In his first year in office, President Obama enacted some of the most significant weapons systems cuts since Jimmy Carter was president more than 30 years ago. These cuts included elimination of the Transformational Satellite program as well as elimination of eight new Army combat vehicle types, all of which were integral to modernizing U.S. military capabilities for 21st-century irregular warfare.
And now, in a brazen act of political effrontery, President Obama has let it be known that he’s not yet finished with the defense budget. The U.S. military, the president announced this week, will be forced, yet again, to scale back its modernization efforts.
“There’s still more waste [that] we need to cut,” Obama said during Wednesday’s signing ceremony for the Fiscal Year 2010 defense authorization act. “Changing the culture in Washington will take time and sustained effort. And that’s why Secretary Gates and I will continue waging these battles in the months and years ahead.”
This is stunning and deeply troubling news. America is at war — our soldiers and marines are fighting and dying — in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Our soldiers and marines must confront an adaptive and resourceful enemy who is not standing still.
An enemy who has black market access to a panoply of high-tech gear and equipment. An enemy who has proven that he can destroy, quite literally, our most battle-hardened tanks and weapons systems. Yet, the President is determined to cut the defense budget. He is determined to eliminate advanced weapons systems for our soldiers and marines.
The incongruence between the defense budget and the domestic social-welfare budget is startling. As Charles Krauthammer put it in the Weekly Standard:
At a time when hundreds of billions of dollars are being lavished on stimulus and other appropriations in an endless array of domestic programs, the defense budget is practically frozen. Almost every other department is expanding, and the Defense Department is singled out for making ‘hard choices’ — forced to look everywhere for cuts, to abandon highly advanced weapons systems, to choose between readiness and research, between today’s urgencies and tomorrow’s looming threats.
Yet, the president told sailors and marines in Jacksonville, Florida: “To make sure you can meet the missions we ask of you, we are increasing the defense budget, including spending on the Navy and Marine Corps.”
No one begrudges spending more on the Navy and Marine Corps, but it is the Army that is bearing the brunt of the burden in Iraq and Afghanistan. And it is the Army that will continue to bear the brunt of the burden in 21st Century conflicts. Yet, Army procurement accounts are being cut by some 14%, or $3.5 billion.
Moreover, as General David Petraeus has explained, “You can’t commute to this fight.” Winning in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere will require the sustained, long-term presence of U.S. ground forces; and that means a robust and expeditionary Army.
The defense budget may be increasing, but that’s mainly because, as the president himself acknowledges, the Pentagon is spending more on pay, benefits, medical care, and family wellness programs. Weapons systems and modernization, meanwhile, are being cut.
“To make sure we’re spending our defense dollars wisely,” says the president, “we’re cutting tens of billions of dollars in waste and projects that even the military says it doesn’t need — so that the money can be better spent on taking care of you and your families and building the 21st Century military that we do need.”
This is rich. The weapons systems that the president is eliminating were never spurned by “the Pentagon” (which is hardly a monolith); quite the contrary. The Army, for instance, vigorously championed its only top 10 weapons acquisition program, Future Combat Systems (FCS); and the Air Force still believes that it requires more F-22 fighter jets.
Nonetheless, FCS was eliminated; and the Air Force buckled to Pentagon political pressure after being told that if it insisted on more F-22s, then it would have to sacrifice another weapons system.
To be sure, the Pentagon is spending more on intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) assets for current wartime exigencies. But these are relatively small-scale, niche investments, which pale in comparison to the larger-scale system-wide cuts that imperil our soldiers and marines in harm’s way.
All sorts of facile rationales are offered up for cutting the defense budget, but none of these rationales can withstand critical scrutiny. The president, for instance, has repeated the charge (by the Government Accountability Office) that 96 leading weapons systems have experienced cumulative cost overruns of $296 billion and delays of two years on average.
