Talk-Polywell.org

World policeman, nation building, 1000 military bases, even preemptive military action (such as Iraq) in other words the modern US foreign policy seems to be a back lash to perceived late entry into WW2 and the thought that it was almost a disaster which could have resulted in our losing the war. Moreover, the thought is that "isolationism" is the alternative to todays US foreign policy philosophy that had us invade Iraq and oppose Iranian nuclear weapons, etc.

I am having trouble wading through the devil and the deep blue sea staged arguments. There must be some way through this seeming maze and I would like to hear some intelligent analysis and arguments, if some of the brains here could address it.
Thanks

Interesting thoughts, but I do not believe circumstances relate.

Our entry to WWII was prestaged by active combat and losses off both coasts. To include shipping attacks in the Gulf of Mexico and along the south eastern and eastern coasts. Our primary invovlment interest going in both east and west directions was a threat to our national center of gravity, international commerce. Al Qaida and other extremists have not, nor do they in the foreseeable future represent any threat to our national center of gravity (even though they would like to think so). Litmus test: Did the destruction of the "World Trade Center" threaten our national center of gravity? Answer: not as much as they would like to think. Would the destruction of the NYSE trading floor threaten our national center of gravity? Not really. Why? These attacks and ones like them do not cause permanent real damage to the system. The system is much larger and dispersed, and thus can not be "done in" by any single means. Look at Katrina, we lost a major US city, in effect by a comparative nuclear strike, and it did not stop the nation, nor threaten the national center of gravity. Impact yes, threaten, no.

Ladajo,
If I am understanding your thinking, Katrina, although a large tragedy, was not doomsday, so we have room for successfully using measured defense only response, therefore defense only response would be workable. One could argue that the cold war was a successful application of that strategy.

What about the idea that if we don't stop Iran from acquiring a nuclear bomb, that Israel will be destroyed. In other words US defense only may lead to tragedy for others, which it is our moral obligation to prevent? This is a variant of the Chamberlain argument, I think.
Best regards

Well, in harsh reality, if Iran did nuke Israel, and Israel reciprocated (albiet at a measureably higher level of effect), what would that actual impact be to the US National Center of Gravity, International Trade?
An impact yes, but destruction, not even close. In fact, other than emotional somewhat temporary hydrocarbon market fluctuations, not so much down the road.

And morally, we have no nuclear compact with Israel. That is a function of NATO only for us.

WWII precursor was a different animal. We faced a national survival level threat to our Center of Gravity in that an aligned aggressor was seeking to dominate the rest of the global trade structure. Had we not acted, the end result would have been bipolar, US economy verses Axis economy. We would have been in a much weaker postion, and eventually faced certain conflict over it.

Extremism is a completely different angle. It does not carry the immediacy of threat that we faced before WWII. Without our entry, Russia was doomed, as was Europe, and Asia, and even Africa. It would have been North America (US) against the aligned planet under not very nice folks. We would not even have been able to get South America.

The magnitudes and vectors of each threat are entriely different. That is why I do not think you can compare.

mvanwink5 wrote:Moreover, the thought is that "isolationism" is the alternative to todays US foreign policy philosophy that had us invade Iraq and oppose Iranian nuclear weapons, etc.

Your framing omits a simple fact: the U.S. (specifically the Bush administration) was ready to invade Iraq at the slightest pretext. After 9/11 the question wasn't "if" or "why" or "when"... the die was cast.

The branch of the GOP known as the neocons were convinced they could advance an American empire (literally) using Middle Eastern nations as stepping stones... as long as those nations had oil.

The plutocrats who knew better just licked their chops and grinned.

The state of perpetual war has never had anything to do with furthering national defense. It never will. But it ensures power, control and the redistribution of wealth to the elites... so we will stay at war.

Forever.

And that's why the CIA, not the military, is operating drones over various and sundry nations. Drones whose Hellfire MAC missiles magically never kill more than 30 people at a time... because that would require additional forms to be filled out.

That's why the NYPD boasts of its ability to shoot airliners down and of its intelligence units in foreign cities worldwide.

International intelligence becomes military actor, domestic policing becomes heavily-armed international intelligence...

