-
Obama’s Drone War
May 23, 2013 | 15 comments
-
How Long Is This War?
May 20, 2013 | 15 comments
-
Next: The Benghazi Select Committee
May 13, 2013 | 94 comments
-
Nobody Died in Watergate
May 9, 2013 | 148 comments
-
Benghazi Bullchips
May 6, 2013 | 184 comments
Loose Canons
Discretionary Defense
There’s one entitlement the U.S. cannot do without.
Barack Obama rolled out the ultimate weapon in his arsenal last week when he accused al Qaeda of racism. But Obama’s apparent belief that an accusation of racism is the ultimate weapon at his disposal may soon be a commonplace among American leaders because Obama’s spending spree will soon bring us to the point where words are all we can afford to shoot at our enemies.
Rich countries can lose wars, as Harry Truman taught us to do in Korea and Lyndon Johnson did in Vietnam. Concomitantly, poor nations — and poorer-still insurgents — can win them. Truman and Obama have a lot in common. The Missourian jokingly sought a “one-armed economist” because he was frustrated by economists’ penchant for saying, “on the other hand…”
But from Adam Smith to Niall Ferguson, conservative economists have agreed with Smith’s 1776 formulation in The Wealth of Nations that “The first duty of the sovereign, that of protecting the society from the violence and invasion of other independent societies, can be performed only by means of military force.” Smith added that the expense of doing so grows as the society advances in civilization. And, he concluded, “defence is more important than opulence.”
But what of a society that so burdens itself with debt that money is unavailable to provide for the defense of the nation?
British economic historian Niall Ferguson said in a recent speech to the Aspen Institute, Obama’s spending spree may leave us with little more than rhetoric to protect our nation. It’s worth a long quote:
Of course, power is not just about GDP. It’s not just about the economy. Power is also about the ability to project hard power through military means. And some people in Washington like to comfort themselves by saying, “We can still do that way more than they can. Count their aircraft carriers, count ours.uot;
But one point that follows from the financial crisis which is terribly, terribly important is that by combating our crisis of private debt with an extraordinary expansion of public debt, we inevitably are going to reduce the resources available for national security in the years ahead. Because as the debt grows, so the interest payments you have to make on it grow, even if interest rates stay low. And on current projections, the federal debt is going to be absorbing around 20 percent, a fifth of all the taxes you pay, within just a few years. The item of discretionary federal expenditure most likely to be squeezed is, of course, defense. And there are lots of historic precedents for that. So, I fear that the financial crisis doesn’t just impact on the economy. It actually impacts on American power in the hardest sense.
In his May address to the West Point graduating class, Obama said, “Simply put, American innovation must be the foundation of American power — because at no time in human history has a nation of diminished economic vitality maintained its military and political primacy.” That is entirely true, but Obama’s actions have relentlessly pursued our economic diminution. He tells us that we’re on an “unsustainable” economic course, but he keeps the helm hard over, keeping us on the path that makes our economy smaller and weaker.
Even the Democrats — who passed a “budget enforcement” resolution in the House rather than vote on Obama’s bloated budget — are chary of Barry’s spending spree in an election year. But they won’t oppose it, either. The president’s 2011 budget calls for $3.8 trillion in spending, $200 billion more than 2009. One chart included in the White House budget submission shows spending to reach $5.7 trillion in 2020, with the deficit reaching 77.2% of the GDP. That plan will consume credit, making it unavailable to aerospace and defense companies, greatly lessening their investments in research and development.
There are increasingly vocal calls for slashing defense. From the left-libertarian alliance of Barney Frank and Ron Paul comes the call for $1 trillion in defense cuts over ten years, and from the right (from those such as Sen. Tom Coburn of Oklahoma) come calls for cutting undefined waste from defense spending. The media are picking up their old Cold War narrative, pushing for defense spending cuts to benefit social welfare programs.
With very few exceptions such as Coburn’s, the demands to cut defense spending come from those who seek another “defense dividend” which would increase spending on social welfare programs at the expense of defense.
Two points. First, Ferguson uses the term “discretionary spending” as federal budgeteers do. It’s the part of the federal budget that isn’t otherwise mandated spending, which is comprised of programs such as Social Security, Medicare, and now Obamacare. Those are fixed in law and unless Congress is suddenly repopulated with people whose DNA includes a fiscal responsibility gene, they will keep us on the path of an unsustainable growth in federal debt.
Second, in time of war just how much of defense spending really is “discretionary”?
The short answer to this is that “discretionary defense spending” is a three-word oxymoron, especially in time of war. But that begs the question: how much defense spending do we need?
That question we cannot answer for two reasons. First, as I have argued comprehensively, we have the wrong strategy for the war against the nations that sponsor Islamic terrorism. We can’t know what the war will cost unless and until we make the proper analysis and change to a strategy that will end state sponsorship of terrorism. The Obama counterinsurgency strategy absorbs hundreds of billions that could otherwise be spent in pursuit of victory.
About the Author
Jed Babbin served as a Deputy Undersecretary of Defense under George H.W. Bush. He is the author of several bestselling books including Inside the Asylum and In the Words of Our Enemies. You can follow him on Twitter @jedbabbin.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (125) | Leave a comment
More Articles by Jed Babbin
More Articles From Loose Canons
http://spectator.org/archives/2010/07/19/discretionary-defense
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- Peace in Our Times
- The Demise of Money and Credit
- The End of the Castros?
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
arlo price| 7.19.10 @ 7:23AM
The obamagedon PIMP thugocracy chugs along.....
We don't need no stinkin' defense, everybody welcome here mon. We all friends, come, sit, relax mon, checks in the mail. Have a sip of red, red wine and sing kumbaya, with us.
William R| 7.19.10 @ 8:52AM
We could cut our defense budget in half and still be spending more than Russia and China combined. Time to get out of Japan, Korea, Germany, and the Middle East. Lets defend America for a change.
Stuart Koehl| 7.19.10 @ 9:22AM
If we did withdraw from Japan, Germany, the Middle East and Korea, it really would not save all that much. The largest element of the defense budget is Military Personnel--salaries, health benefits, dependent benefits, retirement pay. Unless you plan to cut either the size of the armed forces (not a good idea) or military pay (even worse idea), this is pretty much fixed.
The next largest element of the budget is Operations & Maintenance (O&M), which is money spent on training, fuel, repairs and overhauls for equipment we have, as well as for ongoing military operations. Let's assume we were able to end the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan tomorrow. That might get perhaps $160 billion off the books, but we would still be spending somewhere in the vicinity of $500 billion on defense.
Finally, there is procurement and research, development, testing and evaluation (RDT&E), which is to say, money spent on buying stuff like tanks, ships, aircraft, guns, missiles, etc., and on developing the next generation of stuff. Due to the war, we have already cut back significantly on acquisition of major systems, and delayed development of replacement systems. Assuming the wars ended, some of the money directed into operations would go back to procurement and RDT&E. Other accounts, like housing and military construction, represent chump change. So, at the end of the day, there is relatively little that we could save in the defense budget.
Looked at from a different perspective, during the 1990s, the U.S. reduced its defense spending to about 3% of GDP. In the absence of a "clear and present danger", we not only cut the size of the armed forces by half, but we reduced defense spending to its lowest level since the 1930s. As a result, we found ourselves having to fight with a force too small and with systems designed in the 1970s, fielded in the 1980s, and approaching obsolescence. To avoid falling into the same trap, the U.S. would have to spend a minimum of 4% of GDP on defense, even without forward basing of forces. I would feel more confident if we would peg the defense budget at 4.5% or even 5% of GDP, but with entitlement programs eating away at discretionary spending, I fear 4% is the real sustainable level.
That's not much by way of savings. You could eliminate the entire defense budget tomorrow, and the deficit would still be $700 billion dollars. Most of that money goes to just three programs--Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. Think on that.
WRTolkas| 7.19.10 @ 9:33AM
Dear Mr. Koehl,
Yep, I'm thinking on that. Looks like my grandchildren will be the highest paid and most healthy slaves in the history of our country.
Ken (Old Texican)| 7.19.10 @ 10:53AM
Mr. Stuart,
Well said, sir.
May I throw in an old cliche' ?
"Guns versus butter"
Having read any of my comments of late, you know that I have been trying to envision what our future might look like if we cannot accomplish a reverse of course for our nation.
Among my reflections, comes an intensly personal dimension.... "If I have stored away some food and medicine...and seeds... against an economic crash...how can I defend it against the mobs of starving "grasshoppers" ?