But as I have explained previously on NewMajority, this is highly misleading and simply not true. As former Pentagon acquisition chief John Young observed in a March 31, 2009 memorandum, “$296 billion is a sensational number that is misleading, out-of-date, and irrelevant to the current DoD procurement process.”
For ideological reasons, the president is committed to cutting defense so that he can spend more on domestic social-welfare programs such as healthcare. Defense Secretary Robert Gates, meanwhile, has accepted an artificially constrained defense budget as a political reality, which he must accept and accommodate.
The Congress, however, is under no such obligation. It can and should fight back against further defense cuts; but thus far it has yet to really do so. The problem has been Senator McCain, who understands little about the defense budget, but who wants, nonetheless, to cut defense in the name of fiscal discipline.
One thing’s for certain. The United States will pay for its military. We will either pay now in dollars, or our soldiers and marines will pay later with their lives lost and crippled. Unfortunately, with the budgetary decisions that they are now making, our elected representatives have made clear which is their preferred payment method.
117 responses so far
1 Reason60 // Oct 29, 2009 at 11:59 pm
So, lets look at this:
We are fighting an opponent who is armed with homemade roadside bombs; grenade launchers; small arms and assault rifles.
And yet we are incapable of winning the war, with the enormous supply of weaponry already in our arsenal?
We “need” the F-22 to fight the Taliban, who doesn’t possess even a single engine Cesna? How in the world are they managing to hold the world’s mightiest army at bay without a “Transformational Satellite Program”? What incredible cutting edge technology does Mullah Omar have that we lack?
By any rational analysis, the F-22 is a turkey; it was built to operate against the Soviet Union, not a ragtag insurgent army. Its chief benefit is to channel gazillions in pork to the districts of influential Senators and Congressmen.
Every dollar spent on boondoggles like the F-22 is a dollar not spent on new body armor, medical care for wounded veterans, and retention pay.
But if we want to match the sophisticated weaponry of the Taliban maybe what we need to do is immediately begin production of the Lockheed Martin/ Grumman/ General Electric IED X-25, the roadside bomb crafted from metal cake tins and wiring from old cassette tape players. At $35 Million a pop, they should be quite effective.
2 John Guardiano // Oct 30, 2009 at 12:04 am
Reason60,
The question is not: can we win the war? Of course we can win the war, even with antiquated equipment. The question is: how can we win the war? By sacrificing the lives of our troops? Or by keeping our troops relatively safe?
I’d much rather keep our troops as safe as possible, and not have to offer them up as human sacrifices to achieve victory. One important way that we can achieve this objective is by investing in advanced weapons systems which preempt our enemies, deter and defeat them, and help safeguard the lives of our soldiers.
V/R
John
3 rbottoms // Oct 30, 2009 at 1:49 am
The Airforce also believes that much the mission it currently carries out with $500 million dollar aircraft flown by pilots who cost $5 million dollars to produce will not be replaced by Army specialists flying $100,000 drones sitting in air conditioned offices in Alabama.
They are wrong.
4 joedee1969 // Oct 30, 2009 at 7:00 am
Where is Clinton is all this mess:
http://americaspeaksink.com/2009/10/bring-back-the-nutcracker-hillary/
5 sinz54 // Oct 30, 2009 at 9:04 am
reason60:
We need the F-22 as a deterrent to China, North Korea, and Chavez’ Venezuela, who are arming themselves to the teeth with the most sophisticated weapons. (China’s new fighters, purchased from Russia, can clobber our existing F-15 fighters.)
You always procure weapons to fight the NEXT war.
Only Obama’s pacifists think that there won’t be any more wars.
America, as the world’s only superpower, is forced to constantly defend its top dog position. Or else lose it.
