This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
True Conservatives are ANTI-War
A myth has arisen that true conservatives are pro-war, and only "weak-kneed liberals" are anti-war.
The truth is very different, however.
For example, Ron Paul has very strong conservative credentials. Paul won the Presidential straw poll at the Conservative Political Action Conference last year. And yet Paul has repeatedly spoken out against the war in Iraq and all other unnecessary wars. See this and this.
Paul points out that the Founding Fathers disliked foreign intervention, and those who advocate military adventurism are imperialists ... not conservative Americans.
As Wikipedia notes:
Thomas
Paine is generally credited with instilling the first
non-interventionist ideas into the American body politic; his work
Common Sense contains many arguments in favor of avoiding alliances.
These ideas introduced by Paine took such a firm foothold that the
Second Continental Congress struggled against forming an alliance with
France and only agreed to do so when it was apparent that the American
Revolutionary War could be won in no other manner.George Washington's farewell address is often cited as laying the foundation for a tradition of American non-interventionism:
The
great rule of conduct for us, in regard to foreign nations, is in
extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little
political connection as possible. Europe has a set of primary interests,
which to us have none, or a very remote relation. Hence she must be
engaged in frequent controversies the causes of which are essentially
foreign to our concerns. Hence, therefore, it must be unwise in us to
implicate ourselves, by artificial ties, in the ordinary vicissitudes of
her politics, or the ordinary combinations and collisions of her
friendships or enmities.John Adams followed George
Washington's ideas about non-interventionism by avoiding a very
realistic possibility of war with France.***
President
Thomas Jefferson extended Washington's ideas in his March 4, 1801
inaugural address: "peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all
nations, entangling alliances with none." ...In 1823, President
James Monroe articulated what would come to be known as the Monroe
Doctrine, which some have interpreted as non-interventionist in intent:
"In the wars of the European powers, in matters relating to themselves,
we have never taken part, nor does it comport with our policy, so to do.
It is only when our rights are invaded, or seriously menaced that we
resent injuries, or make preparations for our defense."
Another reason that Paul opposes unnecessary wars is that - as I have repeatedly demonstrated - they are bad for the economy.
For example, Paul said in a 2008 speech on the House floor:
In
the last several weeks, if not for months we have heard a lot of talk
about the potential of Israel and/or the United States bombing Iran.
Energy prices are being bid up because of this fear. It has been
predicted that if bombs start dropping, that we will see energy prices
double or triple.
Indeed, the fact that war is bad for the economy is a very strong rationale for conservatives to oppose unnecessary wars.
As
noted conservative Thomas E. Woods Jr. - a senior fellow at the Ludwig
von Mises Institute and New York Times bestselling author - writes in the March 2011 issue of the American Conservative:
To
get a sense of the impact the U.S. military has on the American
economy, we must remember the most important lesson in all of economics:
to consider not merely the immediate effects of a proposed government
intervention on certain groups, but also its long-term effects on
society as a whole. That’s what economist Frédéric Bastiat (1801–50)
insisted on in his famous essay, “What Is Seen and What Is Not Seen.”
It’s not enough to point to a farm program and say that it grants
short-run assistance to the farmers. We can see its effects on farmers.
But what does it do to everyone else in the long run?
Seymour
Melman (1917–2004), a professor of industrial engineering and
operations research at Columbia University, focused much of his energy
on the economics of the military-oriented state. Melman’s work amounted
to an extended analysis of the true costs not only of war but also of
the military establishment itself. As he observed,Industrial
productivity, the foundation of every nation’s economic growth, is
eroded by the relentlessly predatory effects of the military economy.
…Traditional economic competence of every sort is being eroded by the
state capitalist directorate that elevates inefficiency into a national
purpose, that disables the market system, that destroys the value of
the currency, and that diminishes the decision power of all
institutions other than its own.***
Yet
these politicians and intellectuals [who warned against a cut in
military spending as being bad for the economy] were focusing on the
direct effects of discontinuing a particular spending stream without
considering the indirect effects—all the business ventures,
jobs, and wealth that those funds would create when steered away from
military use and toward the service of the public as expressed in their
voluntary spending patterns. The full
cost of the military establishment, as with all other forms of
government spending, includes all the consumer goods, services, and
technological discoveries that never came into existence because the
resources to provide them had been diverted by government.
***
Measurements
of “economic growth” can be misleading if they do not differentiate
between productive growth and parasitic growth. Productive growth
improves people’s standard of living and/or contributes to future
production. Parasitic growth merely depletes manpower and existing
stocks of goods without accomplishing either of these ends.
Military spending constitutes the classic example of parasitic growth.