We've all heard of this kind of story before but 30+ years of plutocrat-funded propaganda have rendered most Americans unable to understand why what is happening is a very bad thing.

So first you have to ask the right questions and for that you have to fact-check your starting assumptions, one such assumption being that all the wars declared and undeclared have anything to do with national security.

There might have been a chance, in Afghanistan, that once the Taliban were routed a genuine concerted rebuilding effort might, perhaps, have set the people on a path away from theocratic warlordism... but such an effort would have needed funding and troops and experience at the task.

Funding and troops were diverted to Iraq and instead of learning from our past experiences the Afghani got corporate-sponsored nation building based on profits and ideology... and they will be paying the price for the greed of our elites for many, many years to come.

Iraq (how's that cheap oil? Have they gotten the power to stay on 24/7 yet?), Pakistan, Syria, Yemen, Libya... and more to come as needed.

So the factual answer to your question is that from the point of view of our elites there is nothing wrong and, indeed, everything is going swimmingly so there's no need to change things.

And while isolationism is not a solution, not in the 21st century, first you have to define a reality-based scenario as to exactly why it'd be in our best interests to frick around with another country... and it's hard to get through to certain people that very often what is most desired by the extremely wealthy does not happen to be in the best interests of the country.

zapkitty,
I don't understand your thoughts or perhaps you are not understanding my questioning. I am not looking for soap boxing. I am trying to come to a view point on what our foreign policy should be beyond pure self defense. I think that it is generally viewed that defense against attack is warranted, at least it is in my personal view. However we seem to have gone way beyond that and I was trying to understand if there was really any rational need for it.

I would say that Ladajo sees our defense requirements as lying far short of our current Mideast entanglements and adventures. Indeed, from my viewpoint, his thoughts have been quite helpful.

I do like the idea of attempts at designing missile shields, although there are arguments about whether they would work. The point would be to minimize an initial attacks damage. A strong and prepared, trained and armed, national defense is completely warranted from my view too. I am just not seeing any national defense requirements in what we have been doing, but I am open to insights.

On the other hand I understand the desire of some to aid other countries in their defense, but things get murky real fast, and who provoked what and 1000 years of hate, and culture clashes. More over, take Libya, kick one despot out and an even more repressive government takes over. Where does it end? Nato, has gone way beyond its purpose there, it seems to me.
Best regards,
Mike

zapkitty,
When you say that isolationism is not a solution, not in the 21st century, I have no idea what that means. Could you elaborate what you mean and what you do think is needed, with the why. I understood your thoughts about Afghanistan, that a limited effort might have been worthwhile, I would appreciate your thoughts.

My outlook, personally, tends towards limiting the conflict to the bare minimum in human and material collateral cost.
Best regards

To further clarify my position, I would not say far short, I would say short. As I do feel that cricumsatnces can dictate an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

I think that the way ahead for us is engagement. I have seen it in action, and done properly over time, it compunds the true strength of our country and culture, which is diversity and cooperation. I do not think that it means we need to give up being the biggest fish in the pond, but I do think that we would best remember in the long run that lots of ants can eat an elephant.

Would I pre-emptive strike Iran? Yes, but not for any reasons so far discussed above. And, in doing so I would first plan for the what next, and what else after that.

It is interesting that the US wanted to go to war with Great Britain until Hitler decided to invade Poland...
Wonder how things would have turned out had Hitler decided to wait a few more years with that.
I also wonder how the world would have perceived the US, had they gone through with that plan...

Neocons?

I don't know if you remember back then but the whole nation was screaming for blood. Kerry et. al. were all in. I have a list too tedious to post here of how gung ho they were.

When the going got tough they bailed and started inventing "fooled/forced by neocons". Revisionist history at its finest.

As to bases everywhere? When asked we leave. Why are we still in Germany? They haven't asked us to leave.

And just to give you some idea of the schizophrenia out there. Palestinians who "hate America" and want to leave their shitestain of an enclave (most of them) have their first choice of destination - tada - America. You see that ALL over the world. Mostly.

Since America has become the world hegemon (sort of) the number of wars in the world has been declining. Not a bad record IMO.