On a micro-scale, that is precisely what Mr. Babbin's article is about on a national scale isn't it?
AMENBRO| 7.20.10 @ 4:11AM
Water, Law, Protection, Land & common interest be it flag, tongue, creed, religion, ethnicity or race are the seminal components that start an entity to coalesce around sovereign terms creating a working economy to enable butter in the first place. It hasn't changed for as long as sovereign entities began to arm & protect their bounded territories so they could exist.
Alan Brooks| 7.19.10 @ 7:04PM
we can't leave Korea until that inbred midget in the North is killed.
vtwin| 7.19.10 @ 8:29PM
The U.S. spends 47% of the total global Military expenditures, with Russia 3.5% and China 6.6%.
http://www.globalissues.org/ar.....y-spending
“The largest element of the defense budget is Military Personnel--salaries, health benefits, dependent benefits, retirement pay.”
Wrong, only $155 billion of the $685 billion Pentagons’ 2010 budget is Military Personnel (civilian and uniformed) related spending.
“Most of that money goes to just three programs--Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid”
Wrong, Social Security, Medicare are both running surpluses and are the main source of funds ($5 trillion) to finance the national debt.
Clinton nee Publius | 7.19.10 @ 9:07PM
The only problem here is that you don't have the facts, you aren't qualified to make judgments, nor would your conclusions entitle you to attend polite company.
When you grow up and learn real economics you can come back and we'll quiz you. Until then, head back to the land of racists and rainbow-powered unicorn fascists and socialist liars.
Somewhere a village is missing its dunce and you are being called.
Stuart Koehl| 7.19.10 @ 11:24PM
"Wrong, only $155 billion of the $685 billion Pentagons’ 2010 budget is Military Personnel (civilian and uniformed) related spending."
Which makes it the single largest component of the defense budget. It's good to see my opponents have such excellent reading comprehension skills and refined ability to interpret numerical data.
Oh, by the way, vtwin, that "sarcasm". Google it, why don't you.
vtwin| 7.20.10 @ 12:43AM
No sorry, you’re wrong again. “Operations and Maintenance” is the largest component of the budget by about a 2 to 1 margin over personnel costs with “Procurement” (planes, ships, tanks...) a close third.
So, with a $13 trillion national debt how can we justify spending 4 times what the Russians and Chinese spend combined?
Stuart Koehl| 7.20.10 @ 6:21AM
My apologies. Here are the actual figures for FY 2010, including supplemental requests:
MILPERS: $149,189 million
O&M: $273,427 (this includes all war operations)
Procurement: $140,095
RDT&E: $79,049
Military Construction: $23,811
Family Housing: $3,336
R&M Funds: $3,737
Defense-Wide Contingency: $100
Allowances: $276
"So, with a $13 trillion national debt how can we justify spending 4 times what the Russians and Chinese spend combined?"
First, because the world includes more than the Russians and the Chinese. Second, because, unlike most other Federal spending, defense is a legitimate expense. Third, because failure to fund defense adequately will result in situations that will cost the United States far more than it would be spending on defense.
Your argument is, when times are tough, save money by canceling your insurance policies, instead of cutting back on luxuries.
Ole_Sarge| 7.20.10 @ 9:50AM
You all are forgetting that not only do WE pay for our own DEFENSE, we are paying (or providing) for NATO (the other member countries provide only a token amount compared to the USA) , for Japan, for the Republic of Korea (South), the Philippines and much of the Pacific Islands.
PLUS, there are many sneaky "pork barrel" projects that Congress has inserted into many DOD agency budgets that have NOTHING TO DO with DEFENSE, or even offense ... but all goes into "someone's pocket."
Oh and all that Congressional and Presidential travel, and much of the travel of other Appointed Officials -- out of the Defense Budget.
Stuart Koehl| 7.20.10 @ 12:57PM
None of this really matters, because defense is underfunded as it is. Eliminating all the waste, fraud and mismanagement, all the pork and forcing NATO partners to meet their budgetary commitments would only mean that we could better fund our programs and other commitments without raising the defense budget as much as we would otherwise.
Jon Pananas| 7.19.10 @ 10:45PM
Dear William R,
The fallacious comparison that we could halve our defense budget and still spend more than Russian and China combined, is so weak that it pains me to have to respond, but:
1. their budgets are smaller than ours because they have been poor countries. As they grow more prosperous, their defense budgets--particularly China's--are growing rapidly.
2. Russia and China are not paying millions of military retirees. Theirs are primarily conscript forces. Would you like to go back to a conscript force?
3. Russia and China do not face the same military challenges that we do. The do not have to maintain the sea lanes so that the world can trade. They do not have free-rider allies like the Europeans. Russia and China do not act to maintain stability in the world, they act to reduce it. At America's cost. America, for good or ill, has generally sought to maintain or increase stability in the world. The prosperity in the world of the last 50 years, which has benefited all, has only taken place because the US created a sufficiently safe environment within which it could occur.
4. Mischief makers can make mischief on the cheap. It is much cheaper to build/buy surface-to-air missiles than it is to build/buy state of the art Gen 5 fighters like the F22.
5. We--America and the West--have come to take as a given low casualty warfare. This is only possible due to overwhelming US air superiority and naval superiority. As those abilities diminish, casualty rates will sky rocket. How expensive will that be?
6. The 200 million dollar fighter that survives to carry out multiple missions and deal out death and destruction to the enemy, is far cheaper than the 30 million dollar fighter that is shot down or unable to complete its mission.
7. Reasonable people can argue reasonably that it is time to cut the Europeans loose and let them pay for their own defense; I hold with that myself.
But we are now witnessing what happens to a world where the US is unwilling or unable to exert leadership, power and stability. Do you feel safer now or 2 years ago?
Stuart Koehl| 7.19.10 @ 11:25PM
Not a bad response, Joe.
William R| 7.19.10 @ 11:59PM
Your problem is you believe in empire. Not counting Iraq and Afghanistan we have over 750 military institutions around the world. We don't need anywhere close to that in order to defend the United States.
Stuart Koehl| 7.20.10 @ 6:22AM
Suppose we closed them all. How much do you think that would save?
William R| 7.20.10 @ 12:03AM
Just What Is America Doing all Over the World?
http://www.campaignforliberty......?view=1016
Nicolas Ziener| 7.20.10 @ 10:49AM
"Russia and China do not act to maintain stability in the world, they act to reduce it."
Because you think America is acting to maintain stability in the world ?
You must be living in Disneyland, are you? And surely you also believe that Santa Claus is for real?
America (like every other nation by the way) is simply acting to promote its own and sole interest, period.
Stuart Koehl| 7.20.10 @ 12:58PM
America own and sole interest in the world is to promote stability and rule of law, without which it is hard for American companies to make lots and lots of money.
Nicolas Ziener| 7.20.10 @ 5:05PM
OK, I fully agree with that,
William R| 7.19.10 @ 9:49AM
Entitlements are the budget thus we borrow from China, Japan and Saudi to finance everything else. But make no mistake our reckless foreign policy is to blame too.
http://www.politifact.com/trut.....gn-policy/
Alan Brooks| 7.19.10 @ 7:07PM
"...how can I defend it against the mobs of starving "grasshoppers"
You MIGHT be safe in Canada-- But not Texas.
Stuart Koehl| 7.19.10 @ 10:41AM
That is true, but also irrelevant.
The United States today has the most professional, best trained and most combat-experienced military forces in the world. We pay them what they are worth. The Russian army is a hollow force of ill-trained, low-paid and badly abused conscripts who were hard pressed to overrun the miniscule Georgian army. The Chinese military is huge, but by the same token, employs low-paid and badly trained conscripts. Japan, by the constitution we imposed on them, does not have an army, but only a "self-defense force".
With the money we spend on defense--a paltry 4.5% of our GDP--we buy a small but eminently capable force which maintains global stability and the safety of the sea lanes without which our economy would collapse.
Rather than cutting our military forces, we should be carefully enlarging them to allow them to meet the twin challenges of the next fifty years: pervasive low intensity combat, including insurgencies and terrorism; and the potential emergence of China as a military peer competitor. Only by maintaining a large margin of superiority in both forms of conflict, conventional and asymmetrical, can the United States deter potential adversaries, and thereby avoid having to fight wars, which are far more expensive (especially when caught short-handed) than paying for an adequate defense in the first place.
Besides, if you are looking for the source of the budget deficits, do not look to the military or to the war against terrorism. All military and war spending accounts for barely 16% of Federal outlays, while the three main entitlement programs, plus debt service, amount to fully half.
