Posted on 01/21/2012 2:00:14 PM PST by SeekAndFind
Two large elements dominate the debate over Barack Obamas decision to re-deploy the U.S. overseas military forces: the political views of preternatural isolationists and the paucity of perspective by news presenters. The isolationists demand that all troops be brought home now.
The national media are ignorant of why we have a military presence outside our borders to start with. No news outlet I know of has presented the background that explains why the U.S. has a military presence in key areas around the world. This fuels the isolationist cause, leaving Americans to decide between re-deployment or no deployment. The issue is exacerbated in the back of the collective mind in the context of the terrific budget deficit. And our efforts abroad appear to be failures and to add to America's bad image.
Since no one else will, let's review the situation.
Before World War I, America was allegedly isolationist, heeding George Washington's warning not to become involved in European wars. And having established our unique representative democracy against the British empire, there has always been a strong anti-imperialist attitude in these United States. Seems simple enough, except for the reality that the U.S., well before entering the European conflict in 1917, had been quietly building an empire of its own.
This is best exemplified by the spoils from the Spanish-American War of 1898 that included Cuba ,the Philippines, and Puerto Rico, which added to our previous possession of parts of Mexico that stood in our way on the road to building a transcontinental nation. We purchased Alaska from Russia -- and took over various islands, including Hawaii. And we enforced the Monroe Doctrine, an obvious big-power policy that smacked of imperialism, which threatened war against European interlopers who ventured into Central and Latin America.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
It's 48% of Federal discretionary spending.
The number one objective of the United States Constitution, as clearly spelled out right up front in the Premble is to “provide for the common defense”
That same document states that no Military budget can be for a term of longer than two years. Go ahead, look it up. And not to pick nits, the "number one objective" of the Constitution isn't to provide for the common defense. Here's the Preamble. Read it for yourself:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
So as you can plainly see, common defense doesn't come in second, or even third. Another interesting little tidbit is that "common defense" isn't capitalized while "Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity" is. So which of those do you think Hamilton, Madison, and Jefferson thought were most important?
And as long as we're talking about the Constitution why don't we discuss how the Founding Fathers felt about a standing army as well as foreign entanglements.
Yet that nutcase anti-defense, Truther, let terrorist have nukes, praise traitors isolationist
You should wipe that spittle off your face. It's unattractive.
I am the first to acknowledge the necessity of an American military presence around the world. It is a strategic reality that our nation has GLOBAL national security interests, and we have enemies around the entire world that, in the age of Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles and nuclear weapons, necessitates our military be stationed at particular key locations to protect us. I understand the historic threat that was posed by Nazism, Fascism and Imperial Japan in WWII, and in the designs the Soviet Empire and Communists had on world conquest during the Cold War - it was real, and it had to be countered..... ALL that said, THIS article is just about the clearest piece of Neo-Conservative propaganda I’ve read in short form in a LONG time. Not that it isn’t accurate in parts — it is. Our nation has, in many ways, become an “empire.” The Founders did NOT intend it to be so — and we should CEASE MOST of those practices and programs that come from the Progressive/Neo-Conservative mindset that WE have to be the “policemen of the world,” the “nation-builders,” or the “champions of democracy.” And still, this would NOT satisfy the Libertarian-Isolationist-Paulites.
Facts are stubborn things. Fact: Paul is an isolationsit and a clear and presant danger to the number one objective of the United States Constitution, defense. Fact: Paul is a nutcase. There is a long list of unbelievable wacko crappola has spewed from that kook for decades.
The nation’s federal government is broke but it is NOT from doing its primary function or whoever the “globalists and internationalists” are supposed to be. It is primarily because of entitlements.
You're not getting it. Comparison to GDP is wholly appropriate, as it's the only way to make valid comparisons from year to year. Let me give you an example:
Two people, let's call them person A and person B each have a car payment. Person A has a Yugo and pays $100 per month, while person B instead opts for a Ferrari and has a monthly payment of $5,000. Using your logic, you would say that person B has purchased a car he can't possibly afford and must therefore cut back before he goes broke.
But there's one crucial piece of information missing from your calculation: their relative incomes! If person B has 50 times the annual income of person A then he can afford the Ferrari with no trouble at all. Raw dollar amounts, or even budget percentages are meaningless without knowing what percentage of total economic output (GDP) they represent.
Thankfully, though, it was not Ron Paul but Thomas Jefferson who was Commander in Chief, and he understood the necessity of demonstrating that American ships could not be attacked with impunity and American citizens could not be kidnapped without serious consequences. In a word, he understood DETERRENCE, a term that is entirely alien to Ron Paul and his followers.
No it isn't.
as it's the only way to make valid comparisons from year to year.
Incredibly, amazingly, astoudingly, wrong. There's another way. Can you guess it? Here, I'll help. It goes like this:
"How much did we spend this year? Will we spend more or less next year?" Or there's this question, which makes Neocon heads explode:
"Why should the American taxpayer subsidize the German economy by basing thousands of American troops there to defend them from an enemy who no longer exists when they're perfectly capable of defending themselves?" Insert any of the 140+ countries on the planet where American boots are currently trodding.
