-
Obama’s Declaration of Political War
January 22, 2013 | 94 comments
-
Hagel’s Problem? He’s ‘Mainstream’
January 14, 2013 | 66 comments
-
Dereliction of Coaching Duty
January 8, 2013 | 102 comments
-
Understanding the Norway Massacre
July 25, 2011 | 225 comments
-
Run, Rudy, Run
June 10, 2011 | 116 comments
Breaking News
More Guns, Less Butter
North Korea’s latest act of war underscores why we mustn’t cut defense.
(Page 2 of 2)
Why, in the name of fiscal discipline, would we forfeit this crucial geostrategic advantage — an advantage that redounds to our commercial and economic benefit?
Economic Illogic. The economics of cutting the defense budget are also nonsensical. “Defense spending now accounts for around 19% of the federal budget and more than half of all U.S. discretionary spending,” laments the left-wing Center for American Progress.
True, but that doesn’t tell us much. In fact, defense spending accounts for not even five percent of the Gross Domestic Product (!) versus nine or ten percent of the GDP under President Kennedy.
Moreover, as the Heritage Foundation and the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) point out:
The idea that defense cuts will restore fiscal health simply does not add up: suppose Pentagon spending for 2011 — $720 billion — were eliminated entirely. This would only halve this year’s federal deficit of $1.5 trillion.
And defense spending is a drop in the ocean of today’s $13.3 trillion of government debt. From the Korean War to the collapse of the Soviet Union, total U.S. defense spending was about $4.7 trillion. So had there been no military spending at all during the Cold War, the savings would not equal even half our current national debt.
Actually, less than 20% of all new spending from 2001 to 2009 went to defense — and this figure doesn’t even include the mammoth $787-billion “stimulus,” which essentially bypassed the defense budget.
The bottom line: the core defense budget — that is, the defense budget not allocated to the current wars in Iraq and Afghanistan — accounts for less than 3.5% of the GDP, says AEI military analyst Tom Donnelly.
“Defense spending constitutes a fifth of federal spending; projected deficits over the next decade are similar” explains Washington Post columnist Robert J. Samuelson. “We won’t shut the Pentagon.”
Thus, to reduce the crushing burden of debt, policymakers must look elsewhere. Cutting the defense budget won’t do the trick, Samuelson says.
What, then, must be cut, or at least reformed along market-oriented lines? Simple: entitlements: Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and now “Comprehensive National Health Insurance” aka Obamacare. Unlike defense, after all, none of these entitlement programs are constitutionally prescribed or required. And yet they are fast consuming the federal budget.
“Entitlements now account for around 65 percent of all federal spending and a record 18 percent of GDP,” notes Eaglen.
The three largest entitlements — Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid — eclipsed defense spending in 1976 and have been growing ever since.
If future taxes are held at the historical average, these three entitlements will consume all tax revenues by 2052, leaving no money for the government’s primary constitutional obligation: providing for the common defense.
In a world filled with rogue states and terrorist networks intent on our destruction, that simply won’t do. North Korea’s latest act of war should be a wakeup call for policymakers and the American people: Don’t cut and gut defense.
About the Author
John R. Guardiano blogs at www.ResCon1.com, and you can follow him on Twitter: @ResCon1.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (136) | Leave a comment
More Articles by John R. Guardiano
More Articles From Breaking News
http://spectator.org/archives/2010/11/24/more-guns-less-butter
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
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
Booger | 11.24.10 @ 6:12AM
From the desk of President B. Hussein Obama:
To the people of the Korean peninsula,
It has come to My attention that there is an escalating dispute taking part on your peninsula. Having reviewed the matter in question and discussing it with My top advisers, I have decided to address the situation and quell the disturbance taking place in your part of the world.
The first thing you need to understand is that Kim Jung Il and the people of the Great Republic of North Korea do, in fact, have numerous legitimate grievances against the people of south korea. Having reviewed the latest economic data, it has come to My attention that south korea has an economy at least twenty times as large as North Korea. It is My sincere belief that much of the trouble taking place is a direct result of the selfish people of south korea refusing to spread the wealth around to their Northern kinfolk. Has it never occurred to you greedy south koreans that if you were willing to share your wealth, most likely stolen from some indigenous, stone-aged people, then the Great Republic of North Korea would not feel it necessary to lash out against you?
Quite frankly, the refusal of the greedy south korean government to spread the wealth around to their poor and needy kinfolk up North constitutes an act of aggression in and of itself. So, as you can see, it was actually south korea that made the initial aggressive move in this latest round of incidents, and it is therefore south korea's responsibility to make things right. Even now I am consulting with my advisers Bernanke and Geithner to determine just how much money the south koreans should pay in reparations to the Great People's Republic of North Korea in order to settle this matter.
As long as I have to assess blame, however, it behooves Me to point out that there is most likely another culprit behind this mess as well: Israel. Recently, the Great People's Republic of North Korea has extended peaceful overtures to both Syria and Iran, helping them to establish environmentally friendly forms of renewable energy production. The Israelis, in their typical fashion, have attempted to undermine this peaceful and beneficial relationship between other states. At the same time, the Israelis have started providing military hardware to the belligerent south korean nation, specifically missile defense and uav technology. I ask you to consider, is it not only possible, but likely, that the greedy jews are attempting to create strife for their own benefit? Perhaps the best way to resolve this crisis is for the peoples of the Korean peninsula to realize that they have a common enemy in the greedy jews of Israel.
Additionally, I must at this point ask for forgiveness on behalf of the pathetic people I now lead here in Amerikkka. I must confess that this country, in its hegemonic and belligerent past, did in fact participate in a war upon your peninsula, and was directly responsible for the murder of untold millions of Korean and Chinese citizens. I wish to express My deepest regret for the genocidal actions of Harry Truman and Dwight Eisenhower, as well as the notorious war criminal MacArthur. I assure you that now that I am in charge this is an entirely different nation. Those ghosts of this country's warlike past will soon be completely purged under My Divine Guidance. Please accept my apology on their behalf, and let this conflict end.
In closing, I believe that this conflict will soon come to a peaceable end. All we have to do is admit that south korea needs to make proper reparations for its aggression, understand that Israel is the true enemy, and accept that the united states will never again interfere in the korean peninsula in the way it did under past leaders. If you follow this path not only will the fighting cease, but you may soon look forward to a completely unified peninsula under the benign and wise guidance of Kim Jung Il and his rightful heir.
With all due apologies for Amerikkka's past,
President for life B. Hussein Obama
http://beautifulletters-bls.blogspot.com/
Ken (Old Texican)| 11.24.10 @ 5:43PM
Booger,
forgive us if we do not go "YAAAAAY" on each of your letters.
Each of us thinks "YAY"..and usually get at least a chuckle, and often a keyboard cleaning exercize.
Keep on truckin' dude.
American ex-Pat| 11.25.10 @ 3:07AM
Booger, reading that was better than sex, or any I've had lately. But as Premier Obama is a "scholar" he would have capitalized South Korea's name, because they just couldn't give up all of their ill-gotten gains to the North Koreans. Their name being about all the world premier would let them keep.
WTF| 11.24.10 @ 6:58AM
China will respond to American troops on its border the same way it did sixty years ago. How many American troops is the author willing to expend? Where's he going to get them from?
Melvin| 11.24.10 @ 8:09AM
How many Americans and South Koreans are you willing to expend if we don't. What is an acceptable causality count?
Chairman Mao's regime murdered 49-78,000,000, is this an acceptable number for the Social Democrats, that will still allow them to go to sleep at night.
Stalin murdered 23,000,000 would this lower number be more acceptable by doing nothing.
But since we are still dealing with Communist China and many who were part of the great purge are still living, I doubt their previous bloodletting has been removed from the systems yet, Tiananmen Square proved that point.
Saddam Hussein fed live human beings head or feet first into commercial wood chippers and CNN still went to celebrate his birthday.
I would imagine that it is always the same with the Social Democrats in this Country. "They're just little slant eyed slopes whose gonna miss em anyway, besides what has South Korea done for us lately anyway?"
Opinions tend to change when your the one looking down the barrel of a rifle pointed at you.
Mike W| 11.25.10 @ 10:24AM
"Saddam Hussein fed live human beings head or feet first..." Ah, yeah, right, kind of like how he had all of those WMDs. Or kind of like how Iraqi troops tossed babies out of incubators in Kuwait (we know that is true because a young Kuwaiti was paid money to say that to the Congress in the fall of 90. Had to be true.)
RacerJim| 11.24.10 @ 12:11PM
Obama and the Dems are poised to enact the DREAM act during the current "lame duck" session of Congress. No better way to find out just how much those illegal immigrants love America than to send them to the border between North-South Korea and let them fight for America. How's them apples for ya? :-)
Redstateboy| 11.24.10 @ 4:49PM
A must read to understanding the Korean War is Max Hastings - "The Korean War"
We Do Not Want to Fight in North Korea.
Stewart| 11.25.10 @ 11:08AM
Sooner or later this will come to a head. Thev enemie ( Global Capitalist Socialism . ie. China will take over if we dont address this callamity sooner than later! Never! have I seen this threat against FREE MARKET ECONOMY So real in my 56 years on this planet. global capitalist eliteism formed by Progressives here and in europe and china and russia is a cancer in the heart of america( this current and past government sold its soul to liberal socialism under the guise of Global Capitalism ( Consumerism )
JimmyGene| 11.24.10 @ 7:30AM
I have to agree with WTF - there is no way the Chinese are going to stand by idly and allow American boots on the ground in North Korea.