6 ottovbvs // Oct 30, 2009 at 9:04 am
…….I’m going to believe what Bob Gates has to say about this rather than the hysterical, or maybe commercially motivated, outpourings of someone like Guardiano whose principal goal is trashing the president not protecting US troops. Secretary Gates is the man who decided in consultation with his military advisors to drop FCS and many other weapons purchases from the budget because he considered them less important than investing in equipment and systems for the wars we are currently engaged in fighting. As Secretary Gates pointed out spending resources on systems he doesn’t need was going to move funds from those that the military does need. And I’ve no doubt elements in the army would have like FCS, all the services are notorious for pushing weapon systems for their own service. As for the dismissal of McCain as no nothing in this matter , I’m not one of his greatest fans but to say he knows little about the defense budget is a measure of Guardiano’s essential unreality.
7 sinz54 // Oct 30, 2009 at 9:06 am
China is rapidly becoming the second most advanced military power behind the U.S. They’re about to embark on building their first aircraft carriers.
War with China is inevitable, some time in the next 25 years. The outcome of that war will decide who gets to be top dog on this planet for the rest of the 21st century.
We must prepare for that–or else resign ourselves to letting China run the planet.
8 sinz54 // Oct 30, 2009 at 9:24 am
ottovbs:
We’re NOT fighting the war in Afghanistan right now, we’re on the verge of LOSING it.
I would agree with you–if I saw that these cuts to weapons systems were balanced with a firm statement that we’re going to win in Afghanistan, and we’ll provide our forces in Afghanistan with whatever resources they need to win this current fight.
Obama made such a statement last March.
Now, he’s scuttling away from that commitment as fast as he could.
9 ottovbvs // Oct 30, 2009 at 9:48 am
sinz54 // Oct 30, 2009 at 9:24 am
“We’re NOT fighting the war in Afghanistan right now, we’re on the verge of LOSING it.”
………….DUH?……if we’re on the verge of losing it, how can we NOT be fighting it (btw tell the guys coming home in body bags we’re not fighting it)……I know you come out with the odd illogicality but this is a beaut…….. Actually we lost it years ago when we dawdled away seven years with around 25,000 troops in the country while Bush and Cheney indulged their idee fixe in Iraq where we had 170,000 troops at times and indeed still have twice as many as we do in Afghanistan……..The fact is an effort to turn Afghanistan into anything resembling a functioning state is going require a huge committment which the US is not willing to make if it’s spelled out to them. It’s going to take decades, require around 600,000 troops using Petraeus’ troops/population insurgency ratio, cost north of $3 trillion, and involve an initial committment to prop up the corrupt and incompetent Karzai administration……..are you willing to do this?………..So instead of indulging your passion for trashing the president why not think about it……this isn’t about Obama it’s about doing the right thing for the US…..This whole situation bears a very strong resemblance t0 1963 as does much of the rhetoric coming from people like you.
10 ottovbvs // Oct 30, 2009 at 9:53 am
sinz54 // Oct 30, 2009 at 9:06 am
“War with China is inevitable, some time in the next 25 years. The outcome of that war will decide who gets to be top dog on this planet for the rest of the 21st century.”
……….Just because China is likely to emerge as the major world power does not make war inevitable…….we co-existed reasonably comfortably with the Soviet Union for 45 years…….however I’ve no doubt the Chinese would love us to spend the next 20 years mired in Afghanistan……a course you state you are in favor of.
11 Raider1 // Oct 30, 2009 at 10:06 am
If you believe that government wastes money across the board (as true conservatives do) then the concern here is not whether the DOD is being “squeezed” as I am sure they can scale back on their purchasing of $250 “manually powered fasten-driving impact devices” (aka “hammers”) or whatever. And I agree that unmanned aircraft are the future. Can withstand more g-forces, are expendible and have no pilot training. The Pentagon is its own bureacracy wallowing in waste and fraud. Starting with the contractors on.
I think the issue is that Obama is demadning defense cuts (which would seem proper so long as what is cut is waste) while blowing the roof off with domestic spending. Why not cut ALL departments? Why is cutting a budget (one of the facts of life in the business world when revenues do cover operating costs) simply unthinkable in this government rabbit hole?
