Posted on 03/02/2014 4:45:39 AM PST by SkyPilot
For much of his time in office, President Obama has been accused by a mix of conservative hawks and liberal interventionists of overseeing a dangerous retreat from the world at a time when American influence is needed most.
The once-hopeful Arab Spring has staggered into civil war and military coup. China is stepping up territorial claims in the waters off East Asia. Longtime allies in Europe and in the Persian Gulf are worried by the inconsistency of a president who came to office promising the end of the United States’ post-Sept. 11 wars.
Now Ukraine has emerged as a test of Obama’s argument that, far from weakening American power, he has enhanced it through smarter diplomacy, stronger alliances and a realism untainted by the ideology that guided his predecessor.
It will be a hard argument for him to make, analysts say.
A president who has made clear to the American public that the “tide of war is receding” has also made clear to foreign leaders, including opportunists in Russia, that he has no appetite for a new one. What is left is a vacuum once filled, at least in part, by the possibility of American force.
“If you are effectively taking the stick option off the table, then what are you left with?” said Andrew C. Kuchins, who heads the Russia and Eurasia Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. “I don’t think that Obama and his people really understand how others in the world are viewing his policies.”
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
Guess that whole lack of experience thing is coming home to roost. Putin has him pegged and is doing what he wants with no concern for repercussions.
Sick to watch.
You are absolutely correct, my apologies for that. Mod, can you fix the link? Here is the proper link to the Washington Post story posted:
Ukraine crisis tests Obama’s foreign policy focus on diplomacy over military force
Here it is in raw HTML:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/ukraine-crisis-tests-obamas-foreign-policy-focus-on-diplomacy-over-military-force/2014/03/01/c83ec62c-a157-11e3-9ba6-800d1192d08b_story.html
“You cannot treat your own employees with contempt, and expect them to perform well with high morale. The US military and its employees are not slaves. Contrary to your notion, the great majority of those serving both in and out of uniform are patriots. “
You are, as always, a piece of work.
You cannot treat TAXPAYERS with contempt and expect them to perform well (paying outsized taxes) with high morale. The US TAXPAYER are not slaves. Contrary to your notion, the great majority of those private sector taxpayers outside of government bureaucracies are patriots.
My grandfather served, my father served, I served, and my son is now serving.
Your point is???
And you are, as always, rude and believe you are the only person in American who ever served in the military or pays taxes.
Same post, every...single.....time.
You are hopelessly lost in your own selfish dependence on big government checks to realize they cannot be paid forever.
I’m ignoring the off-point nonsense in your response.
So how about it? Are private sector taxpayers slaves? Must they pay every promise government makes? Can you possibly be a patriot if you are not working in government?
No, it's not TESTING it. It's PUNISHING it.
Sheesh.
This is going to kill the Democrats in November. As well it should...
For those who have read the article, this is the money quote. Obama has made it clear to the world that when confronted with a crisis, he will do nothing. This reduces his options to zero and puts the United States and the world into a situation where rogue nations, non-state organizations, and gangs of thugs can do as they please with no fear of any meaningful response from the U.S. It makes the world a much more dangerous place.
Pax Americana is no more.
Since Putin has all of Obama’s personal information, our whole nation is being blackmailed. Thanks, Main Stream Media, for soooooo thoroughly vetting Obama.
Except for the part where it endangers us all, I am actually enjoying watching it.
Why doesn’t soebarkah threaten to slap him?
We’re watching the “unexpected” result of “infirmative action” played out on a dangerous world stage.
Please read, it is long, but I think I have some counterpoints for you to at least consider.
Well, military service is different from government service. Even that 20 year guy in the motor pool gets the shit end of the stick every now and then.
The thing is, the country decided on a professional military with a long term commitment of benefits to entice and retain a certain (which actually is a small percentage) amount of qualified people. Far fewer reenlistments are allowed than you may think (having been given the duty of reenlistment NCO I know). But still, it was a commitment. You seem to be saying that a commitment is a something that can be simply dropped by one party whenever it is convenient to do so, as in the case of the United States having overspent itself. However, there is no one size fits all. This is what gave us sequestration, where the military has to cut a percentage equal to other half of the government, without looking at the value of the particular program nor the current needs of the country.
Witness Hagel earlier this week committing the government to cutting the military in a massive way (compared to the past) and by the weekend the Ukraine starts to spin out of control. While it might not seem to be such a big deal, we have no vital interests in the Ukraine, from a historic perspective, it is huge. An inconvenient truth is we actually have a military treaty with the Ukraine to prevent a Russian attack (and they promised to give their nukes to the Russians as part of the agreement). If they publically call on us to enforce our treaty obligation, how do we do so? Do we do so? What a mess! What does failure to act on our agreement say to the North Koreans vis-à-vis South Korea? China and Taiwan? Israel and Iran? Think quick; others are watching! Chamberlain at Munich led to September 1, 1939...
I retired as a Senior Master Sergeant. My AFSC was 3C090 which is Comms-Computers. The whole enlisted Air Force SEEMS to be REMFs but 3C0’s do combat comms, Red Force and other combat missions. Even so, I will agree that in the Air Force enlisted ranks, only the SPs are truly a military force. That changed after 9/11 with the demand for combat comms and forward air controllers, but there ya go. I retired before 9/11.
