The Three Stooges Go To War

[luke warm]

The end run is that Congress has basically rubber stamped renewal of the appropriations every two years, thus keeping the army active in perpetuity — the standing army which the Founders described as "the bane of liberty".

Probably our government is not operating exactly as Madison had in mind. Times change.

 

yes times change, but were the founders right about this?

[Winstonm]

Anyway, I suppose this is a bit off-topic, but I think filtering everything through left/right is a mistake.

 

When it comes to U.S. foreign policy, there seems to be only one party - the party of eternal hangers on, i.e., the national security party. One would think that the same people who encouraged and pushed for the Iraq invasion would have lost their country club privaleges, but it appears they still have the same lockers and occupy the same seats at the dining room table.

[kenberg]

yes times change, but were the founders right about this? [/Quote]

 

I can well imagine that the founders, like sensible people anywhere anytime, would prefer that we not be in a perpetual state of war. Peace with the British king, peace with the Indian tribes, peace with the Barbary pirates, peace with Mexico, all good objectives, achieved with varying degrees of success. But then there was this Manifest Destiny stuff also. Fifty-four forty or fight, remember the Alamo, etc, albeit after the days of the founders had passed. I was born in 1939, the days of Fortress America, let the Brits and the French fight their own battles with Germany, and who gives a crap about whether Italian trains run on time, or who is fighting which bull in Spain, anyway it's not our concern. Times indeed change.

 

 

I expect we need a standing army. I don't like it, but I expect we need it. But people who think we maybe should not be fighting everyone everywhere every time certainly have a point. It's a subject in need of serious thought.

[blackshoe]

I expect we need a standing army. I don't like it, but I expect we need it. But people who think we maybe should not be fighting everyone everywhere every time certainly have a point. It's a subject in need of serious thought.

 

Indeed it is. Why do we need a standing army? And how big should it be if we do?

[hrothgar]

Indeed it is. Why do we need a standing army? And how big should it be if we do?

 

Much like everything else, warfare has become a high technical discipline, requiring specialized skills that take long time to master.

Equally significant, modern weapon systems take enormous amounts of time to design and build.

I think that this is the most important point that dictates a professional standing army.

 

There are also polical considerations. Vietnam demonstrated that middle class American doesn't like to get its hands dirty with wars.

Life is ever so much more pleasant if we can foist the casualities off on the underclass...

(I don't think that many people who state that out right, but I think that its true)

 

With respect to size: I think that the US military is grossly oversized and the force structure seems designed to defend against the wrong types of threats...

[blackshoe]

Much like everything else, warfare has become a high technical discipline, requiring specialized skills that take long time to master.

Equally significant, modern weapon systems take enormous amounts of time to design and build.

I think that this is the most important point that dictates a professional standing army.

 

It's a good point.

 

There are also polical considerations. Vietnam demonstrated that middle class American doesn't like to get its hands dirty with wars.

Life is ever so much more pleasant if we can foist the casualities off on the underclass...

(I don't think that many people who state that out right, but I think that its true)

 

With respect to size: I think that the US military is grossly oversized and the force structure seems designed to defend against the wrong types of threats...

 

It's called "last war syndrome", and I agree we need to overcome it and structure the military for the current threat. It's a tough uphill political battle though.

 

I would say that the Army is grossly oversized, and the Navy is improperly structured for the current threat (it may or may not be oversized, that's harder to say). We need more littoral combatants, and we probably need to put Marine detachments on them.

[PassedOut]

It's called "last war syndrome", and I agree we need to overcome it and structure the military for the current threat. It's a tough uphill political battle though.

 

I would say that the Army is grossly oversized, and the Navy is improperly structured for the current threat (it may or may not be oversized, that's harder to say). We need more littoral combatants, and we probably need to put Marine detachments on them.

I agree with you and Richard.

 

The US needs highly trained professionals in all the services, but an oversized army is only needed for foreign invasions -- which the US should not be doing. The presence of a large army only encourages foolish actions by politicians. We certainly don't need a large army to defend against invasions -- the US has the capability to detect and destroy an invading army long before it gets here.

 

The politics are tough, though, because so many livelihoods rely upon maintaining the status quo. Politicians who act in the interest of the nation as whole risk the votes of those affected by change.

[luke warm]

The politics are tough, though, because so many livelihoods rely upon maintaining the status quo. Politicians who act in the interest of the nation as whole risk the votes of those affected by change.