Melman believed that military spending, up to a point, could be not
only legitimate but also economically valuable. But astronomical
military budgets, surpassing the combined military spending of the rest
of the world, and exceeding many times over the amount of destructive
power needed to annihilate every enemy city, were clearly parasitic.
Melman used the term “overkill” to describe that portion of the military
budget that constituted this kind of excess.
***
The
scale of the resources siphoned off from the civilian sector becomes
more vivid in light of specific examples of military programs,
equipment, and personnel. To train a single combat pilot, for instance,
costs between $5 million and $7 million. Over a period of two years,
the average U.S. motorist uses about as much fuel as does a single F-16
training jet in less than an hour. The Abrams tank uses up 3.8 gallons
of fuel in traveling one mile. Between 2 and 11 percent of the world’s
use of 14 important minerals, from copper to aluminum to zinc, is
consumed by the military, as is about 6 percent of the world’s
consumption of petroleum. The Pentagon’s energy use in a single year could power all U.S. mass transit systems for nearly 14 years.
Still
other statistics illuminate the scope of the resources consumed by the
military. According to the U.S. Department of Defense, during the
period from 1947 through 1987 it used (in 1982 dollars) $7.62 trillion
in capital resources. In 1985, the Department of Commerce estimated the
value of the nation’s plants, equipment, and infrastructure (capital
stock) at just over $7.29 trillion. In other words, the amount spent
over that period could have doubled the American capital stock or modernized and replaced its existing stock.
Then
there are the damaging effects on the private sector. Since World War
II, between one-third and two-thirds of all technical researchers in
the United States have been working for the military at any given time.
The result, Melman points out, has been “a short supply of comparable
talent to serve civilian industry and civilian activities of every
sort.”
***
Meanwhile, firms servicing Pentagon needs have grown almost indifferent to cost. They operate outside the market framework and the price system:
the prices of the goods they produce are not determined by the
voluntary buying and selling by property owners that comprise the
market, but through a negotiation process with the Pentagon in isolation
from market exchange.
Beginning in the 1960s, the Department of
Defense required the military-oriented firms with which it did
business to engage in “historical costing,” a method by which past
prices are employed in order to estimate future costs. Superficially
plausible, this approach builds into the procurement process a bias in favor of ever-higher prices since
it does not scrutinize these past prices or the firm’s previously
incurred costs, or make provision for the possibility that work done in
the future might be carried out at a lower cost than related work done
in the past.
This is not nit-picking: advancing technology has
often made it possible to carry out important tasks at ever-lower
costs, yet rising costs are a built-in assumption of the
historical-cost method. Moreover, if some piece of military equipment—a
helicopter, plane, or tank, for example—winds up costing much more
than initial estimates indicated, that inflated price then becomes the
baseline for the cost estimates for new projects belonging to the same
genus. The Pentagon, in turn, uses the resulting cost hikes to justify
higher budget proposals submitted to Congress.
***
Melman also
found administrative overhead ratios in the defense industry to be
double those for civilian firms, where such a crushing burden simply
could not be absorbed. He concluded:From the personal
accounts of ‘refugees’ from military-industry firms, from former
Pentagon staffers, from informants still engaged in military-industrial
work, from the Pentagon’s publications, and from data disclosed in
Congressional hearings, I have found consistent evidence pointing to
the inference that the primary, internal, economic dynamics of military
industry are cost- and subsidy-maximization.***
“In
one major enterprise,” Melman reported, “the product-development
staffs engaged in contests for designing the most complex, Rube
Goldberg-types of devices. Why bother putting brakes on such
professional games as long as they can be labeled ‘research,’ charged
to ‘cost growth’ and billed to the Pentagon?”
***
The
American machine-tool industry can tell a sorry tale of its own. Once
highly competitive and committed to cost-containment and innovation,
the machine-tool industry suffered a sustained decline in the decades
following World War II. During the wartime period, from 1939 to 1947,
machine-tool prices increased by only 39 percent at a time when the
average hourly earnings of American industrial workers rose by 95
percent. Since machine tools increase an economy’s productivity, making
it possible to produce a greater quantity of output with a smaller
input, the industry’s conscientious cost-cutting had a
disproportionately positive effect on the American industrial system as a
whole.
But between 1971 and 1978, machine-tool prices rose 85
percent while U.S. industrial workers’ average hourly earnings
increased only 72 percent. The corresponding figures in Japan were 51
percent and 177 percent, respectively.These problems can be accounted for in part by the American machine-tool industry’s relationship with the Defense Department. Once
the Pentagon became the American machine-tool industry’s largest
customer, the industry felt far less pressure to hold prices down than
it had in the past.
