An America eternally 'at war'

[Ad Orientem]

A great power without a significant enemy? That's what the U.S. has become.

Osama bin Laden is dead. Al Qaeda is reportedly a shadow of its former self. The great regional threats of the moment, North Korea and Iran, are regimes held together by baling wire and the suffering of their populaces. The only incipient great power rival on the planet, China, has just launched its first aircraft carrier, a refurbished Ukrainian throwaway from the 1990s on whose deck the country has no planes capable of landing.

The U.S., by contrast, has 1,000 or more bases around the world. It spends as much on its military as the next 14 powers (mostly allies) combined.

It will spend an estimated $1.45 trillion to produce and operate a new aircraft, the F-35 — more than any country, the U.S. included, now spends on its national defense annually. The U.S. Navy, with its 11 nuclear-powered aircraft carrier task forces, dominates the global waves, and the U.S. Air Force controls the skies in much of the world. And the president now has at his command two specialized armies to supplement the traditional armed forces: the CIA, which has been heavily militarized and is running its own private assassination campaigns and drone air wars throughout the Middle East and environs; and the Joint Special Operations Command, cocooned inside the U.S. military, whose members are deployed to hot spots around the globe.

By all the usual measuring sticks, the U.S. should be supreme in a historically unprecedented way. And yet it couldn't be more obvious that it's not. Despite its overwhelming military superiority, nothing seems to work out in an imperially satisfying way.

Read the rest here.
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/com ... 0071.story

[Ad Orientem]

An interesting related article. The good news about the national debt is that it is going to force the US to cut back on our out of control war spending. This applies to other nations too.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/49404306/ns ... HtlhIaOxyx

[Reub]

The good news? And what's going to fill the vacuum?

[Ad Orientem]

Considering that we spend more than the next 12-16 nations combined (depending which statistics you rely on) on warfare, my guess is no one will. At least for a good while. Right now, adjusting for inflation, we are spending more than twice as much on the military as we were under the Eisenhower Administration at the height of the cold war. I suspect we could safely reduce military spending by massive amounts with no great threat to our position as the preeminent military power. The War Department's budget, more than Medicare and Social Security is bankrupting this country. This country's militarism has been the principal source of most of our problems over the last sixty years or so.

"Nor do I believe we can justify war by our natural desire to bring freedom to others throughout the world, although it is perfectly proper to encourage and promote freedom. In 1941 President Roosevelt announced that we were going to establish a moral order throughout the world: freedom of speech and expression, “everywhere in the world”?; freedom to worship God “everywhere in the world”?; freedom from want, and freedom from fear “everywhere in the world.”? I pointed out then that the forcing of any special brand of freedom and democracy on a people, whether they want it or not, by the brute force of war will be a denial of those very democratic principles which we are striving to advance..."

“We can’t crusade throughout the world for the four freedoms, or force milk on people who don’t like milk without making ourselves thoroughly hated…No nation should insist on interfering with the internal affairs of other nations unless it is prepared to submit to the same interference itself.”?

-Sen. Robert Taft (R-Ohio)

[MediumTex]

Standing armies will always find an enemy to fight.

Who wants to keep military capability on the sidelines?  Certainly not an ambitious officer corps, enormous private sector defense industry and politicians in search of glory---aka "the military industrial complex."

Weapons, like all other tools, are built to be used.

[Coffee]

Standing armies will always find an enemy to fight.

Who wants to keep military capability on the sidelines?  Certainly not an ambitious officer corps, enormous private sector defense industry and politicians in search of glory---aka "the military industrial complex."

Weapons, like all other tools, are built to be used.

That's like saying: all of us gun owners are going to eventually shoot somebody, because our guns are built for killing.

[Pointedstick]

You have to admit though that us having guns makes us more likely to shoot someone than not having one would. Now, we probably agree that some people need to be shot (which is why we own guns), and at that point you're talking about the user and not the tool. But without the tool, there wouldn't be any shooting. I guess that's what MT was saying.

Certainly having moral politicians who don't declare war on nations that don't need our military might deployed against them would be a great boon. But in the absence of that, not having the ability to do so would be good too.

Then again, congress controls the size of the military, so it's kind of a moot point.

[Mountaineer]

You have to admit though that us having guns makes us more likely to shoot someone than not having one would. Now, we probably agree that some people need to be shot (which is why we own guns), and at that point you're talking about the user and not the tool. But without the tool, there wouldn't be any shooting.

My perspective is that not having guns (a strong defense tool as well as an offensive tool) makes one more liable to be physically hurt.  Human behavior, being what it is, will always find a way to harm someone if that is the intent.  I hear that Special Forces training teaches one to use whatever is available - guns, knives, pencils, forks, rocks, plastic wrap, fists, elbows, etc. - to harm ones opponent before you are harmed.  Thus, removing one tool (guns) of a plethora of tools will probably not do much to restrain evil intent, whether on an individual level or a country's military level.  To quote Teddy Roosevelt "walk softly and carry a big stick" will likely keep more people from being harmed more than "talk loudly to appease others and carry a small stick".  A somewhat silly example: if I am determined to eat, it matters little whether I have a pan, skillet, microwave oven or campfire ... I will find a way to prepare food and eat.  As you implied, Pointedstick, the user is more important than the tool being used.