William R| 7.19.10 @ 11:26AM
Maintains global security?? Sea Lanes. Just who in the hell is threatening the sea lanes??
It time to give up the Empire and start acting like a Republic.
Ted| 7.19.10 @ 11:43AM
Who is threatening (or perhaps more to the point building up so that they can threaten) the sea lanes? For starters China and Iran.
William R| 7.19.10 @ 1:01PM
How many carrier battle groups does China have??
Stuart Koehl| 7.19.10 @ 4:34PM
At present, China does not have a single CVBG, whereas we have ten active carrier battle groups. But that is neither here nor there: China could develop the capability over the next decade or so, and need not match us carrier for carrier, since we can only deploy three or four at a time to a specific area, and then only by removing them from other areas. And China need not compete with us symmetrically, but could focus on anti-carrier capabilities--which, in the form of mines, high speed torpedoes, hypersonic anti-ship missiles, and maneuvering tactical ballistic missiles with terminal homing seekers, they appear to be attempting. It is foolish in the extreme to assume the status quo will extend indefinitely into the future, or that our adversaries are locked into a pre-defined course of action.
Stuart Koehl| 7.19.10 @ 11:45AM
Rome was a republic when it gained its empire. And your reasoning is tautological in any case: nobody threatens the sea lanes because nobody is willing to take on the U.S. Navy, which is why nobody is threatening the sea lanes.
In the 19th century, the U.S. was a free rider, and beneficiary of British naval supremacy. Today, we have the supremacy, and if other nations are free riders on it, we benefit from that as much as they do.
Consider a world in which the U.S. does not maintain its military supremacy. Who plays globo-cop then? Or do you think your comfortable way of life could long endure if nobody was maintaining the international order?
Red Phillips | 7.19.10 @ 5:05PM
"maintaining the international order"
Maintaining the international order is where in the Constitution? Help me out. I've looked and I can't find it.
Stuart Koehl| 7.19.10 @ 6:02PM
And what do you think a world without international order would be like? As Felix Frankfurter said, the Constitution is not a suicide pact. What was eminently sensible in 1789, when the United States was a small, poor country perched on the Eastern seaboard, travel across the Atlantic took several months, and a cannon ball could barely travel one and a half miles, may not be sensible at a time when the United States is the world's richest nation, inextricably linked into a global economy, when intercontinental travel can be accomplished in a matter of hours, weapons can reach out thousands of miles, and the effects of those weapons can obliterate cities and kill millions. In other words, whether you like it or not, whether it is in the Constitution or not, the United States, for its own interests, requires maintenance of global order. Since our survival depends on it, to whom would you rather it be delegated?
Red Phillips | 7.19.10 @ 6:46PM
Stuart, you defend America policing the globe because like so many other interventionist "conservatives," you simply can't fathom a world where it is otherwise. You imagine that if America isn't policing the globe the Earth will stop spinning, fall off its axis and start tumbling toward the Sun. But it is all based on presuppositions backed by hysterical hypothetical doomsday scenarios if we stop. Hence your belief is not falsifiable. You can always imagine some scenario whereby our disengagement means WE WILL ALL SURELY DIE!!! You’ve proved it here already. "Within ten years China could have X number of battle groups with witch they could …" Do what exactly? Invade San Francisco?
Here are the facts. No country stands poised to invade the US. The US is practically immune from invasion even if they were. The Constitutional purpose of the American military is to defend America, (you concede as much with your tired “suicide pact” cliché) it is not to police the globe or maintain global order. This is the transparently conservative position. The America as maintainer of global order is a transparently anti-conservative position. It is arguably Jacobin depending on the motivation. (Neo”conservatism” is rank Jacobinism.) Conservative should more appropriately be debating whether or not we even need a standing army, not to what greater or lesser degree we should be policing the world.
John - TMF| 7.19.10 @ 7:11PM
Stuart,
There is just one little tiny but very relevant addition to your response.
The US Constitution is a GOVERNMENT. It enhances and gives structure to the governmental framework that can only exist in a SOVEREIGN Nation-state.
The military function of the US is "trans-constitutional" . The US Army and Navy predate the US Constitution. The Head of State and Commander in Chief also predate the document.
Funny, I was remembering something that never seems to dawn on isolationists... Dawn and Sunset...
Today, I could book a flight from BWI, watch the sun rise over the Atlantic ocean, get on a plane, fly to Hawaii pretty much half way around the world, and have lunch in Honolulu, and fly to Kauai or Maui for a lovely sunset dinner over the Pacific Ocean.
It wouldn't be outrageous in price, and I could even bring my wife...
People who think that the world will leave us alone if we just leave them alone were never bullied in the school yard... Mostly they sat on the side and secretly thanked their luck that they weren't the victim. They convinced themselves that because the nebbish was such an easy target that the bully wouldn't pick them out of the lineup for the treatment.
Oh well... On 9/11/2001 a group of men of evil intent murdered nearly 3,000 people and injured many more... The victims were doing nothing more than living their lives.
Isolationism like its Pacifist cousin is a dangerous delusion.
Best Regards,
The Mighty Fahvaag
Red Phillips | 7.19.10 @ 7:36PM
"The military function of the US is "trans-constitutional""
Well ain't that convenient? Is transconstitutional something like a "living and breathing" document? Verbal slight of hand to get around the limitations of the document. You know there is a word for people who look for loop holes around the Constitution. They're called liberals.
John - TMF| 7.19.10 @ 8:10PM
Red, you seem to be equipped with only a hammer as an intellectual tool... so every problem you face looks like a nail.
Look.. please... I bet you might even be a nice guy. Probably a good Dad, and hard worker...
The nation is not the Constitution. The Constitution is a legal structure, it is not a guarantor of sovereignty.
The nation predated the Constitution by more than a decade. The actual first set of acts that made this nation sovereign were enacted between April and July of 1775, when we formed a formal government, issued our own currency, represented ourselves with ambassadors, and most of all formed an Army with a Commander in Chief.
1776 comes way before 1787... An entire war, government, and several elections before.
The Constitution does not exist without the Sovereignty of the United States of America preceding it. The US Army, US Marine Corps, and US Navy predate the Constitution. They are the ultimate expression of our will to nationhood, not the Constitution.
You draw false dichotomies to bolster a weak argument. You project weakness in the face of danger because you feign ignorance of the danger because you cannot be bothered facing it.
Please. The coffee was Peal Harbor.... the oxygen should have been 9/11. But alas... you won't listen. At least until some city vanishes in a blast from the bowls of hell.
And even then I think that you would still blame us for it. You can't make the world go away. It just will not.
R/TMF
Stuart Koehl| 7.19.10 @ 9:44PM
I have long thought that isolationism is the default position in American foreign policy, and that it takes a concerted act of political will to overcome it. This is due largely to the false sense of security America's size and physical separation from the rest of the world (minus Mexico and Canada, of course) imparts to the typical ill-educated and self-centered citizen.
The simple fact is even if we withdraw from the world, the world will not leave us alone. I do not need to invade the United States in order to wreak economic and social havoc on this country. I don't even have to be targeting this country to have that effect. What happens in the most obscure parts of the world can have ripple effects that can have a disproportionate impact here.
Don't think that autarky is any defense--not that autarky is possible in this day and age. Energy independence won't protect us. Assume we were capable of generating all of the fuel and electricity we need from domestic resources; a disruption in the global supply could cripple the economies of Europe, Asia, and Latin America, which are (a) the principal markets for U.S. exports; and (b) the principal source of many key U.S. imports, both finished products and raw materials. So, if the Middle East or Southwest Asia, or Central Africa or Eastern Europe go all to hell, it comes back to us with a vengeance. And the situation will remain unchanged unless and until somebody does something about it.
Who is going to do it? Who would you want to do it? Think carefully about the answer.
Red Phillips | 7.20.10 @ 6:30AM
I said:
"Stuart, you defend America policing the globe because like so many other interventionist "conservatives," you simply can't fathom a world where it is otherwise."
"But it is all based on presuppositions backed by hysterical hypothetical doomsday scenarios if we stop. Hence your belief is not falsifiable. You can always imagine some scenario whereby our disengagement means WE WILL ALL SURELY DIE!!!"
I submit your reply above as exhibit A.
"I have long thought that isolationism is the default position in American foreign policy, and that it takes a concerted act of political will to overcome it."