***
In the short run, the
American machine-tool industry’s woes affected U.S. productivity at
large. Firms were now much more likely to maintain their existing stock
of machines rather than to purchase additional equipment or upgrade
what they already possessed. By 1968, nearly two-thirds of all
metalworking machinery in American factories was at least ten years
old. The aging stock of production equipment contributed to a decline
in manufacturing productivity growth after 1965.
***
Another
factor is at work as well: the more an industry caters to the
Pentagon, the less it makes production decisions with the civilian
economy in mind. Thus in the late 1950s the Air Force teamed up with
the machine-tool industry to produce numerical-control machine-tool
technology, a technique for the programmable automation of machine
tools that yields fast, efficient, and accurate results. The resulting
technology was so costly that private metalworking firms could not even
consider using it. The machine-tool firms involved in this research
thereby placed themselves in a situation in which their only real
customer was the aerospace industry.
Some 20 years later, only 2
percent of all American machine tools belonged to the
numerical-control line. It was Western European and Japanese firms,
which operated without these incentives, that finally managed to
produce numerical-control machine tools at affordable prices for
smaller businesses.
***
Economist Robert Higgs wonders:
“Why can’t the Department of Defense today defend the country for a
smaller annual amount than it needed to defend the country during the
Cold War, when we faced an enemy with large, modern armed forces and
thousands of accurate, nuclear-armed intercontinental ballistic
missiles?”
In fact, a great many military experts have begun to
conclude that the enormously expensive and complicated equipment and
programs that the Pentagon has been calling for would be of limited
help even in fighting the Second Generation Warfare with which the
American military seems most comfortable, and a positive detriment to
waging the kind of Fourth Generation Warfare of which the war on terror
consists. William Lind, a key theorist of Fourth Generation Warfare,
says the U.S. Navy in the 21st century is “still structured to fight
the Imperial Japanese Navy.”
***
The Department of Defense is the only federal agency not subject to audit.
***
It
is not uncommon for the Pentagon not to know whether contractors have
been paid twice, or not at all. It does not even know how many
contractors it has. Meanwhile, so-called fiscal conservatives, who know
nothing of this, continue to think the problem is excessively low
military budgets. This, no doubt, is
just the way the establishment likes it: exploit the people’s
patriotism in order to keep the gravy train rolling.
***
Higgs suggests that the real defense budget is closer to $1 trillion.
Winslow
Wheeler reaches a comparable figure. To the $518.3 billion, he adds
the military-related activities assigned to the Department of Energy
($17.1 billion), the security component of the State Department budget
($38.4 billion), the Department of Veterans Affairs ($91.3 billion),
non-Department of Defense military retirement ($28.3 billion),
miscellaneous defense activities spread around various agencies ($5.7
billion), and the share of the interest payments on the national debt
attributable to military expenditure ($54.5 billion). When we add the
roughly $155 billion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan to Wheeler’s
tabulation, we arrive at a grand total of $948.7 billion for 2009.
And
we’re worried about trivialities like “earmarks,” which comprise such a
small portion of spending that they barely amount to a rounding error
in the federal budget?
Meanwhile, $250 billion is spent every
year maintaining a global military presence that includes 865
facilities in more than 40 countries, and 190,000 troops stationed in
46 countries and territories. It is not “liberal” to find something wrong with this.
***
Out with the phony conservatives, the Tea Party movement says. We want the real thing. But the real thing, far from endorsing global military intervention, recoils from it.
The conservative cannot endorse a policy that is at once utopian,
destructive, impoverishing, counterproductive, propaganda-driven,
contrary to republican values, and sure to increase the power of
government, especially the executive branch.
***
As
Patrick Henry said, “Those nations who have gone in search of grandeur,
power and splendor, have always fallen a sacrifice and been the
victims of their own folly. While they acquired those visionary
blessings, they lost their freedom.”
Note: While many civilians believe the myth that conservatives are pro-war, the truth is that many of the most highly-decorated military men in history - including conservatives - became opposed to war after seeing what really goes on. See this, this and this.
Indeed,
I have spoken with some very high-level former military and
intelligence officers. They are true patriots, who dedicated their life
to protecting our country. They are also very passionate about not
starting unnecessary wars, because they reduce America's national security and cause many more problems than they could possibly solve.
Those who call themselves "conservative" but advocate military adventurism are really "neoliberals" ... and they are not really conservatives at all.
Obviously, I am not advocating complete disarmament. We should be ready to defend ourselves
if we are attacked. But I am opposed to attacking other nations unless
it is urgently and absolutely needed or engaging in endless war. See this, this and this.
- advertisements -
Have you noticed there are not many terrorists targeting Switzerland? Let's go back to our founding fathers' beliefs. Military alliances with no one. Trade with everyone. Israel has caused us more trouble than any single country out there. Complete neutrality with everyone and trade with everyone would go a long way to modeling those american ideals we want the rest of the world to adopt.