 

that's why any change would have to be part of a long-term plan... i have a (perhaps naive) confidence in technology, i think most 'conflicts' can be thwarted/won using it... you'd have to have someone with the will to phase out the army, or a large portion of it, over time... as people die or retire, don't replace them... done correctly, it shouldn't be that big a political challenge... same for the irs, but i digress

[PassedOut]

you'd have to have someone with the will to phase out the army, or a large portion of it, over time... as people die or retire, don't replace them... done correctly, it shouldn't be that big a political challenge...

But a lot of folks who are not in the army also rely upon it for their livelihoods: suppliers of food and equipment, store owners near army bases, and so on. Every time the military tries to close a base, an outcry arises. Every time the military tries to stop the manufacture of things that have become unnecessary, politicians fight tooth and nail to save the jobs in their districts.

 

I think we agree on what should be done, but I do see a big political challenge.

[blackshoe]

Every time the military tries to close a base, an outcry arises. Every time the military tries to stop the manufacture of things that have become unnecessary, politicians fight tooth and nail to save the jobs in their districts.

 

I think we agree on what should be done, but I do see a big political challenge.

 

To be fair, the military doesn't try to stop manufacture, they simply argue that their money should be spent on other things — and politicians then tell them "no, you must buy this obsolete (or whatever) junk".

 

It is a huge political challenge, and one most politicians, including Obama (indeed, including just about every past President as well) are unwilling to take up.

[Winstonm]

It is astonishing that there are those individuals who still support every dollar the U.S. spends on defense or wars yet who scream socialism at the thought of a universal healthcare coverage for U.S. citizens.

 

Policy Research of Washington, DC, released a study prepared by the economic and political forecasting company Global Insight on the long-term economic impact of increased military spending. Guided by economist Dean Baker, this research showed that, after an initial demand stimulus, by about the sixth year the effect of increased military spending turns negative. The US economy has had to cope with growing defence spending for more than 60 years. Baker found that, after 10 years of higher defence spending, there would be 464,000 fewer jobs than in a scenario that involved lower defence spending.

 

Baker concluded: “It is often believed that wars and military spending increases are good for the economy. In fact, most economic models show that military spending diverts resources from productive uses, such as consumption and investment, and ultimately slows economic growth and reduces employment” (5).

 

Instead of bombs, how about hospitals? Instead of warplanes, how about roads? We continue to spend as if the U.S.S.R. were still a viable threat.

 

We are a sick people - national healthcare is a socialist sin but to blow the hell out of middle eastern countries is moral "duty".

 

Who wants to try and figure out the opportunity costs we've paid for all this idiotic defense spending we've engaged in for the past 60 years? What part of that spending do will still possess? Where is the benefit?

 

 

And if you think I'm pissed off I am because I'm rapidly approaching retirement and I would like Medicare and Social Security to still be there.

[Winstonm]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8407047/Libyan-rebel-commander-admits-his-fighters-have-al-Qaeda-links.html

 

Abdel-Hakim al-Hasidi, the Libyan rebel leader, has said jihadists who fought against allied troops in Iraq are on the front lines of the battle against Muammar Gaddafi's regime

 

We want Gaddafi out and al-Qaeda in? You have got to be ***** kidding me.

 

Did anyone stop to ask WHO we were supporting? Did anyone bother to check that little detail? Does anyone in this State Department have a clue?

[hrothgar]

I had hoped a less partisan view from you, Richard.

 

I doubt anyone holds Bush/Cheney in more contempt than I do, but at the same time to whitewash Obama's upholding of the Bush/Cheney legacy simply because he is a Democrat is not much of a response.

 

Isn't it time to hold all in power accountable, regardless of party?

 

I don't know where you ever got the idea that I'm not partisan.

 

I am a proud liberal / progressive. I despise conservative evangelicals and have nothing but contempt for most libertarians.

I refuse to shop at companies that donate significant amount of money to Republicans or conservative causes (Domino's, Walmart, Home Depot, anyone associated with the Chamber of Commerce).

 

With this said and done, what you are labeling as "partisan" I'd describe as pragmatic.

 

Bush is grossly incompetent. He failed his way right up to the top.

I don't think that it is unreasonable to factor this type of consideration into policy decisions.

 

Last week I posted the following comment:

 

I'm really torn about this one and really have no idea what the right thing to do is...

 

I've had a bit more time to read up on matters and try to formulate an opinion.

I'm still conflicted, however, I've moved closer to the interventionist camp.

