The American Spectator

Roy| 7.15.09 @ 4:17PM

I think it's a moot point what we say about "nation building". No politician, having seen what happened to Bush, is going to take that kind of risk again.

Tim| 7.15.09 @ 4:24PM

A huge standing army is something the framers never wanted for their descendants. The Soviet Union is long gone but our bases and ships still stand the watch.
The temptation to play Great Game politics is too much for our leaders.

Tripp| 7.15.09 @ 5:27PM

There's something to be said for making major budget cuts in military spending- just not in areas like, oh I don't know, missile defense. You can have both, although folks at TAC and Chronicle would vehemently disagree.

Groucho| 7.15.09 @ 5:57PM

Should we support the troops?

Hell, no.

Not with a black radical Muslim president who was born in Indonesia and who pals around with terrorists, we don't.

Aaron| 7.15.09 @ 5:58PM

No liberal in this country can win the "lets cut defense" argument as long as conservatives present a proper counter argument based on percent of GDP spending. We as a nation don't spend as much as many other nations when placed in those terms. I'll agree any day of the week that we certainly don't need to be the world's 911 responding to every chicken McNugget emergency. However, an informed American public would not object to a lethal military whose mere presence can facilitate stability and serve as a constant reminder to all those who might want to poke at us.

William R| 7.15.09 @ 6:18PM

Yes we should cut way back on defense. We spend twice as much as China and Russia combined!! We have troops in over 100 nations many of which are fully capable of defending themselves. And lets not forget during the heat of the cold war when people were putting in bomb shelters in their homes, Dwight Eisenhower used his final address to the nation to warn about the military industrial complex.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8y06NSBBRtY

The difference between Dems and Repubs is the Dems want to spend trillions on BS social programs and Repubs want to spend trillions on BS wars.

Hermit| 7.15.09 @ 6:34PM

It is too bad that we must suffer the gross inefficiencies within DOD procurement and operations management that we suffer throughout the rest of government.
It is my firm belief that we could in fact have better for less.
Too much of our defense is wrapped in the ‘bring home the bacon’ mentality of congress.
I think we would achieve better results if we first exercise some serious churn in our representatives such that we first fix the mind set of congress then set about reforming the various parts of the government.
Think of what the One could do if he had both sides of the isle willing to cut military spending… think of him in Russia last week trading our working missiles and delivery systems for Russian counterparts in various levels of decay.
It is not that I disagree with the concept I just little to no confidence in the congresses ability or the executive’s ability to implement.

Old Texican| 7.15.09 @ 7:48PM

I just hope our splendid military stands down as far as turning their guns on Freedom owner Americans...and turns its guns outward to the hostile envious world.

david gardiner| 7.16.09 @ 1:18AM

Groucho: Obama is not a Muslim, you ignorant citizen. Old Texican: "Hostile envious world"? Have you thought about this logic? Have you met people who love and envy us and yet who want to destroy us too? There are none. The idea is absurd. Those who envy parts of our system try to emulate it. Those who hate our system want to destroy it. The two don't mix. Think more carefully before spouting mindless propaganda. And a fact: our powerful military presence around the globe is one chief source of hostility. So it causes that which it tries to eradicate. See the paradox? Can you see it? Open your eyes.

david gardiner| 7.16.09 @ 1:22AM

Forgot to respond to Aaron: "A reminder to all those who might want to poke at us." What's wrong with folks poking at us? Are we perfect or something? Beyond reproach? Perhaps God-like? It is the heart of patriotism to study our strengths AND our weaknesses and to address the latter. We can poke at ourselves, too, in the spirit of improvement. Others who "poke" are also not necessarily enemies. They might have something to teach us -- to teach you -- even.

JimE| 7.16.09 @ 2:18AM

david gardiner, you are a useful idiot, logic, paradox? You don't even know what the words mean.

Red Phillips| 7.16.09 @ 9:52AM

This post was going well until the last paragraph. It is cognitive dissonance for conservatives to gripe about spending, deficits, taxes, etc. then get upset when someone suggests we need to cut defense. We would not need to spend so much on defense if the military was only doing what it is constitutionally constituted to do, protecting the homeland and our vital proximate national interests. If we see our role as more than that, as the US playing some stabilizing role for the whole world, then our current out of control military spending is what we get. Good luck balancing the budget with that.

The fact that many of the Founders didn't even want a standing army and one was only authorized after much debate is proof that the Founders did not conceive of America as the world's police force.

Mike Dooley| 7.16.09 @ 11:23AM

Sure we complain about spending; but defense is one of the few legitimate functions of the federal government. It is the hobbyhorse of so many that the military is so costly and the money would best be spent somewhere else. Note: not to lower taxes. Spend the money somewhere else.

It is another hobbyhorse to propose keeping the size of defense small enough so that we would be unable to engage in “adventurism”. The problem is no one exactly says just what that size would be. How small does defense have to get before we would be unable to invade Grenada again?

There are also the lessons of American history. There have been several periods in which the size of the military had been drawn down to what was perceived to be “adequate” levels. Such was the case that when the Japanese attacked we were badly outmatched in terms of size and modern weaponry. What did we do until our warfare capacity had been ramped up? We threw bodies at the enemy. Young men died to buy us time.

It is irresponsible and, yes, immoral to put our young men and women in such potential circumstances. To win any kind of war, one must be able to project power beyond our shores. That requires a military size that unfortunately can also be used for adventurism.

Your problem is not the size of the military. Instead it is the political will which draws us into ill thought out actions.

david g.| 7.17.09 @ 7:09PM

JimE: If you'd actually SAY something, then folks could respond. I indeed pointed out a paradox, and a contradiction. If you care to debate this claim, then why not talk instead of spit.