This time will be different...I'm calling a top on the Swiss.
You see TCT, it must be the case that Switzerland has no freedom. /sarc
++
True conservatives are anti standing army. True conservatives are not "isolationist republicans" as they were labeled by war mongering democrats this last century, but believe in engaging the world with trade and avoiding military alliances.
Yes true conservatives are against war and believe that an inglorious peace is often better.
Why the fuck do we have 100 military bases in Germany? Nice subsidy to the germans.
Thanks TCT. Can you call a top in US military aggression?
Conservatives are against prolonged war. Fight with the ferocity that it takes to win rather than this piece meal fighting we do now. Trying not to kill civilians, etc. If you go to war this means then the understanding is win at all costs. Not dragging the outcome out. For what its worth I don't find myself agreeing with anything this author ever writes.
http://drsanity.blogspot.com/
http://drsanity.blogspot.com/2006/05/four-pillars-of-socialist-revival-a...
http://drsanity.blogspot.com/2005/11/intellectual-and-moral-bankruptcy-o...
Bush Derangement Syndrome (and Displacement)
http://drsanity.blogspot.com/2005/11/lets-discuss-bush-derangement-syndr...
Narcissism, Pathological Lying, and Politics
http://drsanity.blogspot.com/2009/05/narcissism-pathological-lying-and.html
The Psychopathology of Terrorism
http://drsanity.blogspot.com/2004/10/psychopathology-of-terrorism.html
SHAME, THE ARAB PSYCHE, AND ISLAM
http://drsanity.blogspot.com/2005/08/shame-arab-psyche-and-islam.html
A Short Course On How To Be A Victim
http://drsanity.blogspot.com/2004/10/short-course-on-how-to-be-victim.html
Dershowitz: Far left’s hate of Israel aided Arab dictators.
http://iusbvision.wordpress.com/2011/02/04/dershowitz-far-lefts-hate-of-...
'Al-Qaida on brink of using nuclear bomb'
http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Qaida+brink+using+nuclear+bomb/4205104/...
You can spend all the trillions you like on 'Defence', but you are no safer now from 'the terrorists' than you were a decade ago. In fact, the US seems to live in greater fear than ever before, with ever more freedoms sacrificed for security. If I were one of the terrorists, I'd be sitting back celebrating victory.
Dude, the terrorist are on Wall Street, inside the wire.
And yes, they are celebrating. Check out the $130B in bonuses they just awarded themselves.
The pontification by this "George Washington" imposter is mindless babble.
The real George Washington was a comitted leader of men into battle, one who would blaze a path of liberty and lay the footings for the greatest economic growth story of all time...by declaring war on the English monarchy.
The real GW was not a liberal sissy trying to argue about the worthlessness of defense budgets, while simultaneously promoting an entitlement-minded state.
I suggest this imposter find a new moniker. Perhaps, "Barack Obama" is still available !
And in which postings has GW been "simultaneously promoting an entitlement-minded state"?
Troll.
Don't blame Carl. Blame the talking points he gets from his GIYUS minder.
The real George Washington wanted to retire to Mt Vernon after the war, hardly power hungry but did it out of honor rather than thirst for blood and/or natural resources. He also did not want any part of being a politician but did it because the states were close to failure.
Right.
Also, George Washington's farewell address is often cited as laying the foundation for a tradition of American non-interventionism:
There are different types of "conservatives" as most people understand.
You can't really say republican/conservative although most believe a strong national defense is in the country's best interest. There are different types, fiscal conservatives, social conservatives, blue blood conservatives (RINO's), Log Cabin's...all kinds.
It would be like saying LBJ was a "liberal" that drug us into Vietnam because he was a "liberal" ;-)
Creating great societies, one two thousand pounder and ten regulations at a time is what the reasonable middle is all about, R or D
;-)
I put up my thoughts on all this last night...if they couldn't print there would be less "Great Society" type stuff & less war.
The crossroads.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ZaJrPaaWa8
Indeed .. :) And backatcha .. and do be careful walking on that high wire fellow fight clubber
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yd60nI4sa9A
The original...not many of the kiddy's know ;-)
"and do be careful walking on that high wire fellow fight clubber"
That's why I'm always so nice on the way up...I'll pass em all goin down...LOL...I'm done here.
From mine of last night if your interested;
http://www.zerohedge.com/article/we-cannot-separate-economics-and-politics-and-those-who-speak-out-against-bad-policy-are-hel#comment-944834
And I've never said (because I thought you didn't want it widely known)...thank you for your service to us.
Take care.
Thank you for your discretion. However, I have made my status known previously...
http://www.zerohedge.com/article/guest-post-how-can-everyone-be-so-incom...
