debt problems. But it would be a healthy change for this country.
1. We're not going to cut our military spending by 2/3.
2. It would be a disastrous change. Someone will project power if America does not. This is how the world really works, as opposed to the fantasy you're both embracing.
False dichotomy. We can still be the strongest military power in the entire world even if we were to cut our military spending by 2/3.
BR is right on this one.
Even with that I believe we could cut defense further if we chose not to project military power throughout the world. If we took a position of armed neutrality with a strong defensive stature. This is a) not isolationism (or even appeasement) as so many are quick to claim, and b) is perfectly consistent with the US constitution and the few powers allowed for the federal government.
All of that said, defense spending cuts aren't going to solve our budget/deficit/debt problems. But it would be a healthy change for this country.
1. We're not going to cut our military spending by 2/3.
2. It would be a disastrous change. Someone will project power if America does not. This is how the world really works, as opposed to the fantasy you're both embracing.
We can stop being the cop for the world. It wouldn't be disastrous. There would probably be some regional flare ups but there are now as well. No one has the money nor even the inclination to spend what we are spending on our military.
"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell
"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell
1. We're not going to cut our military spending by 2/3.
2. It would be a disastrous change. Someone will project power if America does not. This is how the world really works, as opposed to the fantasy you're both embracing.
1. We're going to have to, eventually, whether you like it or not. Our present level of spending is unsustainable.
2. Do you believe our brand of tyranny is preferable to others? I believe tyranny is wrong, even under the best of intentions.
Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.
(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)
Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.
(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)
1. We're not going to cut our military spending by 2/3.
I know.
2. It would be a disastrous change. Someone will project power if America does not. This is how the world really works, as opposed to the fantasy you're both embracing.
Thanks for sharing your opinion.
The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.
The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.
There is a balance that needs to be considered between projecting too much and not projecting enough. The US is not a self-sufficient island and to try to act like it is would be naive, but then to continue as things have been is crazy.
Research is needed, but procurement doesn't have to take place. The F-22 is a prime example. It is very expensive and has never been used in combat, despite the US being in two wars. It was planned at the end of the Cold War for a threat from the Soviets. That threat is basically gone (Mitt seems to still think they are an evil empire), but others may come about, again I point out a rising China that is steaming with nationalism. To not have anything would be foolish, as would be having too much.
Bases overseas could be cut back. Of close interest to me is the US presence in Okinawa, which is ridiculously over the top and the locals are fed up with it for good reason. Modern equipment and tech likely would allow for smaller numbers of troops deployed overseas, but those numbers have remained almost constant for years. Carriers are a good way of achieving smaller overseas bases; they also can move close to whatever problem arises. Last time I checked bass couldn't move.
The nuclear arsenal that Mitt wants to upgrade is just feeding the trolls; "Live inFear™". Sure, it needs to be maintained so that it is never a danger, but I don't think reality mandates improving it; it is already capable of destroying quite a bit. We have treaties with Russia I think that prevent the addition of more warheads, so that is a moot point. The nukes are a very expensive program.
Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"
You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."
Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"
You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."
There is a balance that needs to be considered between projecting too much and not projecting enough. The US is not a self-sufficient island and to try to act like it is would be naive, but then to continue as things have been is crazy.
Where does this crazy idea that taking a position of armed neutrality is the same thing as trying to be "a self-sufficient island" come from? This is just a more clever way of trying to say "isolationism." Taking a military position of a strong defense and armed neutrality is not isolationism (or trying to be "a self-sufficient island.")
The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.
The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.
There is a balance that needs to be considered between projecting too much and not projecting enough. The US is not a self-sufficient island and to try to act like it is would be naive, but then to continue as things have been is crazy.
Research is needed, but procurement doesn't have to take place. The F-22 is a prime example. It is very expensive and has never been used in combat, despite the US being in two wars. It was planned at the end of the Cold War for a threat from the Soviets. That threat is basically gone (Mitt seems to still think they are an evil empire), but others may come about, again I point out a rising China that is steaming with nationalism. To not have anything would be foolish, as would be having too much.