John Guardiano| 11.24.10 @ 8:46AM
Gentlemen,
If the Chinese want to help effect regime change in North Korea, while ensuring that country's peaceful transition to the 21st Century, we should welcome that.
Of course, that would mark a change in policy by the Chinese.
Thus far, Beijing has been less than fully helpful and cooperative re North Korea. Certainly, they could play a more constructive role there.
And if our occupation of North Korea helps to spur more constructive Chinese engagement, well, that is a good thing. Bring it on.
But America cannot wait on the Chinese to contain the North Korean threat. We must act independently in our own interests, and sooner rather than later.
Regards,
John
Alan Brooks| 11.26.10 @ 5:38PM
The fire next time:
"Candy war: Hershey sues Mars over similar packaging "
Son Of Sam| 11.24.10 @ 8:49AM
Jimmy, "boots on the ground' in North Korea is highly unlikely for two reasons:
A) Our beloved TelePrompter in Chief has no stomach for any kind of conflict, except siccing the IRS on taxpayers or the TSA on commercial flyers. While I might agree with the author on us NOT committing chainsaw massacres on the defense budget, the will to defend our nation is more important than the hardware
B) We don't need to send in any troops. I say do what Reagan did: fund the groups working to overthrow this evil regime. We should be doing the same in Iran and Venezuela. Power to the people!
Mel Torme| 11.24.10 @ 7:30AM
">b>And so, sooner or later, the U.S. military is going to have to deal with North Korea. And, when we do, we likely will have to occupy and rebuild the country just as we have done in Iraq and are now doing in Afghanistan. And that will require a lot of boots on the ground."
Complete neo-con bullshit. The author doesn't get American exceptionalism at all. It's was about being the only true free country on earth, not about policing the world. I don't remember anyone declaring America an empire.
We should have pulled those 20-30 thousand troops out of S. Korea long ago. We should terminate all agreements with Taiwan (they will be re-united with the mainland fairly soon anyway). Like WTF said, how many American troops will have to die or be maimed to defend what?? They didn't sign up to defend S. Korea or China; they signed up to defend their own country's constitution. If they are National Guard, I'm sure they'd feel like their fulfilling this duty a whole lot better by being sent to the Mexican border.
Lastly, let the Chinese take care of this. The way things run nowadays, the N. Koreans will be a lot freer (especially economically freer) under the Chinese than under an American occupation.
RacerJim| 11.24.10 @ 12:14PM
Your post validated why I've never liked Mel Torme'.
Mel Torme| 11.24.10 @ 12:44PM
The Velvet Fog doesn't think much of RacerJim either.
nmgene| 11.25.10 @ 1:35AM
Well I guess my father and Uncles fought in Korea for nothing as you just want to give the south back to the North so that the South Korean people can be starved by the corrupt North. With Obumer the coward at the helm we can expect more sabor rattling by North Korea and Iran as the world has lost there fear and respect of our country. For evil to progress, the people must stand by and allow it. I will not stand by and am ready to fight to the last drop to help our friends in South Korea.
ECM| 11.24.10 @ 2:33PM
I was kinda-sorta* with you until this nuttery:
Lastly, let the Chinese take care of this. The way things run nowadays, the N. Koreans will be a lot freer (especially economically freer) under the Chinese than under an American occupation.
There's really no need to ruin a cogent post with silly hyperbole like this.
*South Korea can take care of itself--Taiwan, not so much.
SpiralArchitect| 11.24.10 @ 4:17PM
Isolationalism and Ostrich Politics are seting up for losing the race before it is run.
Would you let the ivy on the wall grow right over the window or would you repel or cut back the ivy a foot or so from the sides of the window?
Too many people would wait until the ivy has obscured the window or completely blocked out any view.
An example closer to 'home'? Try illegal immigration... the ivy has already taken residence on the glass.
greghawk| 11.24.10 @ 7:37AM
Chinese chess - offer 'Hong Kong'-like relations with South Korea in exchange for US withdrawal. North Korean regime eliminated with extreme prejudice, by Chinese fiat. No more nukes. Japan nervous. Yellow Sea 'off limits'. Formosa next on the list.
Mel Torme| 11.24.10 @ 7:43AM
Let me add something here (and sorry for the messed up bolding-tag):
America had much more of a reason to defend some of these places (S. Korea, Vietnam) back in the cold war days. At some points, it indeed looked like Communism was going to take over most of the rest of the world. That would have indeed been a dark day. The US had good reason to defend western Europe and to try to prevent the commies from gaining resources and strategic advantage all over, from Cuba and S. America to Africa to SE Asia.
Now, some would like to compare that to the Moslem vs. western world problems we have today. First of all, we (US and western Europe) wouldn't have much of a problem at all if we didn't invite these people into our country like idiots. Yes, leave the border open, issue "refugee" and family visas, import entire Somali towns into Minnesota. That doesn't sound like the way to fight a war, invite your enemies to become immediate citizens, does it now?
Secondly, the Moslems are in back-assward societies that don't have much chance of threating us if we a) leave them the hell alone, minus a retaliation for 9/11 b) don't let them into our country.
We've got an economy that is going to die soon as the dollar becomes worthless, we're hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt per person, so tell me again why we need to go to the other side of the world and save China and South Korea from North Korea? It sounds like a distraction from the Depression that is coming.
Tenn Slim| 11.24.10 @ 8:49AM
"tell me again...."
OK. Because saving one S K from the Dictator of N K is the moral, correct, gut common sense right thing to do.
Sometimes, it makes absolutely no economic, political sense, to do what is right. In 1950, and I was a Young Sailor then, it was the right thing to do. HST , IKE, and JFK, all understood moral oblicgations.
You can make cases, pro and con, but when the right thing, the correct path, the Hwy 61 decision lies straigh in front, will you have the courage, the guts, to do what is right?
Thats the issue. When the N K start shelling Seoul (sic) will you be willing to cradle the kids now orphans, will you be the first to provide care and aid to the orphans, or will it be economically, and politcially incorrect to stand tall.
Your choice.
Semper Fi
end
Son Of Sam| 11.24.10 @ 8:53AM
Say there Tenn,
Defending an ally from unprovoked aggression by evil tyrants who cant feed their own people is indeed the right thing to do. Its what Reagan would do...but then again, if we HAD a real President, this wouldn't be happening right now.
Besides everything else, I happen to really like the Hyundai Elantra I drive. All praise to the good folks in Free Korea who build 'em!
Son Of Sam| 11.24.10 @ 8:53AM
Say there Tenn,
Defending an ally from unprovoked aggression by evil tyrants who cant feed their own people is indeed the right thing to do. Its what Reagan would do...but then again, if we HAD a real President, this wouldn't be happening right now.
Besides everything else, I happen to really like the Hyundai Elantra I drive. All praise to the good folks in Free Korea who build 'em!
Mel Torme| 11.24.10 @ 10:59AM
No, it's not the right thing to do. The job of the US military is to defend the United States, not the oppressed people of the world. Right now, we are beyond broke, and there won't be much of America to defend if we stay on the path we are on.
Reagan would not have believed in any invasion by US troops that was not for a good national defense reason - what you've got to remember about the 1980's is that the cold war was on, and in some places it was a hot war. We indeed had arguable reasons to have people down in Nicaragua and El Salvador, as Communism, supported by a huge Russian military (in the case) was getting close to us.
It's not the same case today with N. Korea. Tennessee Slim, you may think that it is the job of the US military to overturn every tyrant in the world, but I disagree. That is one argument, but the next one is that even if I agreed with you, this sure ain't the time to spend more Chinese-borrowed money for warfare in Asia. WTF? You know the money in the soldiers', sailor's, and airmen's paychecks and the money for materiel comes from the profits and bribes of Chinese manufacturing taken by their government (in a roundabout way, but that's where it comes from). How do you plan on paying it back?
(I'll answer that last question if you want.)
KingANuthin| 11.24.10 @ 6:59PM
Still missing where in the Constitution that "the right thing to do because you gut says so" is a duty of a Marine to go establish sound government in a foreign land and at the expense of the American citizen .
I don't know what oath you took, but mine was to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic." Jumping into NK will be unconstitutional, just like Afghanistan and Iraq. Will you have the courage and guts to follow your oath? Or will you use Central Government moralization as your justification? Your choice.
Try educating yourself and read our first commander in chief's farewell address.
JimH| 11.24.10 @ 8:26AM
I think this is all heading toward the ideal outcome for the Chinese. After a bloody war the north is reunited with the south. At that point South Korea is weakened and has to take on feeding and rebuilding the north. China will no longer have this responsibility. And at that point there will no longer be any legitimate reason for an American military presence on the peninsula. So far, knowing the cost of fighting, the south has done all it can to avoid confrontation and hope the north collapse on itself. I don’t know what if anything they might be doing to destabilize the north to help this along.
Au Contraire| 11.24.10 @ 9:49AM
"And at that point there will no longer be any legitimate reason for an American military presence on the peninsula."
