Posted on 01/11/2013 10:15:07 AM PST by Starman417
Krauthammer on the Hagel nomination:
Message-sending. Obama won reelection. He no longer has to trim, to appear more moderate than his true instincts. He has the “flexibility” to be authentically Obama.Hence the Hagel choice: Under the guise of centrist bipartisanship, it allows the president to leave the constrained first-term Obama behind and follow his natural Hagel-like foreign policy inclinations.
...Hagel himself doesn’t matter. He won’t make foreign policy. Obama will run it out of the White House even more tightly than he did in the first term. Hagel’s importance is the message his nomination sends about where Obama wants to go. The lessons are being duly drawn. Iran’s official media have already cheered the choice of what they call this “anti-Israel” nominee. And they fully understand what his nomination signals regarding administration resolve about stopping them from going nuclear.
The rest of the world can see coming the Pentagon downsizing — and the inevitable, commensurate decline of U.S. power. Pacific Rim countries will have to rethink reliance on the counterbalance of the U.S. Navy and consider acquiescence to Chinese regional hegemony. Arab countries will understand that the current rapid decline of post-Kissinger U.S. dominance in the region is not cyclical but intended to become permanent.
And the liberals love it. Matthew Yglesias at Slate writes that no matter what, our country is safe:
As conservatives generally point out whenever the context isn't military spending, it's very damaging to human welfare to have the government tax productive labor in order to spend money on something useless. So given that population aging is certain to lead to growing pressures on the federal budget, it's important to make up as much of the financing gap as possible by cutting spending elsewhere rather than with new taxes. And per the great Peterson Foundation chart above, the U.S. military budget is really large. Obviously, you don't want to cut the military all the way to the bone lest you invite an invasion from Mexico or Canada. But we're not even close to being overwhelmed by Canadian arms. And it's striking that if you look at non-U.S. defense spending, a majority of it appears to be by U.S. treaty allies—NATO members, Japan, Australia, South Korea, etc.—so we really do seem very safe.
He doesn't like any proposed cuts to Medicare but defense....chop it, dice it, and slice it.
I'm sure there is a lot of bloated programs we could cut in defense, as there is in everything government does. Government is the least efficient entity in the country so sure, lets have a look across the board and slice it. But once you send signals to the world that we have become weaker for major combat all it does is invite trouble. Look at the news today that the hostilities between China and Japan are not only escalating militarily but financially.
What if China did attack Japan? Do we just allow it to happen because all we have left is some SEAL teams to do some behind the scenes stuff? No one believes there would every be a war between the two...but we never believed al-Qaeda would bring down the twin towers either. We never believed Germany would invade most of Europe. We never believed Japan would bomb our country. Without a strong military, without heavy ground and air capabilities we will become a joke to those who are most definitely evil. Hell, we don't even make tanks anymore. Unbelievable.
But I would like to see someone specify how far we could cut. Should we be spending the same amount as China? Twice as much? Would that be a stable equilibrium, or would we be encouraging the emergence of global competitors who would then force us to spend more again?
(excerpt) Read more at floppingaces.net...
Forget the world getting freebees on our taxpayers. Bill them or screw them.
Hey — this is what a majority voted for. The US is going to become a European-style Welfare State. More benefits, more taxes and less defense. Obama has been very clear about where he wants to take the country and apparently a majority wants it. Less defense means more free stuff!
our allies dont trust us and our enemies dont fear us
dick cheney
Obama = Van Jones
You could cut the military budget 30-40% and never sacrifice a thing. As a matter of fact, we’d have more and better hardware. How?
1. Stop playing politics with the budget. Boeing gets a five year contract for 60 planes, but the funding is only one year at a time. So, instead of building a dedicated production line each plane is hand built. If it’s a multi-year procurement, fund the whole thing at once so they can set up automated lines and get better long-term pricing.
2. Stop playing politics with the contracts. The small business and minority set asides and gimme’s for political supporters. They’re hideously inefficient and expensive.