12 John Guardiano // Oct 30, 2009 at 10:16 am
Ottovbus,
A few quick points:
1) You should not “believe” anyone — not me, not the president, nor anyone else. Instead, you should critically assess the facts and arguments about the defense budget and make your own informed decisions.
2) True, Secretary Gates made the decision to eliminate certain key weapons systems. However, he did so, I note, because he has accepted an artificially constrained defense budget, which has forced him to make “hard choices.” It is my contention that the Department of Defense, at a time of war, should not be forced to make “hard choices”– not when our soldiers are on point, in the field, and engaged.
3) You can, of course, impugn my motives; but you’d be better off if you critically assessed my argument – or at least tried to do so. I’ve been writing and publishing, freely, since I was in high school. You will see a remarkable consistency to my work.
The idea that my writing is affected by outside commercial considerations is silly and simply not credible, especially to anyone who knows me and my work. I am motivated by ideas and convictions, not financial remuneration — and indeed, I have received no outside financial compensation for this piece.
4) I have not “trashed” President Obama. I have instead vigorously disputed some of his public-policy decisions. I have the greatest respect for our commander-in-chief; he is a remarkable man. That’s why I find so many of public-policy decisions so disappointing.
But one of the great things about America is that we vigorously argue and discuss matters of public policy. Obama th man is not at issue; his policies as president are. Thank goodness for the American founding fathers, who had the wisdom and good sense to draft the First Amendment right to free speech. We are all the beneficiaries of their wisdom and prescience.
13 sinz54 // Oct 30, 2009 at 10:31 am
ottovbs:
In an age of WMD, the U.S. has to be prepared to do whatever it takes, and spend whatever it takes, to make sure that we’re never attacked by terrorists on our home soil with WMD. The casualties could be frightful–dwarfing 9-11.
Now THAT is the mission.
I agree with you that Afghanistan is not the be-all and end-all of that mission.
But we can never walk away from that mission. Because the alternative is to live in fear, under siege, as Israel does now, and as the Iraqi people sadly have been doing these past years.
14 sinz54 // Oct 30, 2009 at 10:36 am
john-guardino:
True.
And the tight constraints (which result in inflation-adjusted cuts in real terms) contrast sharply with the way Obama is spending money like there’s no tomorrow on bailing out General Motors, health care reform, cap-and-trade, etc. We racked up a deficit of several trillion dollars. It looks like Obama cut the military to fund his expansion of social programs. That’s typical liberal thinking going back to George McGovern. Evidently McGovern is Obama’s ideological role model.
What I find strikingly missing from Obama’s entire policy set, is any realization that a great power (like the U.S.) has to act like a great power, if it is to remain a great power. Not like a tiny nation, with a weak or nonexistent military, pleading in the U.N. for help, begging other great powers to get it out of its own jams, refusing to fight its own battles.
Maybe Obama does not want America to be a superpower anymore. If we stop being a superpower, he’ll live to regret it–and so will all of us.
15 MI-GOPer // Oct 30, 2009 at 10:39 am
After weeks of saying that this president is just like all the other Democrat presidents –anti-military, intent on dismantling US forces, fearful & cowardly when it comes to protecting our allies– and each time the usual band of Democrat trolls here would chime in like an echo chamber… “oh no, not the Obama”, “Bush lost this war for us”, “this is the necessary war”, “dithering isn’t indecision”.
Now we see that with US and NATO troops and their outposts being overrun by anti-govt forces in Afghanistan –twice in just October– the Democrats and Obama are intent on changing the policy to “Cut & Run”.
Americans don’t want to lose this war. Democrats do. Americans want to support the troops. Democrats don’t. Americans want our Commander in Chief to lead. Democrats want to defend his date-trip with Michele to a NYC Broadway play. Americans want the US troops to win. Obama wants to do photo-ops with KIAs.