Are you saying that China isn't the only country that prefers the status quo on the peninsula. Does this mean that...AMERICA has an interest in making sure the NK regime stays in place? Say it ain't so... I thought we were the good guys! Well I'll be...
JimH| 11.24.10 @ 10:14AM
Actually I hadn’t thought of it that way. But I see your point. If one were truly cynical, one could think that the Norks have been left in place in order for us to have an excuse to remain on the mainland. I’m not saying I agree, but is an interesting point. Despite that I do think we are the good guys, though sometimes our hats have more than a little gray than white.
Au Contraire| 11.24.10 @ 10:42AM
Where human beings are concerned, there is no such thing as pure white--or pure black for that matter. The U.S. is about as good as it gets in terms of allowing the better angels of our nature to flourish. But that still doesn't make us angels. That's about as philosophical as I get.
And that's neither here nor there when analyzing the behavior of countries vis-a-vis one another. Best to just focus on interests and advantages, like watching a chess match.
Petronius| 11.24.10 @ 8:28AM
Sounds like Kim Young Shrimp has us right where he wants us, in a lose-lose situation. To those posting here counseling defeat by default with no consideration for effects not just here but globally, what remains of your wretched lives will be well deserved if the Norks and Chinese prevail. And it will be a great deal more unpleasant than just a dearth of i Pods. South Korea has a lot of investment here employing thousands. So this threat puts our entire economic well being on the line, the indifference of the CinC in the White House notwithstanding.
Like it or not, our dog is in this fight.
Ken (Old Texican)| 11.24.10 @ 8:29AM
WTF, and Mel,
You guys forgot to put "no blood for oil" in your childish tantrums.
.....That is because you have never been "without oil and gas". My newest novel explores that.
( www.texassaidno.com )
You guys need to carefully consider the "awful responsibility" discussed in another article here today.
I have lived and administered in many of the countries around the world. In many of them, the "good guys" are hanging on by an eyelash....maybe. Many of them have already paid the price for being a good guy.
I will leave you with one final question you won't know the answer to: "Who is my neighbor?" and who gave the answer in what words?
Tenn Slim| 11.24.10 @ 8:51AM
"Who is my ..."
I believe that was Cain, and his answer given was from the Creator. We are all neighbors, brothers, and when one, of whatever ilk, suffers, then we all need to respond, to stand for what is right, moral and correct.
end
Semper FI
Ken (Old Texican)| 11.24.10 @ 9:53AM
Aww Slim,
You are going to be embarrassed.
Jesus said (St.Luke 10: 29 etc.)to the question "who is my neighbor?
Heh, he told a parable; a story......of the most despised group of people on earth by Jews of the time...Samaritans. The parable of the "Good Samaritan."
Go enjoy it again.
Mel Torme| 11.24.10 @ 11:11AM
Y'all can quote all the parables you want, but Jesus did not advise that one send over the country's soldiers to be good samaritans at the expense of guarding your own borders. A good samaritan, by the Bible's definition, is someone who acts on his own goodwill, not someone ordered to go help. If you two want to go over to the Korean DMZ and help out, there's nobody stopping you.
I don't think there's a whole lot of oil over there in North Korea, Ken, in case you don't know any geography. If there were, it would be a different situation.
I agree with you guys if you say that N. Korea is basically a hellhole (about the worst on earth) both economically and freedom-wise. However, I never heard much talk about our invading China during the late 50's/early 60's when the asshole Mao caused the starvation of about 30 million people. I never heard talk about the US just going ahead and invading the USSR, when Stalin had more people killed than the Germans ever did. What we did back then is to do our best to stop the spread of Communism to our neck of the woods. Why?
I'll tell you why. It's the job of the US government (one of it's only jobs) to defend the nation. It's not the job of the US government to defend every soul in the world. That must be done on a volunteer basis.
Zbigniew Mazurak | 11.24.10 @ 8:30AM
It's great to see someone other than myself defend US defense spending. However, John Guardiano got a few points wrong.
Firstly, the extremely liberal "Center for American Progress" (CAP), an anti-defense organization, was WRONG about defense spending, hence, what it wrote about the subject is not true. Defense spending, as properly defined by Thomas Donnelly (i.e. non-GWOT military spending, AKA the "core defense budget"), constitutes less than 3.5% of GDP (according to Donnelly and the AEI) and a paltry 14.87% of GDP (FY2010 numbers). So the CAP's claim that defense spending amounts to 20% of the total federal budget and 5% of GDP is a lie. The CAP was also wrong to claim that defense spending accounts for more than half of total discretionary spending. The truth is that it ($534 bn for FY2010) accounts for only 37.57% of total discretionary spending ($1421 billion in FY2010).
Even if TOTAL military spending, including not just the defense budget but also spending on Iraq & Afghanistan, is counted, it STILL isn't as big as the CAP claimed. Total FY2010 military spending was $664 bn ($534 bn + $130 bn); that constitutes 4.5% of GDP, 18.5% of the total federal budget, and 46.72% of total discretionary spending (i.e. spending which the Congress needs to reauthorize every year). So even if you count TOTAL military spending, you still don't get the numbers claimed by the CAP.
The second issue on which Mr Guardiano erred is that we, the proponents of new military equipment, are suffering from "a Cold War mindset". That is not true. We simply recognize the fact that now, during the 21st century, it is weapons, not troopers, who decide the results of wars. Even the bravest, best trained, best led troopers don't stand a chance to win a war if they don't have modern military equipment. We're talking about the 21st century, not WW1. Technology, not the number of boots on the ground, decides the results of wars - inasmuch as the US should continue to train its troopers well, as it already does.
And to Mel:
1) No ANG personnel are permanently based in SK. They are Regular Army folks.
2) When you sign up for the military, you sign up to deploy wherever the President and the SECDEF order you to go.
3) You were wrong to claim that "The way things run nowadays, the N. Koreans will be a lot freer (especially economically freer) under the Chinese than under an American occupation." China is one of the most repressive regimes in the world; the CCP is responsible for the murder of 70 mn Chinese citizens; it murders infant children and coerces Chinese women to submit to abortions; it also maintains a network of gulags called laogai. It is ridiculous to claim that the NoKos would be better off if Beijing ruled them than if they were to be liberated by the US.
John Guardiano | 11.24.10 @ 9:02AM
Mr. Mazurak,
Many thanks for your thoughtful and informative note. If I erred by citing data promulgated by the left-wing "Center for American Progress," then I stand corrected.
But we both agree, I think, that defense spending is hardly exorbitant or excessive. The exact data points may be in doubt or in dispute; however, the larger-scale underlying point which the data elucidate is not.
(2) As to your second point about where and how, exactly, we should modernize the U.S. military, let me say this:
I suspect that we have little disagreement here. Like you, I support comprehensive, across-the-board modernization of our military.
However, the truth is that our ground forces have been neglected and given short shrift for decades. I wan to see this historic inequity remedied.
I want to see our ground forces modernized first -- in part to help correct this historic mistake, but also because I think policymakers are far too reluctant to deploy U.S. troops overseas.
Part of this reluctance stems from a fear of casualties, which could be minimized with a better equipped ground force contingent.
So a larger and more modernized ground force contingent would result, I think, in a more assertive U.S. foreign policy, which I support.
Finally, Sir, I will check out and perhaps link to your blog. Thanks again for your note.
Regards,
John
Ken (Old Texican)| 11.24.10 @ 9:41AM
John,
Again, thank you for dropping by.
I would appreciate a brief book review from you here.
If you will contact me at sales@texassaidno.com
I will send you a review copy. It will curl your hair, and will be a great holiday read.
Best regards
John Guardiano | 11.24.10 @ 1:18PM
Sir,
Thanks. I'd love to read and review your book. Will send you an email.
Best,
John
Zbigniew Mazurak | 11.24.10 @ 2:14PM
Dear Mr Guardiano,
Thank you for your reply.
I do agree with you, at least to some degree, that the Army and the Marine Coprs are underinvested and underequipped. Because these two services have borne the brunt of the GWOT, their decades-old-equipment is now damanged, and needs to be rehabilitated. The equipment they lost in GWOT theaters needs to be replaced.
But this is not just the problem of these two services. The USN and the USAF are suffering similar problems. Their equipment is obsolete, worn out by 9 years of continous war, and maintained in small numbers (for example, the Navy's ship fleet is its smallest since 1916).
So all four services are equipped with an insufficient amount of equipment which is worn out as a result of 9 years of continous war. So all four services deserve funding to recapitalize their equipment.
I do not agree with you that the US military has too few servicemembers. It has 2.6 mn men under arms (active and reserve components combined). If it needs to invade NK, it should bring in troops from Germany, Italy, Bosnia, and Kosovo, and stop deploying troops to Iraq and Afghanistan.
You are welcome to visit my website anytime.
Regards,
ZM
Mel Torme| 11.24.10 @ 11:34AM
Mazurak, you are wrong about # 3. I've stayed in China - I've stayed in America. I know which one is losing freedom vs gaining freedom. I don't like to say that, but I know what I see.
About # 1, I didn't mention the Air National Guard. There may be no Nat'l Guard at all in Korea (I'll take your word for that), but the soldiers are like a commodity. If these troops here are stuck in S. Korea, it means they are not in another location (say, Iraq), meaning more Guard troops need to be there.