Our current policy may be expensive and bad. But I am loathe to try something different out of whim, caprice, or even discomfort. Because changes are mostly for the worse.

Too much military spending is bad. Too little is worse. Much worse. Which tells you which side I'd err on.

ladajo wrote:To further clarify my position, I would not say far short, I would say short. As I do feel that cricumsatnces can dictate an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

I think that the way ahead for us is engagement. I have seen it in action, and done properly over time, it compunds the true strength of our country and culture, which is diversity and cooperation. I do not think that it means we need to give up being the biggest fish in the pond, but I do think that we would best remember in the long run that lots of ants can eat an elephant.

Would I pre-emptive strike Iran? Yes, but not for any reasons so far discussed above. And, in doing so I would first plan for the what next, and what else after that.

Nothing ever goes according to plan. The first casualty in every war is truth (necessarily), the second is the plan. WW2 was supposed to be Europe first. Well we kept the Pacific on a hotter burner than required to keep our allies, the Brits, in line.

What have we and the Iraqis gained from the war? Contact. A good thing as pointed out above. We also got a chance to have Iraq become a roach motel for jihadis. Bad for the Iraqis. Good for us. And now good for them.

Here is what the ME was like back in the 50s:

A rout of Mullahs and Muftis and Musseins and Caids and Glaouis and Sheiks and Sultans and Holy Men and representatives of every conceivable Arab party make up the rank and file and attend the actual meetings from which the higher ups prudently abstain. Though the delegates are carefully searched at the door, these gatherings invariably culminate in riots. Speakers are often doused with gasoline and burned to death, or some uncouth desert Sheik opens up on his opponents with a machine gun he had concealed in the belly of a pet sheep. Nationalist martyrs with grenades up the ass mingle with the assembled conferents and suddenly ex-plode, occasioning heavy casualties.... And there was the occasion when President Ra threw the British Prime Minister to the ground and forcibly sodomized him, the spectacle being televised to the entire Arab World. Wild yipes of joy were heard in Stockholm. Interzone has an ordinance forbidding a meeting of Islam Inc. within five miles of the city limits.

http://powerandcontrol.blogspot.com/200 ... m-inc.html

Their culture has been dysfunctional for a very long time.

Too much military spending is bad. Too little is worse

The party is clearly over for the nation's military. The need for these cuts is just another symptom of the nations' steady decline. The country just cannot afford these escalating defense costs.

After more than doubling in the past 10 years, Pentagon budgets are in for big and painful cuts in coming years.

These defense cutbacks will thin the ranks of civilian contractors and military suppliers across the nation and the world.

Defense spending hit a record high of $553 billion this year, excluding the cost of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. And this out of control spending must be cut by $350 billion over the next 10 years, under the debt-limit agreement forced on Congress last month.

But that's just the beginning: If Congress' supercommittee doesn't reach agreement in the next two months on a plan to reduce the nation's deficit by at least $1.2 trillion, automatically triggered cuts would slash as much as $600 billion from defense and security programs over the next decade.

Pentagon officials are even promising to take a hard look at the previously sacrosanct military pension plans as just another way to cut costs.

If government employees including police and firemen are called on to bare the brunt of austerity, why not the old boys who have served in the military.


In Washington, D.C., Democrats and Republicans alike are concerned that less military spending would hurt local economies and lead to job losses and more iterate unemployed voters. The specter of the automatic cuts is most worrisome to many members.

"You'd have a major, major cut in defense — it's unacceptable," said Rep. Norm Dicks, D-Bremerton, a longtime proponent of defense spending and the top-ranked Democrat on the House Appropriations Committee. "There's no way to speculate what would happen. But I think at some point, if there are cuts of that magnitude, there would have to be a reduction in force."

Large defense contractors, who receive most of their revenue from the DOD from federal contracts are worried.

"Getting our financial house in order is important, but it can't be the only thing that defines our nation or our future," Jim Albaugh, president and chief executive officer of Boeing Commercial Airplanes.


Closing military bases has always been almost impossible to do, politically. So some astute politicians have maneuvered the military budget process into a automatic base elimination situation in which no politician can be blamed.

The size of the cuts will be decided, either directly or indirectly, by the 12-member supercommittee created by Congress as part of its debt-limit agreement that has no real choice in the matter.

