Ron Paul takes the lead in Iowa.

[DaShi]

Considering Loin's passage was silent on the helpful or harmful nature to the Iraqis (or Afghanis) merely that is didn't help the US, I fail to see how mentioning it advanced your arguement. If anything it was contra your position. But then again I wasn't looking or argueing a given position in this discussoin merely pointing how well reasoned your thoughts were (not).

You shouldn't ask more of people that what you can deliver yourself.

[Guynemer]

Zev, our continued perseverance of Cold War military policy in a post Cold War world is asinine.

Japan is capable of defending itself. As is South Korea. As is Germany, Britain, France, etc. Maybe Taiwan is, maybe it isn't, but I fail to see how that is our problem.

America simply can not afford to be the defense budget of those countries, as well as our own.

[giblets]

Soldier at Ron Paul rally could face trouble

(CBS News) DES MOINES, Iowa - An Army reservist who took the stage at a political event for Ron Paul and expressed his support for the Republican presidential candidate could face legal troubles, the military said Thursday.
Cpl. Jesse Thorsen, 28, stood at a podium at the Paul rally in Iowa on Tuesday night wearing his military fatigues and said meeting the Texas congressman was like "meeting a rock star."
"His foreign policy is by far, hands down better than any other candidate's out there," Thorsen told the cheering crowd.
Army Reserve spokeswoman Maj. Angel Wallace said participating in a partisan political event in uniform is a violation of Defense Department rules and the military is reviewing whether Thorsen could face legal ramifications. Soldiers are permitted to vote, participate in some political activities and express opinions about candidates as long as they are not in uniform and speaking in an official capacity, she said.

[Poppa Bear]

For one thing, your deployment in Asia deters China from invading Taiwan and intimidating its neighbours. China's still ruled by "People's Committees", you know. The people at the top have the same basic priorities and goals as as they did before market reforms. That means acquiring over nations or territories by force is perfectly acceptable to them if it means an increase in their power and prestige. The only reason they won't is because they calculate that their losses would be unacceptable if they tried. And that's so because there happens to a large contingent of the US Navy, not to mention military bases, in the area. Not to mention the US Army. Fact is, Taiwan would either surrender to the PRC, or be invaded, if the US didn't support it. And from Taiwan, China would flex its muscles on the next available target. The Cold War may be over but the PRC is doing its darndest to introduce a new one.
I'm not saying the US should invade countries left and right. I am saying that the US and its allies enjoy a massive strategic advantage over many potential enemies worldwide, and that this strategic advantage makes enemy nations sit back and think twice. Of all these nations it's the US' investment in defence that puts everyone else over the top. It's the US that always has the next-generation air force, army and navy. I strongly suggest that you do not want your armed forces to ever enjoy technological parity with the PRC, or Iran, or any other nation, if you can help it. That doesn't mean you have to invade every country you see.

Absolutely right on all points.

[Dinner]

Now that is what I call a well aged DL.

[Egbert]

How is invading every pissant country at the slightest--occasionally completely-imagined--provocation benefit the US strategically?

Defense should be exactly that--defense. The lion's share has been offense ever since I became capable of sentient critical thought, somewhere around 1990 or so.

If we made it actually inconvenient for us to invade and/or bomb other nations, maybe we'd stop ****ing doing it.

OTH Having a four acre aircraft carrier parked off a coastline can apparently do wonders for "diplomatic persuasion".

[BeBMan]

Soldier at Ron Paul rally could face trouble

I was watching CNN Intl some days ago when they had that guy. But right after he started talking they got "connection" problems, and switched to some reporting from another candidates's campaign hq. Can you believe that???

[Zevico]

Coincidentally, the issue of defence cuts came up in the US recently. The Administration announced spending cuts of about $500 billion in adition to the $500 billion in 'automatic' cuts already foreshadowed, and $500 billion (apparently) already cut.

Coincidentally, two pieces appear today in the National Review Online on this issue---

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/287337/obamas-indefensible-cuts-editors

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/287320/america-s-disarmed-future-arthur-herman

From the latter:

More important, President Obama doesn’t understand that our military’s role isn’t just fighting wars. It’s providing a strong strategic presence that will influence events in our favor — and away from that of adversaries and rivals. Even he admits these drastic cuts can only come through shrinking that presence world-wide, which means deep cuts in our forces in Europe and the Middle East, while expecting a shrinking navy (which could wind up with barely 230 ships by 2020) and air force to keep our interests safe in the Pacific region — where China is surging.