3. Get rid of the Greenies. The contracts all have ludicrous green requirements that run the cost through the roof.
4. Stop buying things the military doesn’t want and can’t use just because the plant is in some Senator’s district.
Nothing is more expensive than NOT being ready to go to war. Nobody gets attacked because they’re too strong.
I'm pretty sure reduced defense contractor contributions, in turn, leave a lot of Neo-con office-holders feeling less safe.
I''m pretty sure those Neo-con office-holders, in turn, to get defense funding restored, will be more likely to provoke global brushfires that leave a lot of people in other countries feeling less safe.
But defense cuts making Americans less safe? I seriously doubt it.
btt
Righto. The more we become involved the less safe we have become. It's an accelerating tread mill to collapse. We don't need an overextended military. Define missions down instead of constant mission creep.
I’ sure weakening our military will make us safer. Just as disarming all law-abiding citizens on school property makes our children safer, disarming the country that leads the free world will make citizens of the world safer. The logic is irrefutable - just ask any liberal.
So how would you cut military spending really? How big a Navy would you have in terms of ships, carrier groups, etc. What would your staffing levels be since personnel costs make up 26% of the budget?
Bottomline: There is no way you can cut DOD by 30% to 40% without sacrificing a thing.
How long has it been since we won a war? Every war I can think of was fought for economic reasons and most of them didn’t further Americas position in the world one iota but they certainly did result in a lot of new millionaires.
The Viet Nam war, one where I served two tours required us to get permission from the UN Secretary of Security before attacking North Viet Nam. We were forbidden to attack any place within 20 miles of the Gulf of Tonkin coastline for fear that we might kill a Russian. Whenever the fighting slowed due to the north running low on ammo there would be diplomatic discussions held and fighting would cease until they were resupplied.
Does that sound to you like we were fighting to win? It sure doesn’t to me and I very strongly believe that this was how every modern day war was fought. Telegraph your opponent Ambassador and suggest a timeout while you resupply. Politically this is a wonderful idea because it shows the mothers and fathers that the polidicks are actually doing something to protect our sons and daughters who are serving.
These days, wars are fought for the bankers and the investors, not for the establishment or preservation of individual freedoms. When people decide they want to be free let them overthrow their own dictators and be free there’s no reason we need to die for strangers who will end up hating us anyway.
We did win WWII. We were attacked by the Japanese and the Germans declared war on us shortly thereafter. Both nations were defeated and surrendered unconditionally. Hitler was eliminated along with the scourge of the Nazis and their trail of death and destruction that resulted in the deaths of tens of millions.
We held the line in Korea preventing the North Korean communists aided by the Chinese from taking over the country. The war really didn't end since we just had a truce that still is in force. South Korea is a free and thriving nation. The US still has a military presence there.
We failed in Vietnam despite not losing any significant military action. Almost two years after we disengaged militarily, the North Vietnamese communists took over South Vietnam killing many, forcing millions more into reeducation camps or into exile.
We forced the Iraqis out of Kuwait during Operation Desert Shield/Storm. We returned ten years later to remove Saddam Hussein and his regime as well as destroy a major portion of AQ who had declared it to be the frontline of their war against us. Saddam Hussein was captured, tried, and hung. We took out the murderous Taliban regime in Afghanistan, which had been used as the base for AQ to plan and execute the 9/11 attack against the US. Osama bin Laden was killed in Pakistan after a ten year manhunt.
We also had minor actions in Panama and Grenada.
We also had a 45 year Cold War with the Soviet Union that ended with the collapse of the Soviet Union, the fall of the Berlin Wall, and the reunification of Germany. Hundreds of millions in Eastern Europe were liberated from the Soviet Empire. Many of those liberated nations now belong to NATO.
The Viet Nam war, one where I served two tours required us to get permission from the UN Secretary of Security before attacking North Viet Nam. We were forbidden to attack any place within 20 miles of the Gulf of Tonkin coastline for fear that we might kill a Russian. Whenever the fighting slowed due to the north running low on ammo there would be diplomatic discussions held and fighting would cease until they were resupplied.
I also served two tours in Vietnam including one year in-country during the Tet Offensive. I suggest you check some of your facts.