 

1. I think that there is a very real chance that Gaddafi's forces would have slaughtered tens if not hundreds of thousands of people had they taken Benghazi.

2. The US, Britain, and France were in an effective position to stop this.

 

There is a second, related question, regarding process:

 

I have a lot of respect for process. I would have very much preferred a situation in which Congress could have been recalled, informed of the facts, had time to deliberate, and reached a decision. However, I don't view this as remotely feasible. This would have taken a week. By the time the decision had been made, the decision would be moot.

 

There have been any number of situations in which Presidents have violated the Constitution.

Lincoln's suspension of Habeas Corpus is the prototypical example.

 

From my perspective, the lesson of this habeas corpus example is not that the Constitution is sacrosanct, never to be violated...

But rather if circumstances require that the President break the Constitution this needs to be done openly and publicly to allow for appropriate debate.

[Winstonm]

1. I think that there is a very real chance that Gaddafi's forces would have slaughtered tens if not hundreds of thousands of people had they taken Benghazi.

 

There is reason to believe that many of those "slaughtered" may have been jihadist enemies of the U.S. The 2007 capture of al-Qaeda documents showed a proponderance of jihadists going to Iraq to fight Americans were from northeastern Libya. The 2008 Wikileaks cables showed that the U.S. was well aware of the jihadist sentiment in that part of Libya.

 

Add to that that the Joint Chiefs and Robert Gates were all opposed and you end up with a head-scratcher.

 

See, the bottom line is this: if you are considered a friend of the U.S. (Bahrain), you can kill your own populace without recourse.

 

I am a proud liberal / progressive

 

Which perplexes me as to why you seem so supportive of Obama, when Obama in my opinion is centrist in domestic policy and downright neoconservative in foreign policy.

 

Bill Maher called Obama a Golden Retriever. I think that is about right.

[hrothgar]

There is reason to believe that many of those "slaughtered" may have been jihadist enemies of the U.S. The 2007 capture of al-Qaeda documents showed a proponderance of jihadists going to Iraq to fight Americans were from northeastern Libya. The 2008 Wikileaks cables showed that the U.S. was well aware of the jihadist sentiment in that part of Libya.

 

Wish that I had known that before I had made my post.

 

If they aren't our friends, of course they deserve to die...

Hell, we should be cluster bombing them ourselves!

[hrothgar]

 

Which perplexes me as to why you seem so supportive of Obama, when Obama in my opinion is centrist in domestic policy and downright neoconservative in foreign policy.

 

 

Unlike a lot of people, I never had any illusions that Obama was a progressive or a liberal.

If you'd like, I can dredge up my posts from a couple years ago where I stated that Obama was overly centrist for my tastes, but I liked his temperament and trusted his judgement...

 

I always thought that the conservative critique that Obama is the most liberal member of congress was downright ludicrous

However, I though that the progressives casting him as the great white hope was equally inane...

 

Perhaps the reason that I'm not constantly bemoaning this/that/whatever is that I was never expecting perfection.

 

I will note that I have criticized Obama on a variety of grounds:

 

1. I'm disgusted by his backpedaling regarding Gitmo and the domestic security state

2. I think that he was far to conciliatory regarding health care overhaul

3. I would have preferred him to be much more aggressive on stimulus spending

4. Don't even get me started on climate change

 

FWIW, I think your comments that Obama is a neoconservative with respect to foreign policy is delusional

[Winstonm]

Unlike a lot of people, I never had any illusions that Obama was a progressive or a liberal.

If you'd like, I can dredge up my posts from a couple years ago where I stated that Obama was overly centrist for my tastes, but I liked his temperament and trusted his judgement...

 

I always thought that the conservative critique that Obama is the most liberal member of congress was downright ludicrous

However, I though that the progressives casting him as the great white hope was equally inane...

 

Perhaps the reason that I'm not constantly bemoaning this/that/whatever is that I was never expecting perfection.

 

I will note that I have criticized Obama on a variety of grounds:

 

1. I'm disgusted by his backpedaling regarding Gitmo and the domestic security state

2. I think that he was far to conciliatory regarding health care overhaul

3. I would have preferred him to be much more aggressive on stimulus spending

4. Don't even get me started on climate change

 

FWIW, I think your comments that Obama is a neoconservative with respect to foreign policy is delusional

 

 

I am not meaning anything critical toward you. I recognize your intelligence. The partisanship catches me off guard as that to me usually signals a lower intelligence, not someone like you. Glenn Greenwald has written about the passes supporters have given to Obama for the same actions that Bush/Cheney took that they derided nonstop.