:) Pax homie
"Thank you for your discretion."
Well, if nothing else...I am discreet...LOL.
Peace
Yes, I, and others, deeply appreciate and respect this fact, and others that reflect on you. Cheers & Best wishes, As Always
I leave my barely suppressed humor at a bit of your commentary until another time. :D Meanwhile I know you'll appreciate my bits of paper commentary, a la Rumsfeld's snowflakes. LOOOL
Pax
There is no instance of a country having benefited from prolonged warfare
Poverty of the State Exchequer causes an army to be maintained by contributions from a distance. Contributing to maintain an army at a distance causes a people to be impoverished
Hence to fight and conquer in all your battles is not supreme excellence; supreme excellence consists in breaking the enemy's resistance without fighting
Sun Tzu - The Art of War
Unfortunately, GW, this is one time I find myself disagreeing with you.
Being a use-ta-bee aviator who's been in harms way on more than one occasion, I can confirm that you are indeed correct; conservatives, and most warriors, abhor war.
But, there's a reason we keep the tip of the spear sharp and at the ready.
And, I prefer the projection of power, and dealing with our enemies over there, to waiting to face them until they get here.
The price of freedom is eternal vigilance, both domestically and abroad. Part of that is fielding the best equipped, adequately staffed, and most thoroughly trained military on earth. The alternative, especially in the modern era, is simply unacceptable.
We wouldn't have the luxury of months, or years, to recover from an enemy attack as we did following the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. What you choose to characterize as a "military-industrial complex" is in reality a necessary part of our national defense.
My Regards.
Well written, and I am sure most Americans would agree with you.
But I think you confuse projection (actual use) of military power with vigilence. The two are very different concepts; one involves killing people, the other preparedness. Considering the unsavoury truth that in modern warfare more civilians are killed than combatants - a fact that is priced-in at the strategic planning stage - that equates to the wholesale slaughter of innocent people every time the military "projects" itself. So much so that we have long lists of euphemisms to mask the heinous crimes and the horrors of war: "Collateral damage", "Friendly fire", "Neutralize", "Freedom fighters", "Pacify", being the most popular in the MSM. In every word hide the beastly and cruel acts of the criminally insane against men, women, and children.
There are good reasons why President Eisenhower warned against the rise of the military industrial complex which these days must seem to you almost quaint and naive by contemporary standards. Then as now, nuclear arsenals made the idea of invasion and occupation by another nation impossible because whether or not the adversary is nuclear armed, the result is always the same: mutually or unilaterally assured destruction. He foresaw the power of the military contractors, manufacturers, and the procurement officers in a menage-a-trois of conflict leeching the tax payers out of their right to live in a country of peace and social wealth.
A military industrial complex by its very nature is a self-propelling, self-fulfilling prophet of war. Endless war sustained by paranoia, hate, fear, pride, and all the jingoistic bullshit rationalised by comically fictiticious dehumanised enemies, and delusions of grandeur about ourselves.
It is in reality, the dirty, sleazy, repellent insanity of sending our teenagers to go and kill their teenagers in far away places for PROFIT. It is the definition of recidivist behaviour, and the only real enemies are the ones we create for ourselves. If there weren't enough survivors from a previous conflict dying to seek vengeance, the military industrial complex would have to invent them to sustain itself. Don't even get me started on terrorism - that should have been left to the police and intelligence, but instead the invasions have created more terror than even I could have imagined, and expanded a tiny group of nutjobs to a global organization numbering thousands as everyone warned it would. The "Fighting over there, so we don't have to fight over here" concept is flawed when you are in constant danger of imminent attack FOREVER.
It is smart to have modern, well trained armed forces to deter and defend your country. It is a privilege to serve such an organization so vital to preserve lives. But the actual military industrial complex has nothing to do with deterrence and defence - it thrives on incitement, invasion, and campaigns. That characterises the military industrial complex perfectly, and the US stats speak louder than words: 865+ military bases in 46 countries, and 6000+ military bases within the US and its territories. The cost of managing the real estate alone is astronomical, the total military budget being twice the combined total of the next top three countries. There is no need to look for evil people bent on world domination because it has already happened. And no, you are not the only person here who has worn a uniform.
Well articulated YHC-FTSE,
I'm not sure if most Americans would agree with me. I can tell by your commentary that we have very divergent points of view. I addressed some of the points you made in my lengthy response to GW comment on my own original one just above. I'll try and speak to some of the other points you raised, but recognize that we have very different opinions.