Put 'em on the US-Mexican border. That way, they can spend time defending their country and it's constitution - that's what they signed up for and too an oath to do - defend the US Constitution.
So, now that I mentioned all that, you are wrong on all 3 counts. You need to read the US Constitution some time, before you spout off. The sames goes for the fool Guardiano.
Zbigniew Mazurak| 11.24.10 @ 12:40PM
#1: The troops stationed in SK are, AFAIK, members of the Active-Duty Army and the AD Air Force, not the National Guard. I'm not aware of any NG units permanently stationed outside the US (although NG units have been frequently deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan, and possibly other countries as well, for certain tours of duty).
If you want to protect the US-Mexican border, bring back troops from Germany, Italy, Bosnia, and Kosovo; and stop deploying troops to Iraq and Afghanistan.
#2: When you sign up for the military, you sign up to deploy wherever the President orders you to. Don't like that fact? Don't sign up (at least not for the AD components of the military).
#3: I've studied the Chinese political system and the PRC's history more thoroughly than you, and I can attest that the PRC is one of the most repressive regimes in the world. If it wasn't, it wouldn't have imprisoned political dissenters like the 2010 Nobel PP winner, and wouldn't have coerced its women to undergo abortions. You should be ashamed that you're defending a vile regime against the greatest democracy the world has ever known.
Mel Torme| 11.24.10 @ 1:02PM
#1) That's what I said, dude, read it. You've got plenty of Nat'l Guard troops in the "sandbox" who could be here defending the southern border. They seem to be needed over there or they wouldn't be there (I don't want to start a 2nd argument about the war over there). If they come home and do what they signed up for, then the S. Korea troops may be needed in the "sandbox" or wherever else. 20,000 troops is not insignificant in terms of numbers for the current day US military.
2) Nope, that's not the oath you take. The oath is to defend the US Constitution. Let me give you an example: If the Secretary of Defense orders 100,000 US troops to Alabama to do traffic stops, search cars and shoot looters, do you obey those orders as a soldier? (well, maybe I shouldn't ask a statist, but I'm asking anybody).
3) Yeah, you studied a lot. I've been there numerous times. No, I don't think it's the new "city on the hill" by any means. I can tell you plenty of real-world situations that made me damned ashamed of America.
Yes, America was the greatest Republic the world has ever known. It never was a democracy! At least learn about your own country, nevermind China.
I agree that the regime running China is vile. I think we have a vileness in our government too. It just takes a long time to wipe out the prosperity and the spirit of freedom that is still in many people here, myself included. Speaking of vile, I could also use that term for the people in America who never fight for freedom (oh, until the government interrupts their vacation schedule).
John Guardiano | 11.24.10 @ 1:16PM
Mr. Mazurak,
I'd like to touch base with you offline, but can find no email address on your blog. Can you send me your contact info? You can reach me at JRGPundit@me.com. Thanks.
Best,
John
Tenn Slime| 11.24.10 @ 8:56AM
Opine
The DOD has many pockets of ill spent, ill advised budgets. These are identifiable, controllable, and usually come under the Earmarks debate.
The DOD mission, on the other hand, is directed, controlled and activated soley by the OBAN Exec branch. Not one CV, not one Sailor, Not one USMC, not one DOD paid civilian goes anywhere, unless directed by the DOD chief. PCS orders, are signed by Direction of the President. Deployments dont just "go", they are directed, sent and authorized.
SO> N K , S K, conflicts, etal, will be met or not at the whim of Obama.
G... help us.
Semper Fi
end
Mel Torme| 11.24.10 @ 11:12AM
Yeah, it might be the one thing he does right in 4 years.
chris haynes| 11.24.10 @ 9:33AM
Our vaunted military is impotent. Our stuff is becoming obsolete. Our bluff is being called.
Face facts. The empire is over. Close it down.
Ken (Old Texican)| 11.24.10 @ 10:00AM
chris,
(with appropriate lower case letters n your name)
Every enemy this side of Neptune is terrified of our military.
It is the Obamas and chrises of the country that are the only problem.
Kiss my arse.
SpiralArchitect| 11.24.10 @ 4:38PM
ROFL - literally.
Best thing I have read today, Ken - thx.
I think the YF-22 ( very much in favor of it from where I stand ) is a good example for much of the discussion here - from either POV.
Back to work; thx to all for an excellent discussion to enguage on my break & especially nice to have the author drop in and participate.
Mel Torme| 11.24.10 @ 11:19AM
Yep. If it were to go on a bumper sticker, it could be:
" Save America - End the Empire"
Ken (Old Texican)| 11.24.10 @ 11:34AM
Mel,
I got a better sticker.
"Our soldiers' graves are our only empire"
You are such a scumbag,(communist), pardon the shorthand.
Mel Torme| 11.24.10 @ 11:37AM
I am the opposite of a communist, as I believe in freedom - especially for Americans, because that is my country.
You give Texas a bad name. Maybe you should change your handle.
Here's some shorthand for you, neo-con: F__k you and the statist horse you rode in on.
Thom| 11.24.10 @ 12:52PM
Mel, you believe in freedom as long as it does not cause you any inconvenience in your wallet or heaven forbid you might actually have to lift a finger in your own defense or someone else’s (following someone else’s orders). Even Thomas Jefferson, the Dove, had to come to grips with the reality in the 1800s you couldn’t let a foreign power 6000 miles away dictate what and when you exercised free trade over the oceans. Same deal with North Korea, we have a sizable investment in South Korea that bolsters our own economic freedom and contrary to the isolationist/pacifist mindset both Taiwan and South Korea’s defensive posture is the result of our agreement with China. They both buy our weapon systems at considerable cost over the comparable Russian or Chinese systems and are limited by our agreements with the Communist Chinese to stay totally defensive in nature to keep a couple million Communist Chinese and North Korea army soldiers from bearing down on them at the drop of a hat. Contrary to another isolationist/pacifist myth our military can’t defend our economic interest or our physical security camped on the beaches of the East, West and Gulf coast. Your thinking is a century behind reality on the battlefield. Try growing up Mel. You might find yourself in a real shooting war here and have to make the first real adult decision in your life. As it is, you talk like someone working for our enemy’s interest.
Mel Torme| 11.24.10 @ 8:04PM
Thom, you don't even know who the enemy is, and you talk about fighting the last century's battle? The enemy is a lot closer than you think. More like Washington, DC than Pyongyang or Beijing.
Zbigniew Mazurak| 11.24.10 @ 12:32PM
America does not have an empire - unless by the empire you mean:
1) the graves of the thousands of Americans that died to liberate foreign countries;
2) American bases located in countries which the US government has promised to defend.
America is not an empire, so there is no empire to end or close.
Your pattern of namecalling, witnessed by myself, Ken, and John Guardiano, suggests that you are not a serious debater, but rather an unruly child. Please leave this website.
Mel Torme| 11.24.10 @ 1:33PM
Well, you get your wish for now, cause I've got to get some work done. I'll write a reply to your asinine claim that the US is not an empire later on. Look for it.
SpiralArchitect| 11.24.10 @ 4:41PM
Yea, where is Albert Brook anyway? :)
Mel Torme| 11.24.10 @ 6:51PM
It sounds to me, Mr. Mazurak that you just don't want to distinguish between the past and the present. America was a great and free republic in it's past. Our country saved Europe (at least) from Nazism, saved much of the world from Communism, and we did it mostly without taking away the freedoms of the American people in the meantime. If you have to become a police state in order to win a war, what in the heck is the point of winning the war? What is there to defend, once your country becomes a police-state shithole? One ruler is as bad as the next in that case.
America has become an empire over the middle of the last century. For most of that time, I would say we were a force for good too. By defending W. Germany from the E. German tanks, we were also helping America. How? If the Russians (via their proxy, the E. Germans) got the resources of W. Germany and more control of the world, that was bad for us. It was the same for Korea, Vietnam, Cuba, Nicaragua, Afghanistan, etc. The cold war was fought all over the world.
So, my point is that American had reasons to make deals for, and build, bases of all sorts all over the globe from the 1940's through the 1980's. We helped rebuild western Europe and Japan, and we paid for all of their defense during that time. Looking back farther, we even helped the Chinese before and during WWII with the American Volunteer Group which fought the Japanese in the air over China and brought in huge amounts of supplies.
Yes, we helped out about every region of the world. The cold war is over now. That does not mean Communism is not a threat, though, it's just that this threat is coming from within now, mostly from our own Federal Government.
We need to realize that we no longer should, and no longer can, be the policeman of the world. I'll elaborate in my next post - this one is getting long.
Zbigniew Mazurak| 11.25.10 @ 7:42AM
America is not, and should not be, the world's policeman. The fact that the US defends victims of aggressions, deters aggressors, and helps other countries doesn't mean the US is the world's policeman. The US simply often intervenes abroad - as does the UK, Russia and France.
The US hasn't become an empire. The fact that the US does as I wrote above doesnt' mean it's an empire. And BTW, during the Cold War, France, Britain and Germany had sizeable defense budgets and militaries, so it's not true that the US paid 100% of the cost of their defenses.
The US is still the greatest democracy in the world. The Obama Admin hasn't changed that fact and cannot change it regardless of what it does. You have utterly discredited yourself by calling the US "a police-state shithole".