Change is what we’re getting. Hope was lost long ago.
16 LFC // Oct 30, 2009 at 10:42 am
We need the F-22 as a deterrent to China, North Korea, and Chavez’ Venezuela, who are arming themselves to the teeth with the most sophisticated weapons.
So how come we’re spending more on defense than the next 5 biggest spenders combined, and yet we’re falling behind? How can China be kicking our asses in military aircraft? Are we getting less for more, just like healthcare? What’s the explanation?
The military has been full of bloated self-interest for years. The F-22 is a classic example, as it’s a fighter without a mission. The smarter air to air missiles get, the less value there will be in a fighter like the F-22. It’s hot and sexy, but already obsolete.
The problem is that the neocons want it all; unrestricted R&D, full replacement of the equipment we’re burning through, more troops, rollout of systems that haven’t passed their tests (missile defense), and manufacture of the latest weapons. And they justify this with the mantra “but we just HAVE to!!!” After all, the Chinese are coming and their going to kill us! (Apparently nuclear deterrents, which worked pretty well with the Soviet Union, won’t work with the Chinese because they’re evil and wish to die … or something like that.)
But the fact is that to get everything the neocons want, we have to find the money to pay for it all. We simultaneously took on huge missions in Afghanistan and Iraq, with no effort to pay for them. We overextended. In addition to the very real deficits from this act, we have an enormous equipment deficit because the Bush Administration refused to budget for the equipment replacement required, pushing it off to the next guy. (That’s the very definition of political cowardice.) Gates is shifting priority from hi-tech to re-equipping because he has a 6 year hole to fill, with two wars still going on full tilt.
So, Mr. Guardiano, what’s the answer to “how do we pay for it?” And if you say, “we just HAVE to”, I’ll know you simply aren’t a serious person.
17 ottovbvs // Oct 30, 2009 at 10:42 am
12 john-guardiano // Oct 30, 2009 at 10:16 am
Mr Guardiano:
1)Like most people posting here we get our info from the media and the odd gem amongst mountains of coal on the internet. We are not privy to all the fine print of what are very complex issues. Gates, who my experience suggests is a man of probity and excellent judgement has all the info and came to this decision. I trust his judgement.
2) Unfortunately you clearly believe there should be virtually NO limit on military expenditures. We already spend roughly half of total world military expenditures and the Pentagon budget as Gates pointed out went up by about 4%; all of which is an odd form of “constraint.” And contrary to your assertion Gates was an enthusiastic proponent of these changes, they were not forced on him by the president, who in truth I’m sure is relatively uninformed about the minutiae of the defense budget.
3) So you have no connection with the defense industries or the big military lobby….. is that correct?
4) “I have not “trashed” President Obama.”…..really
“Obama to Troops: Do More with Less”
18 LFC // Oct 30, 2009 at 10:48 am
sinz54 said… And the tight constraints (which result in inflation-adjusted cuts in real terms) contrast sharply with the way Obama is spending money like there’s no tomorrow on bailing out General Motors, health care reform, cap-and-trade, etc. We racked up a deficit of several trillion dollars.
The numbers came out. Spending was actually a few tens of billions less than the prior year. That means that the loss of revenue is equal to over 100% of the 2009 deficit. But hey, no need to fight to preserve jobs. It’s the spending that’s the problem.
And the bail-outs are there to keep the loss of revenue (i.e. GDP) from worsening. Since the GDP number for this quarter is up 3.5%, it looks like it worked. Of course, you may believe that it would have all worked out on its own through FM (f***ing magic), but a huge number of economists didn’t and I’d rather listen to them than nitwits like Phil Gramm.
I find it scary that the right are perfectly willing to let our economy to collapse in order to increase military spending.