 

I simply did not think you would be in that group, and maybe you are not and I am wrong or misunderstood. Your criticisms of Obama are mine, as well, so maybe I simply misunderstood where you stand.

 

FWIW, I don't mean Obama is a neoconservative, only that he allows his administration to be unduly influenced by the neoconservatives still involved in national security matters. I believe this is due to his relative inexperience, not so much his political beliefs - knowing that he doesn't know much he has relied on the wrong group of advisors IMO.

[hrothgar]

Glenn Greenwald has written about the passes supporters have given to Obama for the same actions that Bush/Cheney took that they derided nonstop.

 

I guess it all depends on what you mean by "giving a pass".

 

There's a lot of things that Obama has done that I don't agree with.

He's taken a number of actions where I vehemently disagree. Many of these are the same examples Greenwald identifies.

(By and large, I agree with Greenwald's writing. I think that he is one of the best commentator's out there

Obviously, Libya is not an example where Greenwald and I agree)

 

However, I'm also very leery about attacking Obama from the left.

I don't see a more progressive candidate emerging as a viable electoral choice.

And, while I disagree on some issues with Obama, can you image what life would be like with McCain / Palin in the White House?

Or, for that matter, Huckabee / Romney / Pawlenty or any of the rest of that pack of idiots?

 

Nader famously claimed that there was no difference between Gore and Bush...

I think that the last decade has shown him to be very, very wrong.

 

I'm sure that there are major differences between Obama and whomever emerges on the right.

I prefer to save my time/money/energy for more substantive threat.

[Winstonm]

I have been around long enough to become both jaded and cynical - but I do appreciate the pragmatic approach you take. Unfortunately, I don't think anything progressive will ever again be accomplished as the entire political landscape has slid to the right.

 

Can you imagine trying to pass the 1964 civil rights act or the medicare act in today's political environment?

 

I happen to disagree with your pragmatism, though. I think the only way to turn the country from its present path is with successful progressive leadership.

[hrothgar]

 

Talking about double standards. Everybody was up in arms about Iraq. Everybody is "torn" about Libya.

 

 

Looks like the intervention in Libya is progressing reasonably well...

 

1. Gaddafi appears to have been removed from power

2. This was accomplished by domestic Libyan forces without a significant NATO ground presence

3. There were definitely more lives lost than one would have hoped, but there were no large scale massacres

4. Other leaders in the area (Assad) are (hopefully) learning that they can't use military force to suppress domestic forces

 

It's obvious way too early to label this "complete" or a "success" or claim "Mission Accomplished", however, I feeling much more confident regarding how the Obama administration played their hand...

[kenberg]

I guess I agree with all of this. Too soon to say what will come next, but there is a decent chance for something good. And perhaps it is right that Obama and his advisers should get at least some modest credit here. There certainly will be no shortage of folks willing to give him the blame if it goes bad, as it still could.

[luke warm]

I have been around long enough to become both jaded and cynical - but I do appreciate the pragmatic approach you take. Unfortunately, I don't think anything progressive will ever again be accomplished as the entire political landscape has slid to the right.

it's hard to reconcile this with the barrage of posts, after obama won, saying that the rep party was history

 

I guess I agree with all of this. Too soon to say what will come next, but there is a decent chance for something good. And perhaps it is right that Obama and his advisers should get at least some modest credit here. There certainly will be no shortage of folks willing to give him the blame if it goes bad, as it still could.

i think a lot of it will hinge on just who fills the vacuums

[kenberg]

i think a lot of it will hinge on just who fills the vacuums

 

There or here?

[Winstonm]

Looks like the intervention in Libya is progressing reasonably well...

 

1. Gaddafi appears to have been removed from power

2. This was accomplished by domestic Libyan forces without a significant NATO ground presence

3. There were definitely more lives lost than one would have hoped, but there were no large scale massacres

4. Other leaders in the area (Assad) are (hopefully) learning that they can't use military force to suppress domestic forces

 

It's obvious way too early to label this "complete" or a "success" or claim "Mission Accomplished", however, I feeling much more confident regarding how the Obama administration played their hand...

 

And I remember distictly the reasoning given for any interverntion was to prevent a holocaust, a bloodbath of innocent lives.

 

Regime change must have been a total accident.