Note however the Air Force didn’t pay me to do comm-computers, but rather they paid me to be a Senior Master Sergeant. I was, at that rank, capable of leading in many different roles. Still, my AFSC was constantly getting robbed by recruiters in the civilian world for competent technicians; and yes, they made lots more than we who stayed on were being paid. My own experience is that yes, I could have made much more on the outside. You yourself said you didn’t get paid much but was proud to serve. Compensation for serving longer than a one hitch up and out should offer more than just kudos for patriotism. Especially for those who have families. My wife couldn’t keep a career, either, as much as she wanted to. When I PCS’d, I still had a job. She didn’t, and if lucky, got something (she got a substitute teacher job at San Vito AS, Italy, and that was it..one or two times a month). When I retired, her resume wasn’t looking so good as it would had I simply served once and got out.
Now you’re probably thinking, “Well then, you should have just got out and pursued your fortune!” But dude, I did/do love my country and my Air Force! I liked serving! I liked being the best I could be. Still, the PROMISE of the pension, the medical care, the continued relationship as a retiree beyond the gate kept me in when my wife cried and was bored to tears, while I was jacked up by A-hole Lts and Capts who thought they knew it all, when the shit would hit the fan and everything would go to hell in seconds (and yes, I thought about that a lot—I spent seven years in ADCOM/NORAD/SAC running comm-computer scenarios for Missile Warning). Now you want, after I did my half, to take it away because it cost too much (while a HELL of a lot is wasted and given out for free), while I’m now older and sick is a big hardship on me. And you (the country) got my services for very cheap all those years I served, and I do think I did a damn fine job, and in my many different ways, kept the country strong and out of war. Can I say that? I’m very proud of my service. I have not one ounce of distain for those who did not serve and/or those fine airmen who got out after one term. I used to smile inside when people said what a hero I was, when I was having so much fun. Still, I was told “Keep at it! We’ll reward you at the end for all your hard work, sucking gas mask rubber (I am somewhat claustrophobic and 12 plus hours in chemical gear had me almost, but not quite, ready to tear that sucker off and scream in front of everyone. The colonel told me I was the best, most intense senior NCO when we did battle staff but little did he know I was so focused because otherwise I would tear out of chem gear. Condidtiion Black and lying under the table was probably the worst, as I couldn’t DO anything!) and a host of other things.
Again, I think you are not looking at both sides here.
The REASON for all this, what you see as government largesse we cannot afford, is RETENTION.
The military policy of the nation is supposed to be to protect the country and its interests. How it goes about it in a time when its budget is limited is to come up with smart ways to save money while getting the best possible outcome. Retention is a fiscal policy. It cost money, but the return is less money spent fixing problems that a bunch of new guys without anyone to lead and help them would otherwise create.
You and I can debate retention, but I’m sure we can both agree at a certain level, retention is a must for a modern, technical military.
I think to blithely say that the pensions, housing, commissary, etc. model we’ve come up with over the past 60 years is wrong, without thinking through the consequences or at least offering replacement ideas to continue retaining quality people is penny-wise and pound-foolish. I would agree that the whole system and packages should be looked at and constantly tweaked to respond to the times. However, once an agreement between the government and a military person is met and signed, the rest of us should at least honor it as much as we can, no? Especially in a time when the giving out of free iPhones is being INCREASED and Food stamps (EBT) is at its highest ever. So far I have heard of NO plans by the administration to cut ANY of that. It appears they have their priorities; “Pennies for defense, but not one cent taken from welfare!” I am terribly sad to see my country in the fiscal crisis it is in. I actually would give up many of my benefits if the cuts were made all around. But come on, the democrats are INCREASING welfare and free handouts with our money and all we do is talk. The Republicans themselves just raised the debt ceiling. Obama won’t use that to further fund anything military-personnel, ops and maintenance, hardware—just more free give-outs. And our side is going to jump on the cut the military bandwagon as a fix?!
What, ultimately, would be the economic outcome to lose a war? I live in the South; the only part of America that did. It set us back many generations. Our first duty is to see no enemy defeats us. Its that simple. We’re just quibbling over how best to achieve that.
Absolutely not! The Tax payers are not slaves, but free men. But the country has an obligation to protect itself. That is probably the one single DUTY it has.
There is no argument there, the argument is what constitutes protection and how much it costs to do so.
Invading Iraq to remove Saddam Hussein, for example, is a debatable argument of need or not. Responding militarily to the Empire of Japans attack on Pearl Harbor is less so. Keeping a massive military when your adversary has nuclear weapons and an avowed hatred of your way of life and threatens you makes sense to many as well.
Still, the whole wide world of human beings include good guys and bad guys, and often those bad guys get enough of their kind together and go taking things from the good guys. The citizens of this country decided to form a government to look out for their good interests, and one of those interests include having a military to confront bad guys.
This has a cost. Argue how much and what for, but it does have a cost. Spend too little and the bad guys get through, and they’re not going to be nice.
Mad Vlad’s been communicating his intent for years. Obama’s response has been to cut military spending.
Remember this?
August 14, 2012
“Silent Running
Russian attack submarine sailed in Gulf of Mexico undetected for weeks, U.S. officials say”
“A Russian nuclear-powered attack submarine armed with long-range cruise missiles operated undetected in the Gulf of Mexico for several weeks and its travel in strategic U.S. waters was only confirmed after it left the region,...”
(snip)”...Instead of closer ties, Russia under President Vladimir Putin, an ex-KGB intelligence officer who has said he wants to restore elements of Russia’s Soviet communist past, has adopted growing hardline policies against the United States.
Of the submarine activity, Sen. John Cornyn (R., Texas), member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said, “It’s a confounding situation arising from a lack of leadership in our dealings with Moscow. While the president is touting our supposed ‘reset’ in relations with Russia, Vladimir Putin is actively working against American interests, whether it’s in Syria or here in our own backyard.”
The Navy is facing sharp cuts in forces needed to detect and counter such submarine activity...”
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.