So go back to school and learn some basic math, Scooter.
American foreign policy should be this in a nutshell: "F*** with us or a Treaty partner and we vaporize your Capital city." Then we make an example of one. Personally I like the idea of turning Mecca into radioactive dust just to make a point. No more "nation building", "spreading Democracy" or any of that crap. Just a simple "Screw with us and die."
Barring that, I pick Belgium. Then we can say "This is what we do to countries we aren't pissed at."
No more "nation building", "spreading Democracy" or any of that crap. Just a simple "Screw with us and die." And we don't spend the next decade rebuilding. The Romans didn't rebuild Carthage, they killed every living thing there. That should be our policy, too.
L
My recollection of the FDR acolytes is that they wanted no post-war internationalism. Their aim was to destroy our W.W.II enemies -- and of no small import, those of their Uncle Joe Stalin's.
It was the pre-war isolationists who recognized the danger of communism -- post-FDR George Kennan initiated the containment policy of Truman. (Kennan was the author of the "containment policy" against the USSR during the Cold War)
the paucity of perspective by news presenters. . . the abysmal condition of American media could be explained by the simple reason that most of them see no reason to contain communism; to wit, Cold War troop deployment was simply wrong, wasteful, and war-mongering; indeed the Cold War was our fault in the view of many media employees.
In fact, I remember many a liberal arguing that we are playing into the hands of the Soviet hardliners by not helping the U.S.S.R. and therefore there will be war and it will be our fault -- internationalist Republican also advocated helping the U.S.S.R. exactly like Red China is being helped today. The The Greatest Generation said, HELL NO!
In 1950, Russia, now with a nuclear bomb of its own, pushed its pawn North Korea to invade South Korea.
I believe that it is a fact that Stalin's role was to provide the air power but he did not.
BTW, pre-WarII isolationists who recognized the danger of communism survived many attempts by FDR and Stalinist to destroy them -- tricking them (with the help of media employees), charging them, arresting and trying them for sedition -- The Great Sedition Trial of 1944. Something that I bet the Obamanists are studying how to do it right this time and rid the country of their political enemies -- something that FDR failed in his efforts to get the small guys then go after Senator Taft, et al.
There has been, there is now, and there will always be a dominant world military power. If the crackpot Paul closed ALL (as he promised) military bases and gutted the military, just what nation or group would you like to see become that dominant power? It would not be the US.
48% “discretionary” is a twisting of the numbers. It is 20% of the total budget.
And, Yes the defense of this nation IS the number one job of the Federal government as provised in the US Constitution. No common defense and there is NO domestic tranquility, no justice, no promoting of the general welfare....no country.
“Spittle”? No, there was none, just FACTS being presented succinctly about a loser candidate who happens to be a crackpot.
Define "dominant". There are many ways to dominate ones adversaries and they don't all include spreading America's sons and daughters to every third world sh** hole on the planet in futile efforts to civilize a bunch of 7th century savages.
Let the Air Force and Navy kill them in job lots and reduce their cities and infrastructure to ashes. We can get that done by next Friday. Then we sit back and say "OK, who's next?"
48% isn't twisting anything. It's a cold, hard fact. You just don't like it. Now you're perfectly entitled to your own opinion. But you're not entitled to your own facts.
L
One of the primary reasons we still have military forces in certain countries is to prevent former foes, such as Japan, from re-militarizing and to prevent some from developing nuclear forces of their own as a response to our withdrawl. The widespread distribution of our forces is the primary reason the world has not experienced greater nuclear proliferation than it has.
I agree that we shouldn't be expected to shoulder this burden by ourselves. Western Europe certainly should defend itself, and we have actually dramatically reduced our presence there already. In South Korea I suspect that our reluctance to leave them on their own is because we don't want two nuclear-armed Koreas facing off. There was also never an official end to the war there, merely an on-going armistace.
With respect to Japan, I suspect that we see removal of our protection as leading inevitably to Japan's nuclearization (or at least substantial build-up of conventional forces), which would probably make China very nervous and lead to an arms race in the region. There's a side of me that would like to see China sweat the presence of a more aggressive Japan, but I can understand why our military strategists would worry about this.
There are many more examples but in short, the world is a much more complicated and dangerous place than the likes of Ron Paul would have you believe.
GDP is still absolutely relevant to this calculation despite how you simplistically attempted to breeze by it. As for your complaint about the number of U.S. troops in Germany, you probably don't realize that we have already downsized them significantly in recent years. The number remaining today wouldn't even fill an average American football stadium (less than 60,000). You also fail to recognize that many of our troops are not there to protect Europe so much as they are there as forward deployment for other potential theatres of war, and to provide support functions to our troops elsewhere (ever hear about injured troops being airlifted to Germany for treatment?)
We currently spend around 4% of GDP on the entire defense budget.