19 wrs10 // Oct 30, 2009 at 10:53 am
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/.a/6a00d83451c45669e20120a68a8439970c-800wi
(worth a peek – Deaths in Pakistan due to drones)
20 Space Dog // Oct 30, 2009 at 10:54 am
War with China is inevitable? It’s less likely than war with Russia was in 1946, 1963, 1982.
So the soldiers are getting more money, soldiers like my brother who end up in Walter Reed are being cared for better, and that’s a travesty to them?
I seem to detect a bit of confirmation bias… I would love to support the Republican Party when it can focus on economic conservatism again and not imperialism.
21 balconesfault // Oct 30, 2009 at 11:09 am
wrs10 (worth a peek – Deaths in Pakistan due to drones)
An excellent rebuttal, btw, to the charges that Obama is essentially some kind of pacifist who would put America at risk.
There are a lot of reasons from a doctrinaire liberal perspective to abhor drones. They undoubtably kill civilians, even if they are very successful at killing militants. They are a form of terrorism unto themselves – people in a village can often listen to and see the drones overhead for hours before they select and fire on a target. Used in Pakistan, they are a violation of sovereignty.
Yet the weakling, pacifist Obama has authorized increased usage of them in our battle against Al Qaeda.
My contention is that he is essentially a pragmatist, a technocrat, out to solve problems in the most non-ideological way possible. This is one more data point which strongly supports this contention.
22 LFC // Oct 30, 2009 at 11:19 am
Gee. Increased effectiveness of drone attacks in getting militants while reducing civilian casualties (a requirement if we’re ever going to have civilian support of our mission, which is in itself necessary to be successful … unless we just kill everybody). What a concept. I wonder what that cost?
But if we had just spent an extra$100 billion…
23 Socrates // Oct 30, 2009 at 11:38 am
John:
Congratulations on an excellent attack piece. Please forward it to the National Republican Committee. We need more of these: provocative, unthoughtful, non-factual, ideologically driven.
While this doesn’t provide any new ideas, it will keep the base going. Keep up the good Obama-bashing work.
24 Reason60 // Oct 30, 2009 at 11:48 am
I think the best way to look at military procurement is in a business-like way of setting priorities. We need to keep in mind we do NOT have infinite resources- we have to set priorities, according to the most likely threats.
We cannot possibly be fully prepared for all possible theoretical threats- a full scale conventional war with China? Possible, but highly unlikely; a small scale irregular war against insurgent guerillas? A hell of a lot more likely.
The notion that America cannot be safe unless we have an absolute global superiority to every other superpower is nonsense. We are not living in a unipolar moment anymore, when America was the sole superpower; we are moving into a multipolar world in which China, Brazil, India, and russia are regional superpowers, with their own spheres of influence and need for security.
America will be much more safe and secure by forming mutual alliances and security agreements with friendly nations, than by spending ourselves into bankruptcy on an airplane that can’t fly in the rain.
25 LFC // Oct 30, 2009 at 12:17 pm
I think the best way to look at military procurement is in a business-like way of setting priorities. We need to keep in mind we do NOT have infinite resources- we have to set priorities, according to the most likely threats.
America will be much more safe and secure by forming mutual alliances and security agreements with friendly nations, than by spending ourselves into bankruptcy on an airplane that can’t fly in the rain.
Sensible. Smart. Mature. That means that in today’s GOP, this makes you a wild-eyed liberal.
26 rbottoms // Oct 30, 2009 at 12:49 pm
You just explained why drones will replace F-15’s and other aircraft as the tool of choice for bombing missions in the future. The ability to hover on station for hours and hit preciscely the target desired is what makes them so effective.
I am not saying drones replace ground forces, or that they are right for every mission. But for missions where bombing is required a swarm of drones would be an effective use of lethal force that is cost effective considering the asymmetrical nature of the battles we have to fight.
The Airforce is scared sh**less about this impingement on their turf and are fighting battles for mroe aircraft to ensure they have a reason for existing at the levels of staffing and funding they currently enjoy. Fighter jocks see a 18 year old video gamer leading bombing missions into Afghanistan as an insult to their abilities and stature.