Contra (more a supportive news article with a collection of quotes against than an op-ed)--

http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Articles/2012/01/06/Obamas-Defense-Cuts-Fall-Far-Short-of-Budget-Goals.aspx#page2

[kentonio]

While the Soviet Union was still a threat the world domination game was understandable, but as the current military spending is sending the US into ever deeper debt, and the US apparently can't afford to provide its citizens with first world levels of support, keeping the super military just to keep down a possible future threat from China seems a bit insane. There will inevitably reach a point where the Chinese can afford to catch up and overtake the US militarily and the US will be broke and unable to maintain parity. How does that make any sense?

[Zevico]

While the Soviet Union was still a threat the world domination game was understandable, but as the current military spending is sending the US into ever deeper debt, and the US apparently can't afford to provide its citizens with first world levels of support

Firstly, US "support" or welfare state spending is unsustainable in any case. It keeps rising with no prospect of stabilisation ata given rate of its tax revenues. It will never stop rising unless they actually fix the system. That's a pretty good way to tell that it's broken.
Second of all,the "First World" owes its existence to that defence spending. Absent US support, Europe would basically be part of the USSR right now. The US has been the "arsenal of democracy", as Roosevelt put it, since WW2. US power and influence has kept everyone snug in their bed at night and it has done for over half a century. And that's helpd the US immensely. More allies--and often democratic allies--means more markets, more prosperity, more shared technology, and overall, incalculable benefits to ordinary Americans, to say nothing of the rest of the world. Isolationism--and that's what "drastic defence cuts" really mean"--would simply destabilise the global political system. China, perhaps Russia, but certainly not the US, would be the player in town. It won't happen overnight, but long-term it spells catastrophe.

keeping the super military just to keep down a possible future threat from China seems a bit insane.

If you don't keep the super military, "possible" will be "inevitable."

There will inevitably reach a point where the Chinese can afford to catch up and overtake the US militarily

No. Chinese spending on arms and defence may someday conceivably exceed US spending, but that won't necessarily make the Chinese military--
(1) Less corrupt;
(2) More technologically advanced;
(3) More competent.

All you'll get from such reasoning is a self-fulfilling prophecy of defeatism American decline. If defeat is inevitable, why bother? Why not just raise the PRC flag everywhere and stop worrying about the PRC at all?

The existence of the current, relatively peaceful global status quo--a status quo that benefits every Western nation--is in no small part due to the existence and will of the people United States. The United States, in turn, benefits immeasurably from the existence of that system and the mostly democratic allies it has assisted. If preserving that system means cutting spending in other areas I respectfully submit that, long-term, the US will benefit more from preserving its strategic advantages than from wiping them out.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Whatever happened to the Peace Dividend? Oh right, defense contractors don't want that to occur. Good job, Obama .

[OzzyKP]

Firstly, US "support" or welfare state spending is unsustainable in any case. It keeps rising with no prospect of stabilisation ata given rate of its tax revenues. It will never stop rising unless they actually fix the system. That's a pretty good way to tell that it's broken.
Second of all,the "First World" owes its existence to that defence spending. Absent US support, Europe would basically be part of the USSR right now. The US has been the "arsenal of democracy", as Roosevelt put it, since WW2. US power and influence has kept everyone snug in their bed at night and it has done for over half a century. And that's helpd the US immensely. More allies--and often democratic allies--means more markets, more prosperity, more shared technology, and overall, incalculable benefits to ordinary Americans, to say nothing of the rest of the world. Isolationism--and that's what "drastic defence cuts" really mean"--would simply destabilise the global political system. China, perhaps Russia, but certainly not the US, would be the player in town. It won't happen overnight, but long-term it spells catastrophe.

I agree that the free, western world should retain a defensive edge. So how about the US cuts our spending in half and all you free-loaders double yours. Then we'll collectively be just as well armed but the rest of you guys will be paying your fair share.