Does that sound to you like we were fighting to win? It sure doesn’t to me and I very strongly believe that this was how every modern day war was fought. Telegraph your opponent Ambassador and suggest a timeout while you resupply. Politically this is a wonderful idea because it shows the mothers and fathers that the polidicks are actually doing something to protect our sons and daughters who are serving.
That was certainly the case in Vietnam and to a certain extent in Korea. We were fighting limited wars with limited objectives.
These days, wars are fought for the bankers and the investors, not for the establishment or preservation of individual freedoms. When people decide they want to be free let them overthrow their own dictators and be free there’s no reason we need to die for strangers who will end up hating us anyway.
We should fight wars when our strategic national interests are at stake. We should aid people who want to be free by the best available means. It is not that easy to overthrow a tyrant no matter how much you desire to do so. We had foreign help to form our nation.
The Viet Nam war, one where I served two tours required us to get permission from the UN Secretary of Security before attacking North Viet Nam. We were forbidden to attack any place within 20 miles of the Gulf of Tonkin coastline for fear that we might kill a Russian. Whenever the fighting slowed due to the north running low on ammo there would be diplomatic discussions held and fighting would cease until they were resupplied.
I also served two tours in Vietnam including one year in-country during the Tet Offensive. I suggest you check some of your facts.
What facts need checking?
To my way of thinking and yours evidently WWII was the last war we actually won. Sixty five years is a long time to go without a win. This crap of fighting limited wars with limited objectives gives us a lot of wounded and disabled Vets that get crapped on when it comes to treatment, recovery assistance and job relocation. Our government does not want to pay the incidental costs of fighting a war.
I grieve every time one of our troops gets killed or wounded fighting for a bunch of Muslims who wants to overthrow America. South Korea has a whole bunch of people who want us out of Korea. I am for bringing all of our troops home. Clean the men out of Germany too.
You’re going to have to do a lot more talking to change my mind. I don’t believe our dead and wounded are appreciated by anyone except us.
Simply not true. We never received or sought UN approval to go into Vietnam or to attack North Vietnam.
We were forbidden to attack any place within 20 miles of the Gulf of Tonkin coastline for fear that we might kill a Russian.
Forbidden by whom? Certainly not by the UN. Operation Rolling Thunder went on from March 2, 1965 until 2 November 1968. McNamara set limits. Airstrikes were strictly forbidden within 30 nautical miles (60 km) of Hanoi and within ten nautical miles (19 km) of the port of Haiphong. These were later lifted. We bombed Cambodia and Laos as well.
There is no doubt that Russians and Chinese were manning some of the anti-aircraft batteries and flying some of the aircraft against us. We were not fighting to win, but to keep South Vietnam free from being taken over by the North. It was a disgrace the way we exited the war leaving the South Vietnamese to fight on for over two years alone. We eventually cut off our supplies to them and did nothing when the North violated the Paris Peace Accords by staging a full scale invasion in 1975 that eventually led to the defeat of the South.
Fighting a war incrementally and escalating it gradually was a terrible way to fight a war. And the politicians like Johnson and McNamara were micromanaging our prosecution of the war. We never lost the war on the battlefield. It was lost in Washington.
A vocal minority. The 30,000 troops we have there now are tripwire troops. The South Koreans are quite capable of defending their country. NK has nukes. We must provide the nuclear umbrella for South Korea and Japan so they don't get their own. We have burden sharing agreements with these countries to defray the costs of our presence in those countries including in Germany, Italy, Spain, etc. that are part of NATO. We have made major reductions in our forces and I agree we can go down from the current 80,000 or so that are in Europe now. This is certainly far less than what we had in the 60s and 70s when there were over half a million there.
The US is in decline. We are on the same path of decline as other great powers and civilizations. We are now fighting the battle of guns versus butter, which butter always wins because it has more constituents. The US will withdraw from being a power that can project its forces globally. It will be gradual, but it is inexorable. We cannot afford a superpower military and a welfare state. The military will be the first casualty followed eventually by the welfare state, which will consume all of our resources just to stay afloat. The rest of the world will miss America only after we are gone as a global power. Who fills the vacuum is anyone's guess.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.