Bases overseas could be cut back. Of close interest to me is the US presence in Okinawa, which is ridiculously over the top and the locals are fed up with it for good reason. Modern equipment and tech likely would allow for smaller numbers of troops deployed overseas, but those numbers have remained almost constant for years. Carriers are a good way of achieving smaller overseas bases; they also can move close to whatever problem arises. Last time I checked bass couldn't move.
The nuclear arsenal that Mitt wants to upgrade is just feeding the trolls; "Live inFear™". Sure, it needs to be maintained so that it is never a danger, but I don't think reality mandates improving it; it is already capable of destroying quite a bit. We have treaties with Russia I think that prevent the addition of more warheads, so that is a moot point. The nukes are a very expensive program.
I'd agree with most of that, except perhaps, the nuclear cuts. NW is not a particularly expensive program in the overall context of the defense budget (< $10B/yr), and the cost is not strongly correlated with numbers of weapons. The upgrades are safety and life extension programs, not new weapons.
There is a balance that needs to be considered between projecting too much and not projecting enough. The US is not a self-sufficient island and to try to act like it is would be naive, but then to continue as things have been is crazy.
Where does this crazy idea that taking a position of armed neutrality is the same thing as trying to be "a self-sufficient island" come from? This is just a more clever way of trying to say "isolationism." Taking a military position of a strong defense and armed neutrality is not isolationism (or trying to be "a self-sufficient island.")
It's probably just different interpretation of labels. Where does the idea that furthering US National Security through the ability to project military power around the globe equals policing the world come from?
This should not be about enforcing US views on other countries, although one could argue that there was an element of that in the decision to invade Iraq. It is about the significant and successful additional strategy, comprising both interdiction and deterrent, of being able to target anti-US terrorist activities at their home locations, rather than just hoping to intercept their attacks when they deploy them, either against domestic US targets or US assets/citizens abroad.
1. We're going to have to, eventually, whether you like it or not. Our present level of spending is unsustainable.
2. Do you believe our brand of tyranny is preferable to others? I believe tyranny is wrong, even under the best of intentions.
1. I disagree. I'm not saying we should spend more, but definitely should not be spending less. Military spending is not the problem with our budget, anyway.
2. I reject the notion that we engage in tyranny. Period.
I know.
Thanks for sharing your opinion.
I wasn't attacking you. I'm trying to get you to defend your position. One this one issue, you don't seem willing to go beyond the vague notion that somehow everything will turn out fine if we just step back. There is no historical evidence for this position. Quite the opposite, in fact.
There is a balance that needs to be considered between projecting too much and not projecting enough. The US is not a self-sufficient island and to try to act like it is would be naive, but then to continue as things have been is crazy.
Research is needed, but procurement doesn't have to take place. The F-22 is a prime example. It is very expensive and has never been used in combat, despite the US being in two wars. It was planned at the end of the Cold War for a threat from the Soviets. That threat is basically gone (Mitt seems to still think they are an evil empire), but others may come about, again I point out a rising China that is steaming with nationalism. To not have anything would be foolish, as would be having too much.
Bases overseas could be cut back. Of close interest to me is the US presence in Okinawa, which is ridiculously over the top and the locals are fed up with it for good reason. Modern equipment and tech likely would allow for smaller numbers of troops deployed overseas, but those numbers have remained almost constant for years. Carriers are a good way of achieving smaller overseas bases; they also can move close to whatever problem arises. Last time I checked bass couldn't move.
The nuclear arsenal that Mitt wants to upgrade is just feeding the trolls; "Live inFear™". Sure, it needs to be maintained so that it is never a danger, but I don't think reality mandates improving it; it is already capable of destroying quite a bit. We have treaties with Russia I think that prevent the addition of more warheads, so that is a moot point. The nukes are a very expensive program.