Defense advocates are comforted that the committee, which began meeting some weeks ago, is headed by two members who represent states with a large military presence: Democratic Sen. Patty Murray of Washington, and Republican Rep. Jeb Hensarling of Texas. And one of its members, Republican Sen. Jon Kyl of Arizona, has vowed to resign from the panel if it tries to approve a plan with more defense cuts.

Dicks said he hopes members of Congress "come to our senses" to avoid automatic cuts.

He said he remains optimistic the supercommittee ultimately will get Congress to pass a deficit-reduction plan that includes changes in entitlement programs and an increase in tax revenues. And he said he's confident Murray will help avert automatic defense cuts.

But the Tea party will not raise taxes so the DOD budget is destine for a painful hair cut.

"Patty is now a very senior senator, and she is going to have to work this out with the Republicans," Dicks said.

This compromise won't happen; American government is now an exercise in obstructionism.

Marion Blakey, president and chief executive officer of the American Aerospace Industries, said the possibility of large automatic cuts is "the abyss" facing members of the supercommittee. The aerospace and defense industry support 2.9 million jobs in all 50 states, she noted.

"Make no mistake — combining the cuts already incurred and the potential for more defense cuts, hundreds of thousands of American workers' jobs are at risk," she said at a news conference at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C.

More jobs, a million good paying jobs will be lost.

Of course, many are cheering at the thought of a scaled-down Pentagon.

Democratic Rep. Barney Frank of Massachusetts, who long has called for less Pentagon spending, is among those who want the supercommittee to focus first on defense cuts as a way to reduce the deficit. Last year, Frank helped create a task force that studied defense spending and then recommended cuts of $960 billion between 2011 and 2020.

And last week, the U.S. Public Interest Group and the National Taxpayers Union proposed cutting $429 billion from the Department of Defense, saying the department has a number of programs that "waste vital resources."

Axil,

During the Cold War military spending was 10% of GDP - now it is 4% for basics and 2% for the wars.

Not a bad investment (insurance) to keep it from ballooning to 50% as it did for WW2.

What is really killing us is social spending and crony capitalism. And the fact that we are not producing as much of our own oil as we can.

Barney Frank? One of the engineers of the housing meltdown? You present that joke as if his opinion was worth anything?

Faced with a deficit expected to exceed $1 trillion this year, budget-conscious lawmakers are looking to slash government spending and the Pentagon budget will be a major part of the mix. The effort is driven by tea party-backed freshmen elected on their deficit-cutting agenda.

These new idealistic and uncompromising members of Congress take no prisoners.

Some self-styled spokesmen for the Tea Party have already said  they are open to massive cutting military spending. These members do not fear monumental job loss if that is the price of achieving their goals.


Six in 10 Americans say members of the new bipartisan "supercommittee" mandated to find new ways of reducing the federal budget deficit should compromise, even if the agreement reached is one they personally disagree with. This includes a majority of Republicans, independents, and Democrats. but a majority of Tea Party supporters, however, say the committee should hold out for a plan they agree with, even if no agreement is reached: that means no taxes.


Defense spending has nearly doubled since the Sept. 11 terror attacks to more than $500 billion. That spending is separate from the more than $1 trillion that has covered the cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan in the last decade.


If the supercommittee is unable to reach agreement by Nov. 23, or Congress rejects its plan which is the most likely outcome, automatic cuts of $1.2 trillion would hit the government accounts, with half coming from defense spending.


Before Thanksgiving, the supercommittee will be forced to make a clear decision for cuts to programs like Medicare and Medicaid or the type of budgets that have resulted in nearly $8 trillion in national security spending since 2001.

This "doomsday mechanism" would reduce the Pentagon's "base" (non-war) budget to about $472 billion, the approximate level of the base Department of Defense budget in 2007. I do not recall anyone declaring our national security being "imperiled" at that spending level in 2007. In fact, that level of spending for the "base" (non-war) Pentagon budget was at a sixteen year high.

The world will not end, but the economy will take another one in the neck with a huge amount of additional “stimulus” spending removed from the economy and there will be a lot more Americans out of good high paying jobs.