Mel Torme| 11.24.10 @ 7:07PM
Let me elaborate: I would probably not bother writing about this is the date were 1990 or so. It's not that I didn't agree in principal with what I wrote above, it's just that America was still in much better shape. Do you all realize how bad a shape this country is in financially? Do you know where our Federal Government's spending money is coming from?
This is why I am so surprised by people like Ken, whose posts I would agree with 95 % of the time, till now. Yeah, of course most of the commenters here believe in smaller government. They believe in the US Constitution most of the time, maybe all of the time with the exception of not knowing Defense from Offense.
I just can't believe you all think that the American Fed. Gov't should be more concerned with how people in Iraq or N. Korea are being treated than with the well-being of our own citizens. WAIT! No, I am not a socialist, writing that we need more welfare, more gov't domestic programs, etc. Don't read that into my sentence (2 back). I am for elimination of 95 % of the US government for the simple reason that 95 % of it is using powers that Amendment 10 of the Bill of Rights delegates to the States and the People.
Defense of the US is indeed one of the few powers that the 13 states granted to the Federal Govt back in 1789. They did not say "providing for a common offense, whereby the US military (only the Navy was specified then) could just go bomb the crap out of any country we disagreed with.
Yeah, we were attacked on 9/11, so retaliation is in order. However, in almost 10 years, the Federal Gov't has done none of the obvious things to defend citizens from the next one. Obvious, hell yeah, here you go: Don't give entry visa to Mohammad and his 100,000 brothers. Keep track of all types of visas, and deport those who are beyond their stay period. Guard the US/Mexican border. Check all incoming freight to the US (yes, that means containers) for people or bombs. None of this applies within the US - see that is the difference between a free country and otherwise, and it defines the difference between a citizen and a non-citizen.
Oh, yeah, stop disarming law-abiding Americans, *especially* at the airport, where that's what got 3,000 + people killed to begin with.
You feel somehow that our government should put the worries of the S. Koreans and Chinese above the huge problems we have here?. We're heading for a depression, my friends, and S. Korea ain't at the top of my list of worries.
Believer| 11.24.10 @ 9:36AM
The solution in NKorea is simple, tell China to stop rattleing sabors or the U.S. will stop buying Chinas cheap goods. If you take America off the market China goes into recession, even depression. OBW we might as well get rid of our Nukes as Modern politicians dont have the balls to use them anyway.
David W| 11.24.10 @ 12:39PM
Any time I am shopping and I have a choice between Mainland China and another country as the maker, I will chose the other country. I even spent a few more dollars on a pair of jeans because they were made in Mexico instead of the cheaper pair made in Red China. Of course, I wasn't shopping at Walmart either.
William R| 11.24.10 @ 9:56AM
We shouldn't have troops in Korea to begin with. And I will let you in a little secret. The Kagan's are a disaster.
Zbigniew Mazurak | 11.24.10 @ 3:14PM
The alternative is to surrender 26 mn South Koreans to a Stalinist dictatorship armed with nuclear weapons (which SK does not possess).
William R| 11.24.10 @ 3:31PM
Nonsense!
William R| 11.24.10 @ 3:31PM
Nonsense!
Redstateboy| 11.24.10 @ 9:57AM
I'm still not hearing anyone saying: "follow the money." Is it not conceivable there are people in China who believe now is China's time for world SuperPower status? NK is China's Pit Bull. China unleashes its Pit Bull on SK.. SK is a huge competitor to Chinese economic dominance in Asia. America has a weak moron for President, China holds our debt.. they want Taiwan.. it makes perfect sense from Chinese standpoint
Nunya| 11.26.10 @ 12:20PM
Red, you may be on to something here. The Chinese have always been long-term thinkers in planning to take over the world (and I mean that seriously), it could be that with Obozo they see a chance to push their agenda forward. Interesting thought....
WTF| 11.24.10 @ 10:19AM
NK claims the South fired artillery shells at the Northern Limit line; this should be verifiable.
I believe the NK when they said the South killed three soldiers prior to the recent sub sinking. It's obvious the NK is intent on overreaction.
Dustoff| 11.24.10 @ 10:37AM
One thing I haven't seen anyone comment on. What would China do when the North fell and thousands or millions of N. Korean's came rushing into China for food and help?
Redstateboy| 11.24.10 @ 10:49AM
I don't suspect China has Will or a Manpower issue when it comes to sealing their border with NK
RCV| 11.24.10 @ 12:04PM
You've hit the nail on the head: the thing China fears most is instability, both domestically and in North Korea. Their interest in propping up the Kim regime is keeping the lid on potential unrest on its border, which is what it fears most (both because of the influx of North Koreans AND the potential for unrest spreading into China itself).
Thom| 11.24.10 @ 1:01PM
RCV, the North Korean population if what percentage of China? A sizable portion of North Korean population already lives in mainland China.... China's only fear here is a united Korea with western ties and weapons on their border.
Au Contraire| 11.24.10 @ 1:23PM
China is not the only country that favors the status quo. Reunification would mean not just a humanitarian crisis for China and South Korea, but in all likelihood a U.S. departure from the peninsula. Washington has no interest in giving up that solid military foothold on China's doorstep. The Chicoms are vile, but they're not the only ones playing the great game here.
RCV| 11.24.10 @ 2:43PM
The chaos would not be something China would want. Read Barbara Demick's terrific book on the bleakness of life in the North Korean gulag, "Nothing to Envy." Even with the tightest border in the world today, North Koreans daily risk their lives to get to what is a paradise compared to their own lives.
cvs| 11.24.10 @ 11:10AM
Less guns and less butter. But if some of the populace feel the need for more spending I'm sure the pentagon would take personal checks.
LeoInTheWoods| 11.24.10 @ 11:22AM
The way to addess this belligerent is as follows: 1) Deploy modern missile cruisers (the new stealth jobs) to the sea around North Korea. Be obvious about it. 2) A public refusal to reatify a START treaty, on the basis that the DPRK's belligerence suggests that we may need to use them soon. 3) Encourage South Korea to resume the training operations that were interrupted by North Korea's shelling a few days ago. 4) When the North shells again, begin a missile attacl on their nuclear arms, enrichment and research facilities. Don't stop until those facilities are dust. 5) when the DPRK makes a bit hullaballoo about our attack, ask them which of the many, many disarmament agreements they'll accept to end the confrontation.
Thom| 11.24.10 @ 1:13PM
LeoInTheWoods, a couple of problems here. First we don’t have any “stealth cruisers” and aren’t going to. What you call a cruiser was actually an oversized frigate by armament, classed as a Destroyer for political purposes and priced like a Battleship. Second, when one plays the game you are suggesting the other side always gets a vote in the outcome. If anyone attacks the North they had better be prepared to carry through on the full Monty else they might end up being dragged into something they aren’t prepared for and behind the power curve on. We have a history of that and the graves of a lot of servicemen sacrificed in vain because we look at this as a game rather that what it is. Be careful what you wish for. The North Koreans are already in place, we aren’t.
LeoInTheWoods| 11.24.10 @ 1:58PM
Thom,
I appreciate your more contemporary knowledge re: cruisers vs. frigates.
I believe the other side has already posted their vote in the matter, repeatedly and consistently.
And, I don't see that the lengthy preparations to get to where we are today have been fruitful. More Chamberlainesque action will get more of the same results.
Thom| 11.24.10 @ 2:33PM
Of course. NK has followed this MO so many times we now assume it is more of the same and naturally we respond in a predictable way which is not in our best interest given our response is more like showing the "flag" rather than putting a creditable threat on the page. Being predictable is normally not a good thing in such matters and the National Command Chain we have is not just predictable but narrow minded like Chamberlain. Chamberlain flaw wasn’t that he tried to negotiate with a Dictator bent on revenge and expansion of the German Empire, it was he brought nothing to the table but weakness and a one trick phony called “Peace in our Times”. Hitler didn’t want peace in his time and often peaceniks just can’t accept that is the way of the world much of the time. Blowing up naval ships and dropping 200 rounds of artillery on a defenseless island isn’t just more of the same from NK. They want to embarrass the South Korean government and show it is a paper Tiger and on our leash because they are. They don’t have the means to take out the North. That would require weapons they don’t have, we won’t sell them and a lot larger military to absorb the blow of an offensive operation against the North. Naturally the Trolls are all for the Communists in this matter. Always are.
Zbigniew Mazurak | 11.24.10 @ 3:17PM
Well, but those Ticonderoga class cruisers are very capable, aren't they? They have SPY-1 radars and can be modified for BMD duties. 3 Tico class cruisers have already undeergone such modification. If you adapt all Tico class cruisers and all Burke class surface combatants (which are very good at intercepting incoming cruise missiles) to BMD duty, you can make NK's ballistic missile arsenal irrelevant, as all of their BMs, even if launched simoultaneously, would still be intercepted by almost 80 Aegis class vessels.
Thom| 11.24.10 @ 5:36PM
Zbigniew, the Aegis system properly deployed is capable but our ships (most) have an inherit weakness designed in to their designs to save money, the Burkes more so. All defenses can be overwhelmed given enough force applied to the equation and adding TMD missiles into the mix is kind of a mixed blessing as it diminishes one capability for another. Because of this, you can get a soft kill of a Battle Group by running it out of missiles with massed attacks on a narrow axis. The BG will have to depart once it approaches that point and when you talk about mainland China and the number of hostile land based and air launched missiles, the potential there becomes possible under the right circumstances. Not saying this would be easy but it would be a lot easier with a lone BG showing the “Flag” and getting caught in a massed attack.