I agree with scaling back and restructuring our foreign military presence. We should consolidate our bases and reassign forces to areas that make more sense. As for nuclear cuts, I totally disagree. The reality is we need a major nuclear deterrent. I have not heard Romney argue for more nukes.
You are a war hawk all the way and belong in the Romney camp.Get involved with Iran now that is his thinking if he becomes president more money wasted and lives lost.
I am more hawkish than dovish, that is true. I'm not sure why you make Romney out to be some sort of war monger, however. The only thing he has said is that we need a credible, strong option to deal with Iran if diplomacy fails, and need to support Israel unequivocally.
It's probably just different interpretation of labels. Where does the idea that furthering US National Security through the ability to project military power around the globe equals policing the world come from?
I actually agree with this. I would like to see us do much less in terms of policing.
That is an unsupported statement. Care to elaborate?
Well, military power is about more than preventing terrorism. However, the above is something I agree with on its own. This is an additional area where I have problems with Obama. We're not developing an utilizing the intelligence we need for interdiction and the like. We're blowing lots of people up with drones, though.
2. I reject the notion that we engage in tyranny. Period.
Good for you.
This is humorous:
I wasn't attacking you.
When you say something like:
And this:
Isn't exactly "trying to get you to defend your position." It's more like your typical opinion stated in a manner as if it were fact. Followed by the immediate dismissal as "fantasy" those that differ from yours.
I'm trying to get you to defend your position.
One this one issue, you don't seem willing to go beyond the vague notion that somehow everything will turn out fine if we just step back.
And where you can't get beyond simply bold declarations of things being "disastrous" and "fantasy."
There is no historical evidence for this position. Quite the opposite, in fact.
What position is that you think there's no historical evidence for and why do you even think that matters? There's been no historical evidence or experience with many things that have come into being in modern times. History isn't the only guide we have in imagining a future different from the present (and the past).
The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.
The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.
1. I disagree. I'm not saying we should spend more, but definitely should not be spending less. Military spending is not the problem with our budget, anyway.
2. I reject the notion that we engage in tyranny. Period.
1. Did you see the little chart I posted? No, it's not "the" problem, but it is definitely a big problem and causes a lot of other problems.
2. I'm currently reading a book called "They Thought They Were Free: The Germans 1933-45" by Milton Mayer. It provides some fascinating insights into the life of the average German during those years. One thing is abundantly clear: the average Nazi rejected the notion that his government engaged in tyranny, even after the war had ended. And please don't go off the deep end claiming I'm comparing us to Nazi Germany. However, in reading this book, some of the parallels are indeed striking.
Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.
(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)
Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.
(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)
2. I'm currently reading a book called "They Thought They Were Free: The Germans 1933-45" by Milton Mayer. It provides some fascinating insights into the life of the average German during those years. One thing is abundantly clear: the average Nazi rejected the notion that his government engaged in tyranny, even after the war had ended. And please don't go off the deep end claiming I'm comparing us to Nazi Germany. However, in reading this book, some of the parallels are indeed striking.
My wife just read that. I lost count of the number of times she just shook her head in disbelief and grave concern about the state of this country today through the lens of a book like that.
The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.
The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.
1. Did you see the little chart I posted? No, it's not "the" problem, but it is definitely a big problem and causes a lot of other problems.
2. I'm currently reading a book called "They Thought They Were Free: The Germans 1933-45" by Milton Mayer. It provides some fascinating insights into the life of the average German during those years. One thing is abundantly clear: the average Nazi rejected the notion that his government engaged in tyranny, even after the war had ended. And please don't go off the deep end claiming I'm comparing us to Nazi Germany. However, in reading this book, some of the parallels are indeed striking.
So you're comparing present day America to Nazi Germany...but hey, you're not really comparing America to Nazi Germany. Right.