This was certainly true, especially of conservatives and populists, (it was liberal internationalist who were agitating for greater US involvement) before WWII. It has not generally been true of "conservatism" since the post-war creation of the modern "conservative" movement because it conflated belligerent international opposition to Communism with conservatism.
"This is due largely to the false sense of security America's size and physical separation from the rest of the world (minus Mexico and Canada, of course) imparts"
There is a word for this. Its called the truth. We should get on our knees every day and thank God for our good fortune. Instead we have keyboard warriors like you conjuring up boogie men. "You know China could build some carrier groups..."
Did you watch too much Red Dawn as a kid or something?
Clinton nee Publius | 7.19.10 @ 9:10PM
Spoken like the true communist sympathizer that you are. The people we are worried about are you and your liberal-progressive seditionist allies who don't mind trading our future security so they can make points with their fellow commie sympathizers.
Christopher Holland| 7.19.10 @ 9:30PM
Reducing spending is not necessarily the same as spending a lot of money wisely. Sure, Russia and China spend much less, because they have conscript armies paid a fraction of what Americans receive. And there is a lot of doubt how effective this is anyway - Russian conscripts receive appalling treatment, violence and brutality is scandalous and desertion, drug and alcohol abuse and poor discipline are real problems. Equipment maintenance, safety and operating standards are bizarre by American standards - I once saw a program on Russian nuclear submarines and it showed nuclear missiles stored in the open, in winter, next to a children's school! The maintenance crew changing the water in a submarine reactor had no safety equipment except gloves - it makes me shudder to think of it. No wonder the Soviet Union collapsed.
The US military does not have these problems, although the NYT and WaPo try very hard to uncover them anyway. You can have a cheap military or an effective military, but it is very hard to have a cheap, effective military. I think the real problem with the military is poor personnel selection and training of leaders - when a paper shuffler and surrender monkey like Colin Powell can rise to the very top then there is a real problem with the organisation.
fundamentalist| 7.19.10 @ 10:58AM
Except for Pearl Harbor, the US has never defended itself against a foreign invasion. We have spent more of our dead youth and money on foreign ventures that did not serve out interests. A little less money available for such ventures will be good for the US.
Stuart Koehl| 7.19.10 @ 11:25AM
Not very good history, Fundamentalist. You forget the War of 1812, in which British forces not only invaded our soil, they burned our capital city.
As for your assessment of our military ventures, I would say you are seriously misguided. Try for a moment to imagine a world in which the United States minded its knitting throughout the 20th century. Without U.S. intervention, World War I would have dragged on until the economies of all the participants collapsed, resulting (most likely) in Bolshevik revolutions not only in Russia and Germany, but also in France, Italy, and even Great Britain. A Communist Europe, decades before the Cold War. Would we have been able to stay aloof from that?
But suppose that alternative history had been avoided. What if the United States had not intervened in World War II. Pat Buchanan may look upon such a prospect with relish, but not me. Without U.S. support for Britain and the USSR, Germany most likely would have achieved its goal of conquering the Caucasus, knocking the Soviet Union out of the war, and allowing German forces to seize the Middle East and its oil wealth, while severing the links between Britain and India, most likely forcing Britain out of the war as well.
Some people think Hitler would have been satisfied at that, but plans in the Nazi archives show he had ambitions on Latin American and eventually the United States. With practically unlimited access to oil, as well as the industrial resources of continental Europe, the Germans could have imposed a stringent naval blockade on the U.S., and, in conjunction with the Japanese, brought the war home to U.S. soil.
But even if he did not, could the United States live with itself, having allowed a regime of truly unmitigated evil to carve its murderous way across Europe? Or do the ideals on which the United States was founded obligate us to act against such evil? Could the United States even survive as a free society in a world dominated by tyranny?
Will| 7.19.10 @ 7:06PM
It would be reasonable to point out that the British only invaded in 1814 because we invaded Canada in 1812, hoping to annexe it in the name of "manifest destiny".
Stuart Koehl| 7.19.10 @ 9:54PM
Even before the U.S. invaded Canada, there were British border incursions in the Northwest Territory. British support for Indian raids on American territory was a proximate cause of the war, far more important to western War Hawks like Henry Clay than "Free Trade and Sailors Rights". The British policy of raiding American coastal towns and cities began almost immediately after the declaration of war, because it was the most effective way of eliminating American privateers and naval commerce raiders.
antidote| 7.19.10 @ 5:55PM
Excellent point and well said. Sadly the military industrial complex is running the show and we can expect to see military spending and endless wars continue to deplete our economy.
Stuart Koehl| 7.19.10 @ 6:03PM
What military industrial complex?
John - TMF| 7.19.10 @ 7:25PM
Stuart... you know
The Eisenhower warning... the one most people have not a clue as to what he was addressing..
Just a little post war US Reality for Mr. A...
The Military - Industrial complex of which Dwight Eisenhower spoke was the worrying continued Corporate-State association that had bloomed and groomed by the Roosevelt Administration during WWII.
Government gives up power unwillingly. Corporate Industrialists who have tasted the power and market control of the combination of the two are very reticent to give up their avenues to market control.
Eisenhower was not a stupid man, he was quite well educated, and actually a very brilliant politician. He could also very plainly see Fascism in our own back yard, and it alarmed him.
I suspect that Mr. dote meant that military-industrial complex.
Plus ca change, plus ca le meme chose...
r/TMF
Clinton nee Publius| 7.19.10 @ 9:13PM
9/11 and the Holocaust is the price we have paid for the treachery of people like you who are indifferent to anything other than attending to feathering your own nest at our expense.
Pardon me though. I didn't mean to disturb your reverie. Head back over to the welfare office and suck up some food stamps and other government benefits while the rest of us do the bleeding and the dying. When we're done we'll be sure to figure a fitting reward for those like you who showed your support for the freedom we have given you with a suitable boot in your backside. You don't deserve to be in our country and I hope you leave it.
fundamentalist| 7.19.10 @ 11:00AM
"a paltry 4.5% of our GDP"
That makes it seem small, but it is 25% of federal spending. Is there nothing better we could do with the money?
Stuart Koehl| 7.19.10 @ 11:28AM
Your math is as shoddy as your history. Defense appropriations account (as I noted) for about 16.9% of the budget, with other national security needs accounting for about 3%, for about 20% in all.
The problem is not defense, it is entitlements, which will eat us alive in the same way they ate the European social welfare states alive.
Clinton nee Publius| 7.19.10 @ 9:14PM
Perhaps we could use it to rid ourselves of those who do not value their freedom enough to support what it takes to give it to them.
Tim*| 7.19.10 @ 11:03AM
Defense And Security : 20 Percent of 2010 Budget or $715 Billion .
Social Security : 20 percent of 2010 Budget or $708 Billion .
Medicare , Medicaid and CHIP : 21 Percent of 2010 Budget or $753 Billion .
Safety Net Programs : 14 Percent of 2010 Budget or $ 482 Billion.
Interest on The National Debt : 6 Percent of 2010 Budget or $ 209 Billion .
Stuart Koehl| 7.19.10 @ 11:28AM
It's good to see someone knows how to do the math.
William R| 7.19.10 @ 11:38AM
Stuart, President Eisenhower warned the country about people like you!
http://www.weeklystandard.com/.....o.asp?pg=1
Stuart Koehl| 7.19.10 @ 11:42AM
If Ike was right about the "military-industrial complex", why don't any of the leading U.S. defense companies crack the ranks of the largest U.S. corporations? Why is Wal-Mart, of all things, twelve times larger than Lockheed Martin?
William R| 7.19.10 @ 12:39PM
Because defense contractors sell to governments.(Yes and they sell to airlines) Wal Mart is dealing with the general public. Congress has to appropriate money to buy weapons whereas I can get in my car and go to Wal Mart.
At the turn of this century the three largest defense contractors Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman and Boeing had revenue of 100 billion and employed 400 thousand people. This was before 9/11. The defense budget has more than doubled since then.
No one can seriously call themselves a fiscal conservative and be against large cuts in the military budget.
Stuart Koehl| 7.19.10 @ 4:59PM
I can provide you with more accurate numbers, courtesy of the Defense News Top 100 listing:
1. Lockheed Martin-Defense Revenue: 42.03 Billion
2. BAE Systems-Defense Revenue: 33.42 billion
3. Boeing Corporation-Defense Revenue 31.93 billion
4. Northrop Grumman-Defense Revenue 30.66 billion
5. General Dynamics-Defense Revenue 25.9 billion
Total top 5 US Defense Companies: $163.93 billion
Put that into the context of a $13,000 billion economy, and defense comes to a paltry 1.2% of the total economy.