Senor Mick| 11.24.10 @ 1:08PM
Let the Chinese and the South Koreans police their own goddam table.
I mean, for God's sakes.
chris haynes| 11.24.10 @ 1:10PM
Question for military people?
China. How do we take them on, with inferior weapons?
How many years till their stuff is better? 5? 10? Maybe its better now.
We dont make civilian electronics any more. How do we keep up with a country that makes cell phones, with cameras, for 10 bucks? laptops for a hundred. All the other gadgets.
We cant.
So let's quit, before we get hurt. Time to close down our empire, lay off the military, mind our own business, save money.
Greylion| 11.24.10 @ 4:14PM
chris,
Do one of two things:
A.
GreyLion| 11.24.10 @ 4:16PM
A. Go ahead and quit. You won't be missed.
B. Get some courage and sign up for the Marine Corps, they will cure you or kill you. Either way you get fixed.
WTF| 11.24.10 @ 1:33PM
China, by way of Russia, has Sunburn cruise missiles on Su-27 fighter bombers. They're meant to destroy carriers, and they will. Forget Aegis, Phalanx, picket ships, what-have-you; they'll get through. Look them up - and Onyx as well. I believe China will use them and any other conventional weapon because nuclear exchanges are unthinkable.
Thom| 11.24.10 @ 1:55PM
WTF, have you ever seen an SS-N-22 Sunburn shipboard launched cruise missile? Just where do they hang that on an SU-27 and still get it off the ground. Long before Aegis, AT Upgrades were able to take out Talos flying at Mach 2+ at sea level with early Standard SM-1s and 2s. How much are the Communists paying you to put out this crap?
jstwndring| 11.24.10 @ 1:34PM
Nope. We do NOT need to nation build. We wanna go kick their ass, fine. Beyond that, it becomes their problem. I don't want the world to love us--just fear us. We can go humble them militarily. South Korea can go nation build if they want.
Melvin| 11.24.10 @ 2:10PM
Their might be an easier solution to all this. Where is China getting all this high speed low drag technology from?......Their stealing it from us, various universities and Los Alamos.
After it is swiped, Chinese engineers educated and still working in places like Los Alamos redesign the technology at times making it better.
So what do we do? Immediately freeze all access to our defense technolgoy, and prevent the President and future Presidents getting all weak in the knees and just plain giving the ChiComs submarine propulsion designs as Bill Clinton did .
By removing Chinese Engineers and scientists from accessing our defense technology should put a serious damper on their designs for conquering the world.
Thom| 11.24.10 @ 2:38PM
Melvin, that will happen when we send the 67,000 brave TSA troopers to our southern border and keep out the "hispanics" successfully crossing the border to the tune of 500,000 a year.
chris haynes| 11.24.10 @ 3:09PM
In 10 years, China will have clear military superiority. Does anyone dispute that?
William R| 11.24.10 @ 3:29PM
Yes! We spend three times as much on defense as China.
Thom| 11.24.10 @ 4:12PM
Chris, China has had quantitative superiority for some time (quantity times number of things) where as ground combat is concerned. A third of our forces are Navy related and China has no such capability and isn’t going to overcome our naval capability unless they match us unit for unit and then some. That can’t be done in a decade. Of course they don’t need a blue water Navy unless they wish to extend their military power beyond mainland China which will bump head long into our interests and Japan’s. Sooner or later Japan is going to have to get the clue here at which time bad things are likely to happen in Eastern Asia. Look at a map, you can’t really separate out the interest of South Korea, Japan and Taiwan from those of an expansionist China. Contrary to the Moron’s view you can’t compare our expenditures to another country’s without a quantitative conversion of their currency/standard of living to how two products actually compare under real world conditions. A Chinese built AK-47 cost a fraction of the cost of a Union based US Company doing the same product here. It cost a fraction of the cost of our M16 family to produce regardless of where it is produced. The M16 family is generally superior to the AK47 family under most battlefield conditions but both will kill you dead as a door nail within their effective range all else equal. Simply put, 12 Marines with M16s aren’t going to come out on the good side of a fight with a company of Chinese soldiers armed with AK47s that cost less than the 12 M16s the Marines carry. Numbers do matter even in a so called push button world. Our M1 tanks cost a couple million to build a couple decades + ago. God knows what new ones would cost today. Pound for pound we still have the edge but the Chinese have tons to our pounds. At some point, under the wrong circumstances that would matter.
Redstateboy| 11.24.10 @ 4:18PM
TAS had an excellent piece on the US Taxpayers paying China's entire Military budget on just the interest on our National debt.
Thom| 11.24.10 @ 4:33PM
Of course. We always help out our enemies with that which we can least afford to do.
WTF| 11.24.10 @ 3:10PM
www.ausairpower.net, Thom. How.....aying you?
WTF| 11.24.10 @ 3:13PM
My post scrambled. That's not what I posted.
chris haynes| 11.24.10 @ 3:57PM
Wow, we spend 3 times what China spends.
But their economy, it's tripling every 10 years, if the last 30 years are a guide. So ten years from now, wont they spend the same.
And today. What are their costs compared to ours? What if their costs are one third of ours.
I hear we pay our troops more than they do. More than 3 times. And our defense workers, mostly good union wages, they earn more than the ones in China. 10 times.
And their supplies. Like electronics, shipbuilding, other stuff. Their producers are more efficient than ours. Cause of mass production of civilian goods. America, we dont do civilian goods any more.
And research. I hear theyre spendign like crazy. We dont do civilian research. And they graduate engineers by the million.
But in spite of this, you still figure we will be ahead in ten years?
Here's what I figure. They will be far ahead. We should get our head out of the sand, before we get hurt.
Greylion| 11.24.10 @ 4:19PM
Kid, quit crapin' your pants. Run along to mommy now and let the big boys do their thing.
Ed| 11.24.10 @ 3:59PM
I agree with the author that we have to keep our military well armed and well maintained.
But if North Korea falls, let the ROK do the peacekeeping and nation building. They can afford it.
Radioman777| 11.24.10 @ 6:44PM
As long as Obama hangs around, it'll be difficult for us to maintain a well armed military. He cancelled the F-22 program, which should've had a buy of 300+ aircraft (which would've lowered the unit cost considerably), but though nothing of spending hundreds of billions on what amounted to vote buying, walking around money. The obvious conclusion is that his political ambition trumps national security.
Our armed forces should be at least 2.5 times their present size in order to be effective. Unfortunately, lots and lots of the historically ignorant seem to believe the ramblings of various military "experts" who seem to think there'll never, ever, be any such thing as a large scale set piece war. Well, they're wrong. Unfortunately the cost of being wrong will be high.
KingANuthin| 11.24.10 @ 7:12PM
"So likewise, a passionate attachment of one nation for another produces a variety of evils. Sympathy for the favorite nation, facilitating the illusion of an imaginary common interest in cases where no real common interest exists, and infusing into one the enmities of the other, betrays the former into a participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter without adequate inducement or justification. It leads also to concessions to the favorite nation of privileges denied to others which is apt doubly to injure the nation making the concessions; by unnecessarily parting with what ought to have been retained, and by exciting jealousy, ill-will, and a disposition to retaliate, in the parties from whom equal privileges are withheld. And it gives to ambitious, corrupted, or deluded citizens (who devote themselves to the favorite nation), facility to betray or sacrifice the interests of their own country, without odium, sometimes even with popularity; gilding, with the appearances of a virtuous sense of obligation, a commendable deference for public opinion, or a laudable zeal for public good, the base or foolish compliances of ambition, corruption, or infatuation."- George Washington
Mel Torme| 11.24.10 @ 8:24PM
KingANuthin, I don't think many of these commenters want to hear from George Washington. Too old school, too freedom-oriented, not into the whole empire thing.
Thom| 11.24.10 @ 10:06PM
It made sense when it took weeks, months to cross the ocean and military power projection was limited to a few hundred yards. You want to live in the 18th century, move to Switzerland and be prepared to actually serve in the military. When you are every despots banker in the middle of the high Alps you can afford to this view.
Mel Torme| 11.24.10 @ 10:24PM
That's one big contradiction in one paragraph. So, you say things are different now, but then the Swiss are not separated by any ocean from many countries (in particular one that started the 2 biggest wars ever known). They do have mountains, but mountains don't stop modern-day air power.
I think the fact that they are bankers helps their economy, but that was not what stopped the Nazis. The Nazis "opted out" of an invasion due to their knowledge of the Swiss plans to guard every mountain pass with men and explosives.
In the modern world, people come into (or attack) a country in different ways. Those ways are:
a) Via missiles: Example: Cold War ICBM standoff and MAD "agreement" (you may kill many here, but you can't get all our missiles before they are off the ground to destroy as much of your country). Current solution is "Star-Wars" anti-ICBM technology.
Military Aircraft: We have good defenses around our coast and borders. Unmanned submarines are probably the next thing, but luckily they are just carrying drugs - doesn't bother me a bit.
By Military Sea vessels: We have the best Navy in the world - even allowed by US Constitution.