27 sinz54 // Oct 30, 2009 at 1:07 pm
reason60:
Those “friendly nations” won’t lift a finger to defend themselves, much less defend us.
We’ve got a security agreement with Saudi Arabia. But if Iran test-fires an atomic bomb, are YOU really going to wait for Saudi Arabia to do something about it?
We’ve got NATO. But in the 1990s, it was President Clinton, not the Belgians or the Germans, who put an end to ethnic cleansing by Serbia by bombing it with stealth bombers for 78 days. And in Afghanistan, the U.S. has sent 80% of the troops, and nearly all the combat troops, with our “allies” sending troops only for support roles.
In all these alliances, it’s the United States that ends up doing the heavy lifting. Just compare the sizes of their militaries to ours. Especially the sizes of their navies and air forces compared to ours.
28 sinz54 // Oct 30, 2009 at 1:17 pm
lfc:
You’re so wrong about so many things.
First of all, I actually SUPPORTED the “TARP” bailout of that part of the financial industry that involved the credit markets. I knew the credit markets had frozen up and had to be unstuck, since the entire U.S. economy runs on short-term credit like commercial paper. I did NOT believe that the problem would be self-correcting, no.
But bailing out General Motors and Chrysler served no purpose other than as a political payoff to the UAW, which had supported Obama’s candidacy. GM should have gone out of business, after which Toyota and Honda could have taken over those factories and produced cars there–with non-union labor, as they do everywhere else. Or maybe Daimler or Fiat would have bought up those factories and allowed the UAW to continue to exist. Either way, the U.S. can get along perfectly well without Chevrolets.
The GDP number is up 3.5% because 1.5% of that came from the “cash for clunkers” program. That program just ended, and now auto sales are falling back to where they were before. Take that out of the number and it’s more like a 2% growth rate–anemic.
Finally, it was military spending in World War II (NOT the New Deal), which boosted the U.S. out of the Great Depression for good.
I didn’t think that boosting military spending would have gotten us out of the economic mess of 2008. My view was that, once TARP had unstuck the credit markets, a sharp cut in the Social Security payroll tax would have put lots more money back in the pockets of consumers immediately, thus boosting demand for goods and services. And income taxes for the working class could have been cut to zero–yes, ZERO–for the duration of the recession. Not having to pay any income tax on 15 April 2009 would not only have made good economic sense, but it would have felt good to taxpayers, boosting the morale of Americans.
29 oldgal // Oct 30, 2009 at 1:36 pm
I won’t tell Secretary Gates how to run weapons procurement if he doesn’t tell me how to build systems. I am nowhere near knowledgeable enough to second guess him on this and have no reason to believe that Mr. Guardiano is.
Why would China go to war with a country that it is in the process of purchasing?
I can only assume that if Obama had decided to spend the bucks on these weapons systems we would be seeing posts hysterical about his profligate spending.
30 DFL // Oct 30, 2009 at 1:58 pm
Conservatives can think outside the box and make defense reductions by withdrawing from Korea, Japan, Europe, Iraq and Afghanistan. We can reduce the aircraft carriers as well. Programs conservative big spenders love- defense, the CIA, NASA, the Interstate Highway system- must be cut along with those liberals love. We can do it now or we can do it later when the budget and economy implodes. Let’s grow up and do it now.
31 rbottoms // Oct 30, 2009 at 2:01 pm
Might be helpful for everyone discussing this subject to read “Wired for War”. I am about 1/3rd the way through it and I can say in my opinion, the era of F-22/F-16 style dogfighting warfare and B-52 carpet bombing assaults are as anachronistic as tank battles of the type last seen in Desert Storm.
Squad size weaponry, satellite recon & drone support will be what war fighting is about in Iraq, Afghanistan, and the battles that loom ahead. Aircraft carriers are nothing more than floating targets and quite useless against an opponent living a 15th century lifestyle in the mountains of Pakistan.