If you can find reasonable places to cut the defense budget, by all means, be my guest. Others have tried, and failed miserably--mainly because they really don't understand the military, its mission, its requirements and its acquisition system.
I do this stuff for a living, and as an historian, I can tell you that defense spending is pretty close to its historic lows, both as a percentage of government spending and as a percentage of GDP.
You find a way to meet our global commitments--and don't give me that crap about pulling out of the world and defending the U.S. from U.S. territory, because, strategically speaking, that makes as much sense as charging machine guns with nothing more than spears. The world has changed since 1789, since 1865, since 1898, and even since 1945. Start with reality, and work your way backwards into sane, meaningful cuts.
In the meanwhile, gutting entitlement programs which are growing like a cancer, and eliminating Federal programs whose rationale cannot be found in the Constitution (unlike, say, national defense) sounds like the way to go. Just why does the Federal government concern itself with housing, with education, with health care, with agriculture and with the myriad other aspects of our daily lives that rightfully should revert to the states and the people respectively?
The main difference between today, when defense is a small fraction of the Federal budget, and past generations when it was the single largest--and sometimes the main--line item is today the government has inserted itself into areas where it never considered going in the past. Roll back the Federal government from areas not its concern, and I assure you, expenditures will decline, even as defense as a percentage of the budget increases dramatically.
Will| 7.19.10 @ 7:08PM
It's actually even less than that, because BAE is a British corporation, not American
Stuart Koehl| 7.19.10 @ 10:16PM
BAE is what we call a "multi-domestic" company. While the corporate HQ is in the UK, the work done by its US subsidiaries is pretty well segregated--the only thing that goes back to Britain is a revenue check (or is that "cheque"?). In fact, BAE makes more money from its US operations than from its UK and other overseas divisions. But, if you were to add up the top 100 US defense companies, their revenues would probably not amount to 2% of GDP.
John - TMF| 7.19.10 @ 7:52PM
Boy wouldn't he blow a gasket if he knew the percentage of GNP that was spent between 1954 and 1964 (even before Vietnam ramped up...)
lemme see: in 1959 (the year I was born) the USAF was split into:
TAC which operated the ANG and AFRES as well: F-86H, F-100, F-104, F-105, and various Air Sea Rescue planes like Grumman Albatrosses, and Sikorsky S12 and S34 helicopters along with a few Kaman gig that lived up to the term Eggbeaters... Huskies.. Oh and a scattering of re assigned KC-97 and KB-50 tankers.
SAC: The B-36 had just retired, the B-47, B-52, and B-58 (K-sexy...) bombers, Atlas missiles. For things that go BOOM in the night...
Then SAC had its own complete fighter interceptor force: F-86D, F-89, F-101, F-102, some nuke armed F-105's, and in early deployment the F-102B which became the F-106 (which is still the fastest single engined fighter) some F-104's scattered in but they were really day fighters.
Then there were the tankers.. KC-97 and KC-135.
PLUS: the U2... and the A-12 (early SR-71) in developement.
MATTS... I don't even want to get into that stuff... in 1959 the Air Force had every type of odd ball transport from the Goony Bird to the Herc, plus the C141 on the board... and the C-133 struggling and failing...
so... now we have:
a remnant with little or nothing much in the wings... F-15 and F-16 are now ancient. The F-22 (which I saw flying out of Langley last week... lovely... fast... cool...) are too few and crippled by shortsightedness... the F-35 is a goldplated over stuffed... over complex boondoggle that would have made a fine replacement for the F-16 if the powers that be had just left it that way... flying kitchen sinks never fly far.
We can't even replace that KC-135 without hacking up a lung, and the KC-10 was a limping failure...
Even our air transport is being crippled... the C-17 program is fallow, the C-130 (born with me) might outlive me... The C-5's are so decrepit that they are often too dangerous to operate.. and we are piddling for a foreign built gold plated catchall... or not... or are... or not... sheesh.
Which is all what happens when there are too many needs chasing too few dollars in a world where a city and multiple millions of people can evaporate in a flash.
We just aren't serious anymore.
At least Ike was serious.
r/TMF
Stuart Koehl| 7.19.10 @ 10:44PM
According to the DoD Green Book, National Defense accounted for the following percentages of GDP by year:
1940: 1.7%
1945: 37.5%
1950: 5.0%
1955: 10.8%
1960: 9.3%
1965: 7.4%
1970: 8.1%
1975: 5.5%
1980: 4.9%
1985: 6.1%
1990: 5.2%
1995: 3.7%
2000: 3.0%
2005: 4.0%
2010: 4.8%
As can be seen, despite fielding a highly paid volunteer military equipped with extremely expensive weapon systems, and despite fighting not one but two wars simultaneously, the U.S. today is spending the same percentage of GDP on defense as it was in 1977, in 1980, and in 1992. We are spending only half as much, as a percentage of GDP, as we were in 1968, at the height of the Vietnam war, and only a third of what we were in 1953, at the end of the Korean war.
By all measures, our military expenditures are quite modest relative to our commitments, and as compared to the bloated social programs we are funding, provide great value for money. Put the military (as opposed to the Coast Guard) in charge of cleaning up the oil spill in the Gulf, I guarantee you it would have been capped and cleaned up by now.
Clinton nee Publius| 7.19.10 @ 9:18PM
Yeah, after all Bill Clinton did to reduce the military, blind our intelligence services and make us sitting ducks, that theory is bound to be a big winner. After all, appeasement has such a great track record to commend it to people who live by sucking their slops from the public trough and who fatten themselves at the expense of those of us who actually contribute to this country. Don't worry, nobody will come and ask you to make a contribution - we know that when the chips are down corrupt cowards and communist sympathizers are there for the money and freedom isn't important as long as they are getting their cut. Don't worry. We understand and appreciate your position and the hard work that goes into being a completely amoral, corrupt and seditious carbuncle on bum of humanity. You're what makes our country great and we really appreciate your sagacious advice.
Stuart Koehl| 7.20.10 @ 6:32AM
Defense as a % of Federal expenditures, by year:
1940: 15.8%
1945: 82.5%
1950: 27.4%
1955: 51.4%
1960: 45.0%
1965: 38.8%
1970: 39.4%
1975: 25.5%
1980: 22.5%
1985: 25.9%
1990: 23.1%
1995: 17.2%
2000: 15.7%
2005: 19.2%
2010: 15.8%
Notice that defense as a % of Federal expenditures remained fairly constant at close to 38% until the 1970s, when suddenly it began to plummet, even as the size of the Federal budget overall rose. With the end of the Cold War, the % of the budget dedicated to defense continued to fall, and never cracked 20% again after 1992. Even through the Global War on Terror, defense never exceeded 19.5% of the budget, even as the budget continued to grow and budget deficits ballooned.
So, as I said, cutting defense is not the answer. You could zero out the defense budget, and the deficit would still be $700 billion. You could cut ALL discretionary spending, and you might break even--for a couple of years. But unless there a brake is placed on mandatory spending (entitlement programs), the budget crisis will continue.
William R| 7.20.10 @ 8:54AM
Yes Stuart, cutting defense is one of the answers. We stop policing the world, get out of the Middle East and follow Ronald Reagan's advice. Neutrality in the Middle East. You sir are a war junkie.
Stuart Koehl| 7.20.10 @ 9:46AM
Do you really believe if the ostrich hides its head in the sand, the hyenas will simply leave him alone?
Ned| 7.19.10 @ 11:59AM
Thank you for the excellent posts, Stuart. I have been reading about the war in the Pacific for the last several months. I kind of think the Japs would not have been content to quell their domination gene and limit their empire to what they considered their backyard. Given time they definitely would have came a knocking on our little old home front doors.
Just like combat forces put out LPs and OPs at night the United States needs long tentacles if we wish to survive.
Eugene B. Sledge said it well: Until the millennium arrives and countries cease trying to enslave others, it will be necessary to accept one’s responsibilities and to be willing to make sacrifices for one’s country, as my comrades did. As the troops used to say, “If the country is good enough to live in, it’s good enough to fight for.” With privilege goes responsibility.
Ken (Old Texican)| 7.19.10 @ 12:08PM
WOW! guys
You will laugh to tears.
http://townhall.com/columnists.....im_holiday
Stuart Koehl| 7.19.10 @ 6:05PM
I note with interest that there is no national Jewish holiday. Perhaps we could elevate Yom Kippur in parallel with Eid? But every 29 May I go into mourning for the Fall of Constantinople. Maybe that counts?