[kentonio]

Firstly, US "support" or welfare state spending is unsustainable in any case. It keeps rising with no prospect of stabilisation ata given rate of its tax revenues. It will never stop rising unless they actually fix the system. That's a pretty good way to tell that it's broken.

The current systems are pretty stupid and broken because of the US fear of 'socialism'. They could certainly afford western European levels of support if they cut back on the military and stopped imagining that looking after your citizens = communism.

Second of all,the "First World" owes its existence to that defence spending. Absent US support, Europe would basically be part of the USSR right now. The US has been the "arsenal of democracy", as Roosevelt put it, since WW2.

In other words exactly what I already said.

More allies--and often democratic allies--means more markets, more prosperity, more shared technology, and overall, incalculable benefits to ordinary Americans, to say nothing of the rest of the world.

Really? Care to explain why many citizens living in the worlds only superpower live less well than citizens living in a number of other countries? America is a huge market with a lot of power globally, it certainly does not need to have tens of thousands of troops based around the world to retain its prosperity, especially as it currently is drowning in debt.

Isolationism--and that's what "drastic defence cuts" really mean"--would simply destabilise the global political system. China, perhaps Russia, but certainly not the US, would be the player in town. It won't happen overnight, but long-term it spells catastrophe.

Put down the Tom Clancy book and step away from the keyboard. In case you didn't notice, the US's superpower status is a fairly recent thing. Before that it was Britain & France and endless other countries going back to Rome, Persia etc etc. The US will not remain the worlds only superpower, but if it is clever and sorts out its problems it can at least remain a superpower.

This yellow peril bull**** about the Chinese is ridiculous. Yes they might well retake Taiwan when they are more powerful. Will that be a bad thing? Yes of course, but so was America toppling democratic governments to impose dictatorial puppet regimes. The worlds not a very nice place, but this Team America World Police stuff is laughable.

No. Chinese spending on arms and defence may someday conceivably exceed US spending, but that won't necessarily make the Chinese military--
(1) Less corrupt;
(2) More technologically advanced;
(3) More competent.

Look at China's military capabilities 20 years ago. Look at China's military capabilities today. If you think they aren't catching up you're deluding yourself. They've got the cash, they're investing hugely into education (at a time when half of America wants to replace science classes with bible storytime), and they've spent the last couple of decades planting roots around the world in a lot of countries. They WILL be a superpower and there isn't a damn thing America can do to stop them. Maybe the route to ensuring that superpower will not be a threat to other countries is through engaging them in diplomacy as friends, rather than standing waving a big stick at them.

All you'll get from such reasoning is a self-fulfilling prophecy of defeatism American decline. If defeat is inevitable, why bother? Why not just raise the PRC flag everywhere and stop worrying about the PRC at all?

Yes China want to take over the world.. You think Russia, India and Japan, not to mention the combined militaries of the EU (the worlds second biggest military spender after the US if taken as a group) are just going to roll over to the Chinese in such a ridiculous scenario?

[Zevico]

I agree that the free, western world should retain a defensive edge. So how about the US cuts our spending in half and all you free-loaders double yours. Then we'll collectively be just as well armed but the rest of you guys will be paying your fair share.

Half of Europe is broke. You think they're going to increase their defence spending any time soon? You think anyone is? Of course not. Many countries are so busy being "comfortable" with first world levels of "support" to bother giving a damn about keeping the first world alive. By all means convince others to increase defence spending if you think that wise, but remember that their needs and perceptions may differ from yours.

What's more, if this were a serious proposal then it should be coordinated with the nations that you think should increase spending. Not just "announced" without forethought or planning. That's not the way you build a coordinated alliance. Otherwise the result will be that--
(i) no one is well armed; or
(ii) some may be well-armed, but that result will not be "coordinated" with the US, and it may not account for US interests.

In neither case are your interests served. I repeat: strategic threats to your welfare will keep existing even if the rest of the world doesn't do its "fair share" (which you haven't actually defined). You can choose to man up and accept that or watch the world burn.

[kentonio]

Half of Europe is broke. You think they're going to increase their defence spending any time soon?

Jesus christ, the EU ALREADY spends more on defense than anyone else other than America! Why would we need to up our spending?