You mentioned that you believed I confused power projection and vigilence. I see the two as being the same thing, when they involve recognizing a threat and striking it before they find a way to attack us here. Should we instead be willing to absorb attacks on our homeland, when we can nip the problem in the bud before they can bring the fight here? I personally don't think so. I know that you think it's solely a law-enforcement matter, but, that's how it was handled throughout the 1990s; a period where we suffered several attacks by transnational terrorist groups. In my humble opinion, the most effective method is probably a combination of both approaches.
Part of your comment discussed the abhorrence of civilian deaths due to collateral damage, which I won't argue with. Now I was a Tomcat driver, and not a strike pilot, so I can't speak firsthand to this. But our air wing had several Fighter-attack squadrons, so you might say I've known a few. I think you might be surprised to know that this was something that ate at them as well. So much, in fact, that we went to great lengths to confirm our targeting, and only use ordinance when approved and necessary.
In fact, the US military goes to much greater lengths than any modern fighting force to minimize collateral damage, the goal being zero, of course. Unfortunately our adversaries don't share that principle, and often make a point of using innocents as shields; attacking from withing crowded blocks of flats, or from religious componds. I think that if you investigate this objectively, and with an open mind, you'll find that what I'm telling you is true. Does this mitigate the tragedy of any civilian deaths? No, of course not. Are there far less casualties using precision munitions, and warning citizens of cities that our adversaries hide among for weeks before we move in that our incursion is imminent-even if it allows some of those adversaries to escape amongst the exodus? There are, really...
As an aside, when you spoke of, "...cruel acts of the criminally insane against men, women, and children", were you speaking only of US troops or were you also including our adversaries? And if not, is it possible that your view, or hyperbolic characterization, of American soldiers as blood-crazed killbots is comically fictiticious and dehumanizing?
With all due respect, I also don't see how our nation has profited from the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Heck, the Chinese got the contract to provide the oil extraction engineering services; after Senator Kerry and some of his Democratic collegues demanded the Iraqis not allow us the right of first refusal in the bidding process. That particularly squelches the often-repeated, "blood for oil and profit", slogan right there. But it has cost, not profited, us.
If you were instead speaking of the profits made by defense contractors, fair enough, I addressed that upthread in response to GW response to me.
The members of the transnational terrorist organizations numbered in the thousands before the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. When that whole law enforcement approach was being used...
One can argue about their motivations; there are many theories that run the gamut from our alliance with the Israelis to the pollution of their societies, by ours, via the cultural leveling influence of American pop culture and merchandise. But few of these theories seem to include the construction of a theocratic power base amongst a largely uneducated populace, using the US and Israel as convenient strawmen or scapegoats to focus their followers anger on in very much the same way that Hitler used the Jews in 1930's Germany.
And in some cases there are fellows who truly believe in the notion of a worldwide Caliphate, like the Muslim Brotherhood, who will use us as a target to focus their followers anger over; just like Osama Bin Laden did after he was run out of Saudi Arabia 20 years ago. He couldn't have built a large enough following by merely opposing the royal house of Saud, but against the "Great Satan"? A whole lot more, that's for sure.
My point here is that the Cole bombing, the embassy attack in Kenya, and the WTC attacks happened before any invasion took place, and the attacks would have probably continued whether or not the actions had ever taken place.
YHC, you wrote a comment that was rational, at times. But I can clearly see that you and I have very different worldviews; and that I might be more apt to be tolerant of yours than you are of mine. Indeed, you didn't miss any opportunity to invoke near polemical language and insert thinly veiled insults directed at the US military and myself.
Still, I bear you know malice or bad feelings. In fact, I'm glad I gave you the opportunity to get all that off your chest; to," get your rant on!", as my nephew might say :) It's been my pleasure...
Oh, and in closing, I never said, nor even implied, that I was the only one here to ever wear a uniform; I don't know where you got that impression. Nor did I ever say or imply that my opinion on this issue mattered any more than any other member of this commentariat, or indeed any other US citizen.
Because, that would only be the case if the subject was flying high performance aircraft, or aerospace engineering in general ;)
With all due respect...
"The "Fighting over there, so we don't have to fight over here" concept is flawed when you are in constant danger of imminent attack FOREVER."
Which is a great argument for, you know, going ahead and WINNING ground each time we do fight, until and when the world's tyrannies and tyrants are vanquished and local peoples have representative republics operating under rule of law rather than rule of man, with strong property rights and pluralistic politics. The planet is big, but it isn't infinite, and the last tyrannies to fall will fall that much more quickly the more of the planet has been liberated.
Just sayin' you know, that your "FOREVER" is a defeatist assumption. Sure, evil will continue to exist just as temptation and sin will, but representative republics can be designed to contain and channel that to the greater good. Awful tyrannies don't have to persist just because, I dunno, they always have until now.
Reagan hit it on the head with his "We win, they lose" with regard to the conflict with the USSR.
Standing OVATION!!!!!!!!!