If a new holiday is required, perhaps we could provide the Muslims with their own day of mourning to commemorate the eradication of the Iranian nuclear program?
TIm*| 7.19.10 @ 6:43PM
We can review all budgeted areas for reasonable deficit cuts .
" To compound matters, nobody really knows where the money goes. The Defense Department may be one of the most egregious examples of a poorly managed government bureaucracy. According to Defense Industry Daily, “the DoD has about 5.2 million inventory items, compared with 11,000 at Wal-Mart or 50,000 at Home Depot stores.” Experts agree that it would be almost impossible to audit the Pentagon. Money is dumped into the system and then disappears for good. We may have the best-trained military in the world, but that doesn’t mean we have the most efficiently funded military."
http://article.nationalreview......ain?page=2
The Tea Party Rebellion Escalates .
Remember In November .
RCV| 7.19.10 @ 7:44PM
The Tea Party In-fighting Escalates!
Stuart Koehl| 7.19.10 @ 11:15PM
As compared to, say, Housing and Urban Development, or the granddaddy of all budgetary sinkholes, Medicare, DoD is a pillar of reticence.
Comparisons with a retail entity such as Walmart are inapt. First, Walmart just sells stuff, it does not maintain or operate it. Second, the typical shelf life of Walmart merchandise is 18 months or less, after which the manufacturer does not have to support it. In contrast, the typical military system has a service life of 20 years, during which the military has to maintain it, operate it, and retain an inventory of parts for it. Third, commercial entities focus on "efficiency", roughly defined as maximizing output per unit of input. That's because business is generally a cooperative endeavor: there is competition, but it is regulated by laws, directives and a host of customary practices. For the most part, business is about win-win propositions. War most definitely is not, and so the logic of business does not apply to warfare. And, though the military spends most of its time in peacetime status, it must always be prepared to go to war, hence all attempts to run the military like a business undermine combat effectiveness.
War is an inherently wasteful activity, and therefore there will always be a lot of redundancy, a lost of inefficiency, and even a certain degree of corruption. On the other hand, much of that redundancy actually enhances military effectiveness (i.e., the ability to win wars).
For instance, it is often pointed out that the different armed services have different weapon systems that perform identical or similar missions. Business logic says it is more efficient to have one fighter, not three; one anti-tank weapon, not three; one radar, not three or four; and so forth. But strategic logic says multiple systems with overlapping capabilities are more robust and can defeat enemy countermeasures better than a single common system. With a single system, the enemy can play on the margins of system capabilities to devise effective countermeasures. With multiple systems, the enemy has more capabilities to defeat, and the strengths of one system may compensate for the weaknesses of another, so that all act in concert synergistically--the whole is greater than the sum of the parts.
Business logic says one should never maintain excess inventory. That's why companies have gone whole-hog for "just in time" inventory systems, and invested heavily in total asset visibility software. Attempts to apply this to the military failed miserably under wartime conditions, because expenditures of parts, fuel and munitions are never easy to predict in advance, and shortages can arise rapidly and unexpectedly. Furthermore, lines of communications are seldom secure, making it difficult to ensure the arrival of the needed supplies "just in time". As I like to point out, Fed Ex doesn't try to blow up all the UPS trucks, but in wartime, the enemy tries to do just that to our supply lines. Military prudence thus says units should carry more than they anticipate needing, and that supplies should be pushed forward as rapidly as possible, even if in excess of known or estimated requirements. It's not efficient--it's wasteful and costly. But it is the only thing that works.
I could provide many more examples, but let's just say that what cuts can be made in the defense budget would not come through making defense more "efficient".
Margie| 7.19.10 @ 7:01PM
"There are increasingly vocal calls for slashing defense. From the left-libertarian alliance of Barney Frank and Ron Paul comes the call for $1 trillion in defense cuts over ten years.."
May the Left-Libertarians burn in Hell. (That is, of course, unless they repent.)
Tim*| 7.19.10 @ 7:28PM
Ahh !
The Resident Apocalyptic NutBag .
Carry On Zany Lady .
Margie| 7.19.10 @ 7:41PM
Timmy* the anti-Christian, who doesn't believe what the Bible says, doesn't believe in prophecy but chooses to believe lies.
He also stated that thankfully, the "increase in the Arab population will cancel out my Israel-Firster vote."
Yeah, the nutbag useful idiot Tim* hath spoken.
Tim*| 7.19.10 @ 7:54PM
Oh Yeah , I Forgot America Laster Lady !
You got An Anti-Catholic Ax To Grind With Us Catholics .
Apparently , You didn't get the memo .
We're Christians !
Margie| 7.19.10 @ 8:46PM
Christians believe what the Bible says and they don't hate other Christians, as you do. I have an ax to grind with liars, like you. What is it about Israel and God's word concerning her and those that back her, that you despise so much?
Tim*| 7.19.10 @ 9:04PM
Now tell all The AS People where you believe all the Deceased Practicing Jews And Deceased Practicing Muslims Go when they Die.
No Lies , Sista TRUTH !
Margie| 7.19.10 @ 9:09PM
You really are a snake. I must say that if you aren't Toddard posing as a "Tea-Partier".. well~ God knows, doesn't He? I do know that you are an utter fake, phony fraud.
Why don't you give up trying to slander me and become a real Christian man?
Your conscience must be killing you~ if you still have one.
Tim*| 7.19.10 @ 9:20PM
Don't Know The Dude , Sista Love .
Ahhh ! A Snake !
Share The Love ,Sista Love .
Aaaaaand , My Home Group is The Valley Forge Patriots And Sometimes The Independence Hall Tea Party association Deceiving Faux Christian Smear Merchant .
Quick Name Your Home Tea Party Group in New Jersey .
TRUUUUUTH NOW !
Margie| 7.19.10 @ 10:05PM
Wolf in sheep's clothing. Tim* who suggests Lenni Brenner for reading. An anti-semitic nutjob. (Speaking of).
Tim* has an "issue" with Israel. He cannot stand that I have him pegged.
Your hypocritical slandering of me isn't working. Fraud.
Tim*| 7.19.10 @ 10:19PM
Duuuuhhhh !
Israel And The Palestinian Territories Are Foreigner National Interests .
United States National Interests Trump Both Agendas .
You Got Yourself A Problem with America First , Acocalyptic Screwball .
Now , Tell All The AS Readers where Deceased Practicing Jews And Deceased Practicing Muslims Go when they Die .
I say they Go To Heaven .
Wanna Deny that Acocalyptic NutBag ?
Margie| 7.19.10 @ 10:23PM
You can say anything you want. You're still lying.
Tim*| 7.19.10 @ 10:29PM
Na , Na , Na , .... Na , Na !
Ha,Ha,Ha Ha .
Margie| 7.19.10 @ 10:41PM
"Tell all the AS readers.." Your deceitful trying to pin something on me is is an amazing feat of hypocrisy. You actually accuse me of doing the very thing you are doing. Slandering and lying and making things up.
Stuart Koehl| 7.19.10 @ 11:16PM
I think Tim and Marge should both take their meds and go to sleep.
Margie| 7.20.10 @ 12:17AM
Mr. Koehl,
You and I got into it in another thread~ you bashing evangelical Christians and I taking up their cause. So it isn't surprising that you would throw a couple of stones once again. It is before my Maker that I'll stand or fall, so mock on.
Stuart Koehl| 7.20.10 @ 6:34AM
If I judged all Evangelicals by you, I might be tempted to think it was a faith for mental defectives with a sour disposition. Fortunately, I know many better examples of Evangelicalism.
Margie| 7.20.10 @ 10:23AM
According to the pompous Mr. Koehl, who chooses to be deceived by the doctrines of men and despises the Bible and God's will, your attack on me personally will continue to be not surprising.
Who are the mentally ill but those who do as you do?
Stuart Koehl| 7.20.10 @ 1:01PM
You're such a bore, Margie, that even when I agree with you it makes me want to bait you.
Margie| 7.20.10 @ 1:35PM
Mr. Koehl,
You are a hard hearted liar and a pompous ass.
Red Phillips | 7.20.10 @ 6:14AM
Tim I'm with you on the matter of foreign intervention, but orthodox Christianity (small o) has traditionally been "exclusivist" in its teaching that Christianity is the only road to Heaven. It is modern political correctness and its fetish for pluralism and tolerance that demands Christians give up that traditional belief and embrace "inclusivism," the idea that there are multiple roads to Heaven. Inclusivism is arguably, and I believe is, heretical. Do you really want to get in bed with the forces of political correctness? I disagree with Margie on dispensationalism, but share her commitment to a conservative and orthodox interpretation of Christianity.