What percentage of federal monies (taxes) is labeled for defense ?
What percentage of US foriegn aid is actually weapons and military technology ?
You forgot the huge military base there, the air base, all the planes, and the equipment, all of which cost hundreds of millions to maintain.
You also fail to recognize that many of our troops are not there to protect Europe so much as they are there as forward deployment for other potential theatres of war,
War against who exactly? Is France about to attack Luxumborg or something? Are the Romanians going to invade Bulgaria? Or do you mean Kosovo where are guys were going to be "home by Christmas" according to President Clinton. Well they're still there aren't they. What strategic threat does Kosovo pose to the United States? None whatsoever.
(ever hear about injured troops being airlifted to Germany for treatment?)
Ever hear of Hospital Ships? The US Navy has a few of them and they're every bit as good as the facilities in Germany. And if our people weren't wasting their lives and body parts keeping muslims from killing each other we wouldn't need that base in Germany at all.
Ef the Afghans. We should nuke those tribal areas and follow that up with nerve gas until nothing's left twitching. Nothing in that 7th century sh** hole is one one single more drop of American blood or another nickle of American treasure.
The American military isn't some International Armed and Dangerous Pizza Guy, son. They exist for one reason and one reason only. That's to kill our enemies and break all their stuff. And we can do that with missiles and bombs.
Let Europe defend Europe. If they want to kill each other, let 'em. If any one of those rag head islamo-nazi's attacks us or a Treaty partner, nuke them till they frigging glow and walk away. We can still have the most ass-kicking military on the planet for a third of what we're spending now.
Re-deploy the guys from overseas to our Southern border and let them seal that up as tight as a drum. Once we have the illegal immigration thing down to a dozen or so a year we can talk about sending our guys to Africa to stop Africans from killing other Africans.
Until then the Lurker Plan for World Peace and American Domination stands. F*** with us and we wipe your country off the map.
I'm tired of watching my friends get sent to the other side of the world to fight for a bunch of people who hate us. Screw that. Let 'em kill each other till the frigging cows come home. If they turn their violence towards us we kill every last one of them.
You are right that social spending is much larger than defense. The problem is, social spending is largely the result of “keeping up with the joneses”. We take the burden from European countries, so they can afford a humongous social welfare state. We watch as they live “fat”, and the population here gets envious. Our military spending is actually driving social spending at a furious rate. Once we have to quit because of financial reasons, the social welfare state will collapse. The problem with that is, the political class will blame the military, and cut it to the bone anyway. When that happens we will be both broke, and unable to defend ourselves. There will be few that will argue for more spending for military, when the dependents are yowling for more food.
Lurker for President. The man that espouses your point of view would win. Maybe someone ought to teach Ron Paul those words.
Yes, the 48% twists the FACT that the defense budget is only 20% of the total. That is the same garbage the liberals use to keep from slashing big bloated entitlements and pushing the gutting of defending the nation. Using common sense in place of budget-speak, National defense is MANDITORY spending. But, I suppose Ron Paul's Code Pink supporters agree with his wanting to gut the defense.
I'm sick and tired of seeing American blood and American treasure support murderous dictators and thugs who stab us in the back at every opportunity.
Pakistan? Smoking radioactive rubble.
Afghanistan? Smoking radioactive rubble.
Mecca? Should have been smoking radioactive rubble on 9/12/2001.
Kosovo? F*** them. Most Americans can't find it on a map.
Japan? Seriously does anyone think Japan needs defending?
Korea? Tell Kim Jung Whoever that if one single Nork troop or one single Nork round crosses the DMZ we nuke his little hidey holes down to the bedrock and then we'll nuke it again.
Islamo-nazi terrorist? Here's Lurkers Plan for Islamic Terrorism:
"Good evening my fellow Americans. From this moment forward it shall be the policy of the United States that the next act of terror committed against an American citizen or American interest anywhere on the planet will result in the cities of Mecca, Medina, and Qom being turned into radioactive parking lots.
We will then find the families of those who committed these barbaric acts and kill them down to the last one. Moms, dads, aunts, uncles, children, and housepets; no one will escape our wrath or our vengeance.
We will stamp your lineage from the face of the Earth forever. Anyone who supported them in any way will suffer the same fate. And God himself won't be able to save any Nation on the planet if one single Official from any Government anywhere on Earth was involved. If you don't think I'm serious, try me. Thank you and God bless the United States of America."
That ought to do it.
All said & done, we’ve probably spent nearly 3 Trillion dollars in Iraq and Afganistan in the last 10 years. Where does this sum show up in your numbers?
What can we expect in return for it? What do we have to show for it? I can see Afganistan, but Iraq is just money and soldiers lives wasted and will likely cost us more money and soldiers lives in the long run.
The Defense Department 20% portion of the 2011 US budget are not my numbers. They are the numbers of the US CBO.
At least one other thinks like me. Thank you for being around this place so long. How did you do it without being banned?...insert laughter here.....
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.