PROUD TO BE AN AMERICAN WITH YOU YHC-FTSE!!!! YOU ARE MY HERO. I WOULD KISS YOU IF YOU WERE HERE
Nothing but net!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dnxIITeNftE
Bring it
Now that was amazing.
++YHC.
Since you served, sir, you have my sincere and heart-felt respect. You are not a chicken-hawk, but a man who has put his butt on the line for our country.
The question then becomes which wars make us safer and which wars WEAKEN our national security.
In fact, the top security experts - conservative hawks and liberal doves alike - agree that waging war in the Middle East weakens national security and increases terrorism. See this, this, this, this, this and this.
GW,
Those folks have a point, to an extent; because across much of the Middle East the imposition of a western style secular democratic republic may not be the chosen social arrangement of the people. So it is possible that the very act of attempting regime change, regardless of our intentto instill a government structured similar to our own, may be seen by a great number of the citizens there as a fundamental imposition of our will upon them rather than the liberation we intend.
Indeed, in a large sense the old cliche, "the road to hell is paved with good intentions", may govern our efforts in the Middle East. It will remain to be seen what ultimately comes to pass in Iraq in order to determine whether the reasoning and motivations were fundamentally flawed.
At admittedly a great cost in blood and treasure. But I have to say that at least the warriors were there by choice rather than forced conscription. That will never "pay" for the blood, or mitigate the scars of the permanently wounded, but meant that at least none where unwillingly sentanced.
Now, regarding the notion of "foreign adventures" and "wars of conquest", the difference between what Patrick Henry, and others throughout time, have spoken of-wars of empire, or conquest-isn't really applicable to many of the struggles fought by the U.S. since the WWI. We have acted as liberators, and not conquerors; never retaining what the nations we defeated militarily, but instead liberating their populations to form democratic governments. Indeed, in my humble opinion, the only way it can be viewed as imperial is that, generally speaking, those same governments have generally become our geo-political allies; which, admittedly, some folks will choose to see as advancing our own world order. And, philisophically speaking, perhaps it is. It depends on your point of view...
One thing I neglected to mention in my first comment, when alluding to, "the military industrial complex". I fully recognize that there is a great amount of waste in the procurement process. It needs total reform from the "cost plus" model and back to a true competition amongst bidders. There has been too much consolidation among the major players; in the aerospace sector especially. As a result actual innovation and technological evolution is really impeded, in a sense, through corporations being wedded to their own design projects; trying to make them work no matter how flawed. This costs money.
Also, there are instances where companies like Lockheed-Martin can swear upon the graves of their antecedants to deliver a product that will perform between pre-set parameters, and bring to trials one that utterly fails instead-all while telling DoD that they have met the agreed-upon specifications. I saw that happen later in my career when involved with strategic systems, and, frankly, fear that it's happening right now with the F-35...
In short, in my humble opinion,, at least 100 billion could be shaved off of the defense budget by reforming procurement alone; without suffering any decrease in capability. And in the long run it could actually lead to greater bang for our buck (pardon the pun!)
But I've digressed...One thing we should all be able to agree on is that, as a nation, we should only be sending our warriors into harms way when we, or our close allies, face an existential threat; when we have no other choice.
A strong argument can be made that the assymetrical, "war on terror", that we've been fighting is not necessarily an existential threat. I personally tend to disagree, but can also see that it may be counter-productive to engage in any more than precision special-operations missions against known target. These are things that have to be determined politically in our society.
But just as a caution here I'll point out that once transnational terrorist groups gain access to nuclear weapons then the warfare ceases to be assymetric, and the threats do become existential. I believe the same is true if Iran achieves their goal of a nuclear arsenal. I fault Bush for not dealing with them firmly, and understand why Mr. Obama will be loathe to as well; a nation tired of war mightn't react well to doing what it takes.
I'll be clear here. I'm not talking of regime change in Iran, that will come naturally over time. I'm talking about utterly destroying their capability to achieve their stated goal; one that would certainly lead to a nuclear war in the middle east as well as attacks here at home-weapons that are delivered by Toyota truck, if necessary, to lesser cities that might not be as well protected. And had my aging vision not grounded me a few years ago, I'd volunteer to fly the strike missions to Iran in a proverbial NY second.
But again, I digress...
We need to optimize our defense spending, because the assymetric warfare will end soon, but other adversaries are rising. And by reducing our defense, and foreign force projection, spending we can help reduce our government spending.
And stop allowing our T-bill interest and trade deficit to fund the Chinese military expansion.
A long reply, but not long enough to deal with all our national problems, unfortunately.
Thanks again for the thought-provoking article.