Margie| 7.20.10 @ 11:53AM
Red,
The deeper thing that binds, is the Truth, isn't it? Jesus Himself is the Truth. (Jn. 14:6).
If those of the Catholic (or any other Religion claiming to be believers), hate Christians because we stick to the Bible and refuse the doctrines of men~ then are they really believers? To what do they really adhere? If they are willing to denounce Christians then aren't they are much like the Romans of old who threw us to the Lions? I venture to say that some here.. would.. if they could!
Rick| 7.20.10 @ 4:58AM
What is it about Israel and God's word concerning her and those that back her, that you despise so much?
I'll tell you why, Margie. It means we have to kill people in the name of YOUR religion. In the name of YOUR beliefs. It means my child can be drafted to fight YOUR holy war. Your "stand with Israel" theolagy, puts everyone in harms way. Your selfish. You subscribe to "God's choosen people". What about "all men are created equal" ? What about "Man was created in his own image" ?
If fighting for religious beliefs is okay for America, then why shouldn't other religions fight for the their religious beliefs ? After all, their faith is just as strong as yours.
It is your ilk; the religious zealots , so stooped in your beliefs that you are willing to kill in the name of your God, that are the problem. You can't wait for Arrmagedon, can you,
Margie. You want to be there for the rapture don't you? Standing hand in hand with rev. Hagee and first in line on judgement day. Good luck with that , you self righteous POS.
Margie| 7.20.10 @ 12:05PM
Rick~
Ron Paul is a Leftist Libertarian who actually said this: "The terrorists are terrorists because of us!" Thing is~~ I think he really believes that. This makes him a danger to both himself and others, to take a line from psychiatry.
I've said it before and I'll say it again~ this man ran as a Republican in order to get elected. He is really a Libertarian who is a full fledged believer. Which means~ if you read their platform, that they also blame America "first."
Read David Horowitz to get a real true definition of the Leftist Libertarian mindset. Frontpage.com.
Me self-righteous? Actually the opposite is true. I am one of the lowliest of the low~ it's why God saved me. He delights in rescuing and raising up for Himself us lowlives. I have nothing to lose, and everything to gain by speaking and serving the Truth. You call that self-righteous. I call it self-preservation.
Stuart Koehl| 7.20.10 @ 6:44PM
That's actually true. It's not anything we do, it's what we are--free, strong, prosperous and happy--that appalls them and represents a standing reproach to the truth claims of Islam, the only faith that promises its adherents temporal supremacy over non-believers.
Since the only way we can appease the terrorists is by dying or ceasing to be what we inherently are, Ron Paul is, paradoxically, correct (albeit probably for the wrong reasons). The eminent historian Samuel Huntington came to the same conclusion--but, in his case, for the correct reasons.
Margie| 7.20.10 @ 9:23PM
But it's so warped. And it definitely represents the Leftist mindset~ do you not agree? They see us as the enemy~ instead of the enemy!
Margie| 7.21.10 @ 10:24AM
And here's another point~ I know you're sooo above me that you will not reply, but for those who want to learn something~ these non-interventionist Lefty Libertarians~ you know how they constantly preach against the Republicans~ they would rather see the Democrats win than the Republicans. Glen Beck just said on his show. "the Republicans are Progressives." He then proceeded to call the Tea Party a party~ which it is NOT~ you can't vote in the Tea Party. So folks~ if you expect to win in November~ which party are you going to vote for in order to win?
Jacobite| 7.19.10 @ 7:56PM
Leftists beleive people can live in states ruled by aliens. They try to abolish all subordinate social units. Libertarians believe people can live as individuals (in a behavior-sink). They try to eliminate all social groups greater than the individual. Unfortunately, Homo sapiens lives only in social groups. Social groups are defined by rules which not only govern behavior but determine membership. That's why the Greeks made exile a punishment for serious crimes (violation of group rules).
Tim*| 7.19.10 @ 8:13PM
There are Neoconservatives , Paleoconservatives , Social Conservatives , Religious Conservatives , Libertarian Conservatives , Fiscal Conservatives , Defense Conservatives , not to mention Country Club Republicans , RINO's and CINO's , Apocalyptic NutBags , Aaaaand There Are Tea Party Rebels mixed in there too .
We Tea Party Rebels Support Our Kingmaker Champ Jim DeMint .
Rick| 7.20.10 @ 5:16AM
We Paleo-cons choose Ron Paul.
Paleo-cons, like the fundamental values our nation came into being with. Complete with the bill of rights, the constitution and the declaration of independence.
Ron Paul is true to these core American ideals, and is the best choice for America.
Ron Paul 2012 !!!
Red Phillips | 7.19.10 @ 8:19PM
"There is nothing inherently or historically conservative about our national standing military. It was a Republican-led effort that ignored everything the American founders wrote about the dangers of standing armies and centralized the state militias into a national army, the outlawed state militias. Shortly after the Militia Act of 1903, in one ten year span before WWI, the military budget rose from $2 million to $53 million—a 2,650% budget increase. The whole program was carried out by Progressives which at that time dominated the Republican Party. These were men whom Republicans generally revere as well, Republicans: William McKinley, Teddy Roosevelt, William H. Taft, Elihu Root. Historically, big war has been carried out under progressive Democrats: Wilson got us into WW1, FDR WWII, Truman Korea, and Kennedy/Johnson Vietnam. Progressives love war inherently: it was one aspect that grew directly out of social Darwinism. Conservatives fight when necessary to protect their own land and freedom..." ~ Joel McDurmon [emphasis mine]
Stuart Koehl| 7.19.10 @ 11:21PM
And your point, Red? In 1903, the United States military was a frontier constabulary so far behind even the military forces of Latin America that its ability to defend the country from external enemies was practically nil. Defense expenditures rose as Congress finally realized that it could not defend our shores with Civil War era monitors, muzzle-loading brass cannon and hand-cranked gatling guns. Investments in modern warships, modern artillery, modern infantry weapons and a more modern mobilization system (read accounts of the Spanish American War for examples of the manifold failures of the old "volunteer" system.
Also, whoever the hell Joel McDurmon is, he ought to have realized the law of small numbers: when you start from nothing, even modest absolute increases yield huge proportional gains. The rest of his diatribe is pseudo-sociological claptrap.
Red Phillips | 7.20.10 @ 6:04AM
Joel McDurmon writes for/works for American Vision, Gary DeMar's organization, no shrinking violets of conservatism.
"the United States military was a frontier constabulary so far behind even the military forces of Latin America that its ability to defend the country from external enemies was practically nil."
So who was poised to invade us in 1903?
There is a Field of Dreams effect to a large military. "If you build it, you will use it." Wasn't it that bastion of conservatism Madeleine Albright who said something to the effect of "What's the point of having a big military if you aren't going to use it?"
Stuart Koehl| 7.20.10 @ 6:40AM
"So who was poised to invade us in 1903?"
Strategic planning is based not on intentions, but capabilities. You may not know what other countries are planning to do, but you know what they can do, and you respond accordingly. In 1903, the United States still had war plans to fight Britain (including Canada), France, Germany, and Mexico. After World War I, we added Japan. Given that European countries were in the midst of an arms race that saw a technological revolution in both ground and naval armaments, as well as in military organization and control, and given the time it took the United States to modernize its forces (something it did not accomplish by the time of its entry into World War I), the U.S. at the beginning of the 20th century would have been easy pickings even for countries such as Chile and Brazil.
Weakness incites aggression. Aggressor nations attack other countries because they think they can get away with it. They usually think they can get away with it because the targeted country is weak.
Everything you need to know about international relations, you should have learned at recess by the third grade.
Red Phillips | 7.20.10 @ 7:47AM
"Strategic planning is based not on intentions, but capabilities."
Ahh... I see. Another word for that might be fear mongered scenarios. There is always some small risk to everything you do. There is a risk to riding a bike. Walking down the street. Etc. But you don't strap a mattress to your body because you might fall. Threat assessments have to be realistic and based on actual intelligence and the response to them realistic. (Hint: riding the world of evil is not realistic.) Part of the psychology of hyper interventionists such as yourself is that they wish the government (in this case the military) to rid them of all possible fear. This is similar to the psychology of the welfare statists who want the government to protect them from all possible risk. It can't be done, and it is silly (childish really) to believe it can be.