[Reub]

What fills the vacuum when we don't stand up for our interests around the world?

[BearBones]

What fills the vacuum when we don't stand up for our interests around the world?

Interests being support of repressive governments that feed our addiction to petroleum or which generate inexpensive goods for US consumption? Ah, maybe world peace?

[BearBones]

To quote Teddy Roosevelt "walk softly and carry a big stick" will likely keep more people from being harmed more than "talk loudly to appease others and carry a small stick".

In terms of American military, most would not deny that there is a benefit to a big stick. The history of humanity has largely been one of war; this is not to be ignored. The question, then, is threefold, IMO.
Do we need such a big stick, when most other people are carrying twigs?
Do we need to keep thinking primarily in terms of sticks when our enemies are using more stealthy, insidious weapons?
And, perhaps most importunely, are we really walking softly? Are we setting an example that we want the rest of the world to follow?

No, no, no.

[MediumTex]

Standing armies will always find an enemy to fight.

Who wants to keep military capability on the sidelines?  Certainly not an ambitious officer corps, enormous private sector defense industry and politicians in search of glory---aka "the military industrial complex."

Weapons, like all other tools, are built to be used.

That's like saying: all of us gun owners are going to eventually shoot somebody, because our guns are built for killing.

I think it's more like saying that some of us gun owner are eventually going to shoot somebody.

Endless war only requires the deployment of a small portion of our weaponry.

[MediumTex]

What fills the vacuum when we don't stand up for our interests around the world?

What fills the vacuum in your own home when the U.S. government isn't telling you what to do? 

Or do I read you wrong, and that you in fact long for more government in your life?

I think that Reub may long for more government in other people's lives.

I don't fully understand the belief that the U.S. government has a limited ability to improve the quality of life of U.S. citizens here at home, but it does have the ability to improve the lives of other people in far flung locations all over the world.

For me, skepticism of the ability of big government to actually improve upon the affairs of human society or modify the tendencies of human nature extends to everything government seeks to do at all times and in all places.

[Xan]

I don't fully understand the belief that the U.S. government has a limited ability to improve the quality of life of U.S. citizens here at home, but it does have the ability to improve the lives of other people in far flung locations all over the world.

For me, skepticism of the ability of big government to actually improve upon the affairs of human society or modify the tendencies of human nature extends to everything government seeks to do at all times and in all places.

The funny thing is that our government seems to do better elsewhere than it does here.  Iraq, for example, got a flat income tax, because they didn't want to burden the burgeoning economy with a complicated tax code like our own.  Iraq also got actual voter fraud protection: index fingers dipped in ink, voter ID, etc.  Things which our own courts are brainlessly striking down.

[BearBones]

The funny thing is that our government seems to do better elsewhere than it does here.  Iraq, for example, got a flat income tax, because they didn't want to burden the burgeoning economy with a complicated tax code like our own.  Iraq also got actual voter fraud protection: index fingers dipped in ink, voter ID, etc.  Things which our own courts are brainlessly striking down.

That's why the citizens of Iraq are so happy that we fixed things up for them. They love Americans. 

[Pointedstick]

In general I think the government's competence directly relates to the consequences for failure to the people within it who fail. In the military--especially in the actual theatre of war itself--failure results in dead friends. That's a very powerful incentive to get it right and cut through the disincentivizing forces of a monopolist bureaucracy.

In the civilian realms though, failure is usually much less bad. Fail to balance the budget and nothing much happens. Fail to foresee that a well-meaning social program has terrible side effects and probably nobody even notices or puts two and two together to figure out that it was unintended consequences and not people being lazy or greedy that was to blame.

[MachineGhost]

The funny thing is that our government seems to do better elsewhere than it does here.  Iraq, for example, got a flat income tax, because they didn't want to burden the burgeoning economy with a complicated tax code like our own.  Iraq also got actual voter fraud protection: index fingers dipped in ink, voter ID, etc.  Things which our own courts are brainlessly striking down.

As an experiment, I registered to vote providing no more identifying information than my first initial and last name, address and only the last four digits of a SSN.  It was processed.  I was tempted to not even provide the four digits since that part turns out to be just for matching information electronically to DMV for instant online registration (there was no match).

I'm scratching my head why Voter ID laws are a bad thing?

[Pointedstick]

As an experiment, I registered to vote providing no more identifying information than my first initial and last name, address and only the last four digits of a SSN.  It was processed.

I'm scratching my head why Voter ID laws are a bad thing?

Clearly you are racist and hate poor people!

[Coffee]

As an experiment, I registered to vote providing no more identifying information than my first initial and last name, address and only the last four digits of a SSN.  It was processed.

I'm scratching my head why Voter ID laws are a bad thing?

Clearly you are racist and hate poor people!

I bet that kid is like... 50, now.