By Military Invasion from the North or South: Luckily we have a good neighbor to the North, and Mexico is too incompetent to launch one, with the exception of the drug cartels (still could be defeated, but requires willpower and political incorrectness by Fed Gov't - not forthcoming right now)
By Civilian Aircraft - This is the reason for Customs & Immigration enforcement. But, you have to not issue visas to certain groups of people who we all know will contain (even as low as 1 %) people who are enemies of the US before they arrive. We know what these groups are, but the political incorrectness is, again, lacking, so defense here is missing.
By Container Ship: See above about people, and all cargo should be searched.
By Non-military Invasion from the south: Been going on for 20-30 years with no defense at all. Soldier are not guarding the border due to US Gov't non-compliance with citizens' wishes and deployment of soldiers all over the rest of the world guarding other countries' borders.
Thom| 11.24.10 @ 11:24PM
The Swiss have nothing anyone wants else they would have been invaded repeatedly over the last 400 years of nothing but war in Europe. Get it Mel.
Every nation Germany gobbled up added manpower and resources to their war machine. Same for the Soviets. What do you think Saddam would have done with his new found wealth in Kuwait if we had let that stand? Buy more baby formula for his starving infants we heard so much about during Oil for Food?
Somebody is going to buy the oil, we didn’t get but 15% from the Gulf then.
You are preaching the same old isolationist tripe. We tried that in the early part of the last century and got our asses kicked on an anniversary coming up in about two weeks. Tell us all Mel, why did the Japanese attack us on Dec 7th 1941 and why then did we declare war on Germany? Germany was in no position to help Japan out of the fix they got themselves in or the other way around. Wasn’t something they really wanted on their plate at that moment in time either. All we did was cut off raw material and fuel supplies to Japan and look what such a benign move got us. Next you be telling me we shouldn’t have been in the Philippines nor Hawaii. Hawaii wasn’t part of the United States at that time and the Philippines was a protectorate or conquered territory if that suits your Empire fetish better. Come on Mel tell us how you would deconstruct this Empire you say we are? We fought for the bulk of this land mass we call the United States; we bought a much small portion of it. The Empire as you call us didn’t vote itself into being thus if you have a problem with the Empire you might go somewhere where you can’t find what you think an Empire is. Get back with us when you find such a place.
Radioman777| 11.25.10 @ 12:45AM
The Germans actually threatened the Swiss with invasion because they were a transit point for refugees from the Nazi regime. Reportedly when Von Ribbentrop asked the Swiss ambassador what Switerland would do if the Nazis invaded them with 2 million men, the answer he got was that "every Swiss soldier will shoot four times". For you obviously non-military types, the problem anyone would have invading a country like Switzerland is terrain, terrain, and terrain. Airpower does not conquer and hold territory, although you can't really operate without it. Having a determined and well armed foe in mountainous terrain with a lot of chokepoints is a guaranteed recipe for a long meatgrinding slog that no one wants to be in. It's the next best thing to urban combat, as far as being able to deny the enemy any sort of technical advantage goes.
Nunya| 11.26.10 @ 1:42PM
Also remember that every home in Switzerland has a fully automatic firearm. Nobody wants to invade a country where EVERYONE has a gun and can fire back. Far easier to invade where only the military has firearms...
Nunya| 11.26.10 @ 1:41PM
Thom, we declared war on Japan, Germany then declared war on us so we retaliated. Japan attacked us because we cut off their fuel for their war against China. At the time the US was the largest exporter of oil in the world....my how times have changed.
Thom| 11.24.10 @ 8:11PM
This made sense in Washington’s time where thousands of miles and weeks if not months separated us from any potential enemy but has zero credibility in the age of ballistic missiles and nuclear weapons. The ash heap of history is full of swallowed up nation states that took no side or formed an alliance with other similar minded states and stood alone when their turn came. Ask the Poles about trying to stay out of the affairs of those to the East and West of them….. Dying last is not virtue when death to millions of your fellow citizens is but 30 minutes away.
Mel Torme| 11.24.10 @ 8:21PM
Thom, did you read the history of WWII, like, in particular, about the English/Polish agreement. There was an alliance. Poland was overrun in a blitzkrieg, and that's when Great Britain entered the war. Do you seriously not know how World War II started?
So, your analogy would go thusly: Poland should enter an alliance because otherwise they might get overrun by the Nazis, which they did, and they did. Also, the Poles should have had their army all over the world minding the world's business, I guess, even though they would be so overextended that they couldn't even go 3 weeks against the Nazis.
The US is not only overextended, but we are quickly going bankrupt too (no, I don't blank the bankrupt part all on the military, but procurement does waste huge amounts). So, that's not really the best time to get involved in a war on the other side of the world that has nothing to do with our defense.
Maybe we can sell more US Fed. Gov't bonds to the Chinese at low interest rates to support this next venture. If not, it's really hard to re-supply when you're broke.
Thom| 11.24.10 @ 8:26PM
Mel, I know a bit more than WWII and do you know how many times what is called Poland today has been overrun fromboth the West and the East. As for the so called alliance with Britian and France, well Mel how die the work out for the Poles being invaded from the West by the Germans and the Russians from the East at the same time? All Poland had was a worthless piece of paper as demostrated to the entire world.
Mel Torme| 11.24.10 @ 9:03PM
Exactly, that's what I just said. Is that a habit of yours, repeating my argument back to me as your argument.
Here, we can do this again:
There was an alliance. Poland was overrun in a blitzkrieg, and that's when Great Britain entered the war. Do you seriously not know how World War II started?
The alliance did Poland no good at all. That's what I wrote and you seem to be agreeing. (I wrote that because you said "Ask the Poles about trying to stay out of the affairs of those to the East and West of them ..." No, they were not staying out of affairs, as they had an alliance with Great Britain.) Agreed? Great! Now, think about why the Nazis did not invade Switzerland. Mull over that, or read a book on it.
Thom| 11.24.10 @ 9:50PM
No Mel, Poland had a promise on paper that neither France nor Britain could follow through on nothing more. You have no alliance if your benefactors can’t come help you. It was nothing more than a bluff that got called and as you seem to forget the Brits and the French sat safely behind their defenses in France and across the Channel for another 8 months after the Germans crushed the Polish Army along with the Red Army coming in from the East. France had no offensive ground capability having bet the farm on fixed defenses and all the Brits did was take it in the shorts off Norway. The history of Poland is full of alliances with one side or the other to keep from being road kill every time the latest conquer moved east or west through that part of the world. South Korea is not Poland, we can get to them and have support facilities and bases there for that purpose going back 60 years. We also have real mutual support treaties with them, Taiwan and Japan not worthless paper promises. What you are suggesting is the same FDR/Neville Chamberlain up your arse method of defense. Keep everything at home or tied at the pear and wait till you can see the whites of their eyes before preparing for the war that is coming. That is precisely the policy that cost 60 millions their lives and over 50% of our GDP between 42 and 45 there Mel playing catch up. Your policy has never kept anyone out of a serious war and has the nasty propensity to enable one. You think we are broke now just wait till you see what a real war looks like on the Korean peninsula and surrounding waters if our excessive 4.5% of GDP spending on Defense doesn’t deter North Korea. You had better pray they aren’t half the nut job they pretend to be most of the time. BTW, how much are they paying you to shill for them?
The Germans did not invade Switzerland for three very good reasons. One, they didn’t need too, Switzerland is of no strategic value and is very rugged terrain and not suitable to blitzkrieg. Two, the Swiss unlike the French and Brits were prepared for war, they always are to some extent. Three, have you noticed the Swiss speak German. In addition the Germans did consider it but after the Swiss using BF109 the Germans sold them shot down German planes that strayed into their air space they reconsidered. The Swiss have stayed out of war in Europe for over 400 years not because they are neutral but because they are like West Virginia and nobody wants to fight both the land and the people armed to the teeth.
Mel Torme| 11.24.10 @ 10:07PM
"The Swiss have stayed out of war in Europe for over 400 years not because they are neutral but because they are like West Virginia and nobody wants to fight both the land and the people armed to the teeth."
Right on that. Notice that the Swiss were not allied with anyone, and they had never had armed forces all over the world (yes, I know they are land-locked). The last part, that is the key; peace through strength. That does not mean peace through display of all your weaponry against small states.
"What you are suggesting is the same FDR/Neville Chamberlain up your arse method of defense." Nonsense... I never, in all my dozen or more comments, suggested that the US reduce our forces. I said we save our military for defense purposes. I couldn't care less who ends up running North Korea.
"We also have real mutual support treaties with them, Taiwan and Japan not worthless paper promises." Yeah, I guess that all depends on what you mean by "mutual" - is it "we defend the oceans and the skies, and they run a huge trade surplus selling us all the consumer goods that Americans can't make any more" in return? Mutuality - highly overrated.
Yes, Tom, the North Koreans are paying me. It just doesn't seem like real money, because it is in dollars. I asked them for gold, but they don't have any UPS or FedEx or DHL hub, so they told me " ... if it good enough for Ben Barnacle, it good enough for you, Gui Lao... you go now .. no take any more rice and dumpling."
Thom| 11.24.10 @ 10:52PM
Mel, let’s move the people of Poland to where the Swiss live and the Swiss to Poland and see how this equation changes a bit. Poland is not defendable and has strategic value while Switzerland is quite defendable and of no strategic value what so ever. The Swiss have the life they have because of where they are located. Move them to Poland and they’ll become Poles (or real Germans to survive).