"would have been easy pickings even for countries such as Chile and Brazil."
Is this supposed to be a joke, because it's funny?
"Everything you need to know about international relations, you should have learned at recess by the third grade."
Actually, this is precisely the problem with the hyper interventionists. They equate in a very real way international relations with the third grade playground. That is why non-interventionists will inevitable be labeled "cowards" in a discussion like this. And chest thumping calls for war are equated with manliness.
Stuart Koehl| 7.20.10 @ 8:50AM
"Is this supposed to be a joke, because it's funny?"
Not a joke at all. In the 1880s there was an ongoing Latin American naval arms race, with Chile, Brazil and Argentina all purchasing the best available battleships from Britain and France. It was not at all clear what they intended to do with their bright, shiny navies, but Congress became seriously alarmed when they looked at the U.S. Navy and realized it consisted of a dozen or so monitors and wooden steam sloops of Civil War vintage armed with muzzle-loading Dahlgren guns and Parrott Rifles. As the Chairman of the House Naval Affairs Committee told Congress, "If this old navy of ours was drawn up in mid-ocean and confronted by the Riachuelo [a recently acquired Brazilian battleship] it is doubtful that a single vessel bearing the American flag would get into port".
This inspired the first Naval Act of 1884, which allowed the Navy to buy its first modern steel warships, the armored cruisers Maine and Texas. Other warships followed so that the United States would at least have naval parity in the Western Hemisphere. Please note that this occurred in the 1880s, long before the "progressives" hijacked American foreign policy.
"They equate in a very real way international relations with the third grade playground. "
It's not my fault you led a sheltered life and never learned to cope with reality.
Bennet Cecil| 7.20.10 @ 12:05AM
Are we going to stay in Japan, Germany, Korea etc for 200 years? If you do not want to work 9 months for the government each year we have to cut our budget and grow our economy. Stagflation is avoidable by cutting federal spending.
Stuart Koehl| 7.20.10 @ 6:43AM
Our commitments in Germany, Japan and Korea are not large, nor are they a significant portion of our budget. Those bases do serve a significant purpose, however. While the U.S. presence in Korea undoubtedly continues to deter North Korean aggression, it also provides useful basing and forward presence, as do our bases in Japan. Our bases in Germany provide us with a useful staging area for operations in Africa, Southwest Asia and Central Europe.
"Stagflation is avoidable by cutting federal spending."
So go for the big bucks, which are in entitlement programs.
Rick| 7.20.10 @ 4:22AM
Hey Margie, are you of Christian faith or do you practice Judisim ?
I am asking this to gain a perspective on your support for Israel.
Not all Americans are religious zealots, like you. Is it fair, to the Americans that are not as concerned about God's instructions regarding Israel, to run our country because of religious beliefs ?
America is not a theocracy. America's foreign policy should not be based on "standing with the Jews" so we can be guaranteed "forever lasting life" in Heaven. Your as bad as the Muslim fundamentalists that preach killing in the name of their God's will.
The more people we kill over there, be they "collateral damage" or not, the more hate and want of revenge we bring upon ourselves. What happen to the Christian values of "turn the other cheek", "love they enemies", "Judge not...", "He who is not guilty cast the first stone".
Maybe you are under the belief you are of "God's choosen people" and "Do unto others " is out the window, replaced with "by whatever means nessacary". Manifest destiny works both ways.
God is always on our side to the nations that choose to wage war. Religion is used to provide pawns to fight in wars. I don't belive in God or Allah, and I'll be damned if I let you religious zealots drag me or my children into your wars.
Ned| 7.20.10 @ 10:54AM
"I'll be damned if I let you religious zealots drag me or my children into your wars."
But I will enjoy the peace and prosperity victory in war brings. Not only that I will continue to condescendingly condemn war and insult all those honest enough to admit its necessity.
Margie| 7.20.10 @ 11:06AM
Rick,
Your post has so many assumptions and false accusations. First of all to answer your question, I'm a Christian. According to the Bible it is right for Christians to stand with our allies, and that would include Israel. And yes~ the Bible does say many things concerning Israel one of which is that He is going to restore her. You seem to know a few verses from the Bible, to use against me~but if you really were into the truth you would also know the whole Bible and that it is right for us to "stand" with Israel.
One of the many reasons is that Israel is another free country like our own, and is our ally. The Leftist Libertarians seem to have a serious problem with Israel and it seems to be based on a deep down hatred~ in general, they seem to have this thread in common. Thus Tim*'s posts, and it seems, yours.
America's foreign policies aren't based on Israel, they are based on truth. We fight our enemies where needed and stand with those who are struggling to be free. Israel happens to be one of those nations struggling to be free.
America is the greatest country on the face of the Earth~ because God gave her to us, and you and I happened to be fortunate enough to be destined to live here. It is not a Theocracy~ you're right. But God is definitely involved in this country's founding, and His Hand is still working in it. Jesus died for right and wrong and it's important that we not keep our mouths shut or be neutral when it comes to backing our allies~ wherever they may be.
So, as a Christian, I will stand with Israel.
Ned| 7.20.10 @ 11:43AM
They don't like Israel because her people refused to be victims. Much like we blew our chance of being poor sad, and liked, victims after the attacks of Sep. 11.
RCV| 7.20.10 @ 4:58PM
I'm a liberal Democrat and a steadfast supporter of Israel. Why? Because frist, like other peoples, the Jewish people deserve a homeland and Jerusalem and its surrounds is that historic homeland. There was plenty of room in the Middle East for both Arabs (who have seven or eight states, including Jordan, which was created out of two-thirds of the Palestine Mandate) and Jews. Second, Israel is the only democracy in the area, the only place where Jews, Moslems and Christians can openly worship unmolested, vote for their representatives, and speak their minds. Third, Israel has been a loyal ally since its inception.
So, I too will stand with Israel.
Nicolas ziener| 7.21.10 @ 9:24AM
Well, when I read this ..... you know too much smoking pot can be harmfull to your health
Tenn Slim| 7.20.10 @ 6:11AM
Opine
"No sorry, you’re wrong again. “Operations and Maintenance” is the largest component of the budget by about a 2 to 1 margin over personnel costs with “Procurement” (planes, ships, tanks...) a close third. "
Logistics, Beans, Bullets, Oil, are the guts of the DOD budget, as noted above.
As the Dollar worth and value declines due to DP debts, the COST of Logistics goes up. Simple maintenance of the existing equipments requires lots of budget. The oil necessary, fuel if you will, required to drive the engines consumes a huge amount. These are easily cut, year by year. There will come a time, and it is seen in the Squadron outfits budgets, where ops, training, and maintenance not performed effect readiness. This occurred during our last Great Depression. Soldiers were training with wooden rifles, wooden mock up tanks, etc. That is a paper tiger army, navy but never a USMC corps.
We likely will decline into a fifth world class nation, on the Leftist path we are taking.
We MUST Prevail
Semper FI
end
Tenn Slim| 7.20.10 @ 6:15AM
Rick
Your beliefs are your own, as with all posters.
Your Freedom to say so, however, is another item. That Freedom is what is in doubt, as the Radical Islams, dedicated to enforcing thier Freedom of Islam on YOU, and ME, move across the Globe. There are DOD folks who cast aside their personal vendentas, opines, and stand on a difficult wall so that you and me can opine on this post. Regardless of what drives you, the ones that do the task of preventing others from taking from you the most basic of Human Rights, Freedom, deserve our support, our praise and our love.
end
Semper Fi
WE WILL PREVAIL
Ned| 7.20.10 @ 8:42AM
War ain't cheap, but winning one is a whole lot better than losing one.
Stuart Koehl| 7.20.10 @ 8:51AM
Someone once said, "Winning a war costs billions of dollars, but losing a war costs all you've got".
Jomi| 7.20.10 @ 10:07AM
As a lazy diplomatic historian,(wisconsin68) I have to admire Mr.Keogh. You really know the data. However, as we were able to puchase the cartridges we needed from Styre for the War of the Pacific in the 1880's,its been proposed that we could save money by buying Russian Heliocopters for Afghanastan,Russian Heavy lifter Transports (just tighten the bolts after each flight) and AK47's from Hugo Chavez's Russian factory. We probably could get a deal on North Korean IRBMS,and Chinese submarines.
Derek Leaberry| 7.20.10 @ 1:19PM
The country is broke and budgetary implosion lies in our future. We must reduce expenditures, non-defense and defense. I have to doubt Bill Kristol's sanity when he calls for more defense spending.