This war tested Airborne Ranger agrees that excellence in defense of ones national ethic is not always best served by projecting an ethos onto other societies by force of coercion as this usually rouses the other society from vociferous engagement to armed engagement. Facts of life the original George Washington, his compatriots, and this one know only too well.
Meanwhile, welcome to this episode of Feed the Trolls. The Running Man is up next so don't you go anywhere..... :)
George Washington, the first President I mean, not GW, lived in a time where it took months for an army to travel just a quarter of the way around the world, and armies had to live off what they found where they fought. The main sources of energy back then were wood, grains, and grass, which powered humans and animals to do work. Today millions of people move thousands of miles every day without breaking a sweat. Global logistic chains for raw materials such as energy and food make the various regions of the planet interdependent for the greater good(Adam Smith/Wealth of Nations at high speed). The world shrank, bringing us and our trading partners under immediate threat from agressive tyrannies. Having our forces projected forward toward that enemy (our enemies be tyrants and tyrannies...read the Declaration and the Constitution and the Federalist Papers) is the only practical way to maintain our liberty, unfortunately. The giant oceans around us became lakes thanks to material and technological progress the original GW set the stage to bring to existence, by unleashing freedom here.
A good point sir, which I admit has to be considered carefully.
As I wrote in my lengthy response to the author's comment directly preceeding your own.
All the best :)
The point you are missing rocketmanbob is that you create your enemies by being over there,
Why would a rational person do that?
I've acknowledged that may be, in one of my long answers to GW's and YHC's comnmentary on my original comment.
But as I've mentioned, if it is only our presence there that's creating the enemies, where did they come from in the first place? Why did they bomb the Cole, bomb the embassy in Kenya, or attack the WTC?
We may never be able to dispacth all our enemies by force. But many of the Islamist groups have begun to over-reach, and are alienating the civilians they hide among. There's a possibility that, ultimately, they will have to stop focusing on inflicting damage on us; at least as equal to that happening by us abandoning our efforts and allies.
As I said previously, a lot will turn on what evolves in Iraq. If they become a thriving, western style, democracy that will go along way toward dispelling the notion of us as a "great Satan" in the region.
All the best.
But as I've mentioned, if it is only our presence there that's creating the enemies, where did they come from in the first place?
rocketmanbob -Your timing is off.We've been over there longer than any of the events you bring up.
What are you referring to? Desert Storm? The original ME peace accords brokered by Mr. Carter? Lebanon? Iran? Our presence as contractors in places like Saudi Arabia?
I have to tell you, outside of Desert Storm and intervening in Lebanon in the early 1980's, our military forces haven't been active in the ME.
Perhaps I've forgotten something.
Please be specific, and tell me what presence you think has created enemies for us there.
The elites need the military to be the ultimate enforcer for the NWO, and to suppress any that might disagree and not cede sovereignty; it's really that simple
I don't think politics is liberal/conservative anymore. Most of our "elected" representatives are bought and paid for by the military-industrial complex (with few exceptions, such as Paul) and damn whatever their political bent, when it comes time for appropriations they're right there for their masters.
Until we find a way to get money out of politics, we'll continue these endless wars (and especially our wars on terror and on drugs, which have no metrics, therefore they MUST CONTINUE!)
everyone's gonna be surprised when ron paul gets the republican nomination. maybe he'll pick michelle bachman as his running mate. that could be a winning ticket.
Bachman??? You have got to be fist fvcking me.
She voted for the extension of the patriot act yesterday.
RP wouldn't be caught dead on that ticket with her fake ass. Fucking snake in the grass.
http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/112/house/1/votes/26/
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/02/kucinich-challenges-tea-party-stand-c...
hmmmm. good point.
Not gonna happen. MB, like Joe Biden is joined at the uterus to the Zino-Fascist machine.
RP is opposed to said machine.
No worse than the nonsense of the past few decades...
Backman?
Might as well advocate for balance, like a Bachman - Jackson Lee ticket hahahha
Miles, I've kinda' liked what you've been saying for a while. But we here in MA have a particular interpretation of 'backman'. Are you saying that you enjoy that sport? (not that there's anything wrong with it, of course).
;-) -- Ned
In that the "old me" was wont to say to the females of what could be politely termed my Emirates vacation action; "Don't look at the monitor".
Although my primary focus hasn't changed, my actions premised upon it sure has, even on those Emirates kinda vacations. Who knows about Michele, but so far I'm not impressed in a positive way as there are woman with a far greater potential for quality, multifaceted absurdly dynamic action to consider than that! I seriously doubt there would be any sort of Mary & James Carville action as that requires mutual appreciated appreciation and Michele reminds me more of the poster child of junk further up thread than of someone that can actually respect mutual appreciated appreciation. Fortunately this does not hold true regarding those women I am attracted to ;)
Cheers