You still don’t grasp that we don’t live in the 18th century any longer. Our military cannot defend either our economic interest or our physical being from the beaches of the three coasts. Threats can quiet literally come from 7-8000 miles away with no advanced notice at all. Why do you think we moved a very large OTH radar system to the Hawaii islands with TMD Aegis ships in tow when the North started to test fire longer range missiles? Just one missile getting through will result in many times our war dead since the founding of this country and it is very much harder to track and intercept a released warhead on reentry than hitting the missile in the boost phase on launch out of North Korea. You have to think moving that OTH radar system to Hawaii is all political theater to keep the Empire going I suspect. You can’t have it both ways. You can’t say you are for a strong defense and then undercut the very act of defense at the point it makes the most sense and has the best chance of success for the least cost.
As for your dislike of buying better made and less costly products from abroad well Mel, news flash most Americans can’t afford the high end Union produced products made here like what you get from GM any longer and if what you are using to carrying on this conversation was still made here , you would be paying double for the pleasure. That’s what happens when you price your labor out of the market and try to control wages with Guilds. This Nation was founded on Free Market economics and a healthy competitive spirit that made us a two ocean trading Nation long before you came on the scene. The people doing my job in India started out at less than one tenth what I make here and they had better equipment and working conditions. They didn’t live in boxes either but neither do they have all the things we take for granted like the cost of Freedom. Trust me Mel, no one is going to get in your way as you escape the reality of this country to where ever it is that fits your 18th century views. I recommend Switzerland. They have a well established record of letting tens of millions die all around them while they watched from their lofty perches in the Alps. Seems like an ideal place for you and yours. Not a care in the world and not a chance in hell of having to ever take a stand against anything unpleasant. Try it, it might agree with you, you never know.
Zbigniew Mazurak| 11.25.10 @ 9:28AM
"Right on that. Notice that the Swiss were not allied with anyone, and they had never had armed forces all over the world (yes, I know they are land-locked). The last part, that is the key; peace through strength. That does not mean peace through display of all your weaponry against small states."
True. But it does mean maintaining the strongest military in the world, and that, in turn, requires a defense budget of at least 3.75% of GDP, which is what the DOD has requested for FY2011 - yet, the Congress has so far refused to approve this budget.
Zbigniew Mazurak| 11.25.10 @ 2:37AM
WW2 started with a Japanese aggression against China (1937); for Europe, though, WW2 began with an unprovoked German aggression against Poland; Britain and France swore to defend Poland, but, as with Czechoslovakia, they violated their promises.
In 1939, the Poles were just trying to live normal lives. The Germans, though, invaded their country and murdered 6 mn of them.
Led Display | 11.24.10 @ 8:40PM
It's a wide world, Old Texan. There's more ways to a fulfilling life than getting the toys. Though as the Good Lord constituted you, that's probably hard for you to understand.Fiber Optic Splice Closure
Mel Torme| 11.24.10 @ 10:31PM
There ya go. Perfect! Let's ask LED Display guy about this:
You're in China, right, LED Display guy? Tell us why we are not manufacturing anything here, and how we can have a prosperous economy without making anything. Didn't y'all used to do that in China? What happened back then?
Why do y'all think that we owe you so much money? Though we are broke, is it our obligation to defend the Oriental people of S. Korea, while, come to think of it, you guys are Oriental too? Couldn't you all just get along, over there?
If you can answer my questions, I think American Spectator will be obligated to buy a gross of Fiber Optic Splice Closures, so that we may close-up our fiber-optic splices.
Thank you, oh wise LED Display man! You are truly the people's Fiber Optic Splic Closure salesman.
charles794| 11.24.10 @ 10:27PM
The whole North & South Korea busines has nothing to do with anything; it is merely permanent source of cheap jokes for the Chinese. Both Koreas will be invaded by China the moment the poor misguided Koreans wise up & try to reconcile with each other .
Thom| 11.24.10 @ 11:26PM
You might be closer to the truth than you think....
Mike W| 11.25.10 @ 10:26AM
It's a great idea to borrow from the Chinese so we can defend a S. Korea that doesn't need our defense. That's just what I want to do with my tax dollars.
Listen here all of you chickenhawk keyboard heroes. Play war with your own d... money. Leave mine alone.
Zbigniew Mazurak| 11.25.10 @ 12:04PM
America doesn't borrow money from ANYONE to pay for its DOD. The annual tax revenue of the US Federal Government ($2.333 TRILLION per year) is enough to pay not only for the core defense budget, but also for the GWOT supplemental. It is not, however, enough to pay for bloated entitlement spending.
It is not true that SK doesn't need America's military. SK has 0 nukes, 0 ballistic missiles, and no real BMD to speak of.
Heywood| 11.25.10 @ 10:33PM
The South Koreans would be over-run in a week if we didn't have troops there--and conversely the North couldn't attack without knowing China would be helping them ahead of time. Anyone says we're spending too much isn't checking facts. We're at pre-WW2 levels of spendingas a percentage of GDP. It's historically low right now and this is just one reason why we look like a country that can be messed with--no one is fearing us as they used to and why not attack us?
ARealist| 11.25.10 @ 12:20PM
I have a better idea.
S.Korea has a modern industrialized economy and one of the most vibrant in the world. Why don't THEY build up THEIR OWN defensive capabilities, and the USA can sell them all the equipment they need - including NUCLEAR WEAPONS - and let them take care of themselves.
It is bad enough that we, the american taxpayer has to pay to salaries, expenses, and retirement benefits of our own corrupt, elitest ruling class, and pay increased costs - via taxes and fees - for all of the inane, stupid, idiotic rulings emanating from a massive unelected bureacracy.
Now, on top of all this, we are supposed to keep paying for the defense of S. Korea and other countries that have the capability to do so for themselves.
This is absolute crap.
Heywood| 11.25.10 @ 10:25PM
Neither country can sustain a war there on their own--they both would need outside help. It is imperative for both countries Allies to not do things there that would cause one side or the other to think that 'we got yer back'. I suspect that's why we only keep a small force there.
Rowdy Boots| 11.25.10 @ 11:50PM
Did you say DEFENSE WAS ONE OF THE CORE RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT?
SOMEONE SHOULD MENTION THAT FACT TO OBAMA AND HIS COMMUNIST LIGHTWEIGHT PSUEDO-INTELLECTUALS.
THEY DO NOT SEEM TO NOTICE THERE IS A WORLD OUTSIDE OF THEIR LITTLE UTOPIA.
BY THE WAY--I HOPE NO ONE HAD TOO MUCH TO EAT TODAY--SOMEONE IS WATCHING YOU.
ROWDY BOOTS
fedupvet| 11.26.10 @ 9:13AM
bring ALL the troops home, put them on our borderS, and send obama and soros to the koreas.
then send in the Trident nuclear missle subs, about 2:30AM should do it.
Les Smith | 11.27.10 @ 2:31PM
The Cuban Missile Crisis was the closest the world has ever come to a nuclear war (as far we know). Fortunately, the Soviets withdrew their weapons of mass destruction from Cuba near the coast of Florida. Now the USA is flaunting a military presence off the Korean Peninsula and these operations are very close to the borders of China.
In May 2009, the USA owed China $772 billion in debt funded by treasury bonds. Now that the military failures in Iraq and Afghanistan are coming to light, the USA government war hawks see a new opportunity in Korea. Not only would such a conflict continue to feed the military / industrial complex but might also drag a reluctant China into the ordeal...
The icing on the cake for the profiteers from death would be involving China to the point of an excuse to default on our financial obligations. Of course, North Korea now has nuclear weapons and I am quite sure that the USA has secret submarines parked offshore armed with the same (just like the Soviets during the Cuban Missile Crisis). My hope is that memories of that "close call" will lend some sanity to those leaders that can prevail over parties more interested in expeditiously destructive military actions at the expense of all humanity.
In the words of George Santayana, "Those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it".
Duglarri| 11.27.10 @ 3:44PM
Am I the only one astonished that someone could possibly take two of the greatest strategic disasters in American history- Iraq and Afghanistan- and use them as a model? "Occupy and rebuild just like we did in Iraq and are doing in Afghanistan"- because it worked so well in those two places? A trillion dollars, a wrecked military, five thousand dead American troops, and no end in sight in either? And the benefits: Iraq a permanent ward of Iran, Afghanistan a corrupt, incredibly violent sink-hole for US taxpayer dollars? What "rebuild" are you talking about? What part of either country actually got rebuilt? What rebuild happened in Iraq that you say "we have done" and "are doing" in Afghanistan? Iraq: four million external refugees, four million internally displaced, nobody going home anytime soon? Permanently teetering on the edge of massive civil war? This is "done"? By any objective measure, both those countries are wreckage, failed states, utterly stamped into the dust and are going to stay there for a century or two.
This is your model for North Korea? Have you even been paying attention?
Mel Torme| 11.27.10 @ 5:40PM
These are the same people that have developed a "working model" of the entire earth's climate, I think. I agree with you, Duglarri,; this "invade the world, invite the world" model that's been in use is about on par with the model of the world's climate (the one that only works when you plug in the results first).