I am more hawkish than dovish, that is true. I'm not sure why you make Romney out to be some sort of war monger, however. The only thing he has said is that we need a credible, strong option to deal with Iran if diplomacy fails, and need to support Israel unequivocally.
Why? Are we no longer a sovereign nation?
“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.”
“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.”
So you're comparing present day America to Nazi Germany...but hey, you're not really comparing America to Nazi Germany. Right.
Ahhh...the infamous Argumentum de Increduality fallacy. A classic.
The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.
The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.
Is he or is he not comparing us to Nazi Germany? It's yes or no.
I don't know if he was. But after having heard the snippets from my wife's reading of the book he mentioned, along with the observations I've been making over the past few years of things happening in this country as well as what the US government is doing globally, I'll say that the comparisons, parallels and similarities are becoming way too close for my tastes.
Of course US fascism/socialism/totalitarianism will still end up looking different than past examples like Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia, but this should provide little comfort.
"History doesn't repeat itself, but it does rhyme." -- Mark Twain
The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.
The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.
That is an unsupported statement. Care to elaborate?
Well, military power is about more than preventing terrorism. However, the above is something I agree with on its own. This is an additional area where I have problems with Obama. We're not developing an utilizing the intelligence we need for interdiction and the like. We're blowing lots of people up with drones, though.
On the Iraq invasion, I was referring to the reverse domino concept of democratization of the Middle East, which would constitute a simple attempt to replace the existing mix of theocracies and kingdoms with a form of government that the West has decided is preferable. One could argue that as an example of trying to police the world. It definitely counts as meddling.
I'm puzzled by your comment that intelligence is being underutilized. The drone missions stem directly from intelligence gathering operations. What do you see as improvements in that arena?
On the Iraq invasion, I was referring to the reverse domino concept of democratization of the Middle East, which would constitute a simple attempt to replace the existing mix of theocracies and kingdoms with a form of government that the West has decided is preferable. One could argue that as an example of trying to police the world. It definitely counts as meddling.
I'm puzzled by your comment that intelligence is being underutilized. The drone missions stem directly from intelligence gathering operations. What do you see as improvements in that arena?
I don't know if the reverse domino effect can be said to imposing US values, per se. Maybe it can...probably semantics. As for intelligence, I mean human intelligence, interrogation, etc. These assets are what truly help in terms if interdiction. These assets are what got bin Laden in the first place. Obama has rejected them in favor of drone strikes.
My wife just read that. I lost count of the number of times she just shook her head in disbelief and grave concern about the state of this country today through the lens of a book like that.
I'm only on page 60 and already consider it one of the most important books I have ever read.
Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.
(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)
Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.
(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)
So you're comparing present day America to Nazi Germany...but hey, you're not really comparing America to Nazi Germany. Right.
I invite you to read that book and make your own conclusions.
All I'm saying is that you refuse to believe your government is capable of or engaging in tyranny and that's what the average Nazi thought, too.
Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.
(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)
Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.
(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)
On the Iraq invasion, I was referring to the reverse domino concept of democratization of the Middle East, which would constitute a simple attempt to replace the existing mix of theocracies and kingdoms with a form of government that the West has decided is preferable. One could argue that as an example of trying to police the world. It definitely counts as meddling.
I'm puzzled by your comment that intelligence is being underutilized. The drone missions stem directly from intelligence gathering operations. What do you see as improvements in that arena?
I don't know if the reverse domino effect can be said to imposing US values, per se. Maybe it can...probably semantics. As for intelligence, I mean human intelligence, interrogation, etc. These assets are what truly help in terms if interdiction. These assets are what got bin Laden in the first place. Obama has rejected them in favor of drone strikes.
The domino effect didn't work anyway, so it's moot. On the drone issue now I'm going to call unsupported statement. What makes you think the intel strategy has changed? That side of the operation is naturally less publicized than the drone ops. The strikes are just a tactical option to act on the intelligence, and would not work without it.