Want to find Bin Laden? Dedicate 100 drones to swarm Pakistan 24 hours a day. For the cost of one of the gold plated relics of the war we never fought with Russia we could have eyes in the sky providing intel on troop movements, supply, and personnel not replacing ground troops but augmenting them.
When we finally come up with robots capable of navigating craggy mountains we’ll make a quantum leap in dealing with an enemy whose strategy is to wait us out.. about 100 years. Put money into that and forget the hit a bullet with a bullet dream of Star Wars.
A hundred small war ships off the coast of North Korea or Iran ready to knock down any rocket in boost phase makes much more sense than trying to find a needle in a haystack of needles to shoot a warhead down once in flight. A slow moving rocket lifting off is nothing but a big fat canister of flammable liquid that could be hit with a Hellfire class missile. Not as sexy as SDI, but just as effective and much more likely to work.
32 LFC // Oct 30, 2009 at 2:04 pm
Either way, the U.S. can get along perfectly well without Chevrolets.
I would agree at any time except in the middle of a crippling recession. You can’t expect to pull the economy out of a nosedive by shedding 3 million jobs (GM, Chevrolet, plus suppliers, sales, and other ancillary jobs).
Toyota et al are hurting right now too, so they aren’t going to swoop in and start producing cars in the U.S. the day after GM shuts its doors. They’ll sell their excess inventory, much of which is manufactured elsewhere. You either want to pretend that the closing of GM wouldn’t have been felt throughout the entire economy (or you don’t care that it would), or you think you can squeeze 5+ years of industry realignment into a few months. Having other companies pick up GM’s manufacturing just isn’t feasible at this time.
The GDP number is up 3.5% because 1.5% of that came from the “cash for clunkers” program. That program just ended, and now auto sales are falling back to where they were before. Take that out of the number and it’s more like a 2% growth rate–anemic.
So what you’re saying is that the “cash for clunkers” program worked exactly as advertised. It was a temporary program to buoy spending at a time when is was desperately needed. You may disagree with gov’t spending to prop up the economy during a recession, but those of us who believe in it see the program as working as advertised.
And as for 2% being anemic, well no s**t, Sherlock. We’re digging out of a massive fiscal disaster. Turn-around has just started, and I believe it’s damned tentative at that. I wouldn’t be shocked to see a double-dip. What did you expect? To leap from a major fall in GDP to 5% in a quarter or two? Sounds like you’ve got unrealistic expectations.
Finally, it was military spending in World War II (NOT the New Deal), which boosted the U.S. out of the Great Depression for good.
I agree, but dude! You’re comparing the spending of WORLD WAR II to military spending today. Seriously? Spending in WWII was at a scale that is inconceivable today. The entire country mobilized for war against two massively powerful enemies. Are you seriously suggesting that the we do that today for Afghanistan? For a bunch of future weapons systems which will cost future dollars to maintain? This sounds like an absolute disaster to me.
BTW, due to mechanization of the assembly line and the hi-tech nature of many of the weapons, a similar increase in military spending would create fewer jobs. You aren’t going to create millions of factory jobs with that type of spending.
My view was that, once TARP had unstuck the credit markets, a sharp cut in the Social Security payroll tax would have put lots more money back in the pockets of consumers immediately, thus boosting demand for goods and services.
First, TARP was a bit of a failure. Much of the money was used to prop up balance sheets and to buy other financial institutions, rather than free up credit markets. Due to the hurried nature of TARP and the belief in the same financial institutions that caused the collapse, the amount of money that made it into the credit markets was a fraction of what was expected.
As to tax cuts, I disagree. I’ve read several analyses which show that tax cuts are the least effective type of stimulus, as people tend to either save or deleverage from their outstanding debt, which is massive. Case in point, U.S. consumer credit dropped 5.8% in August (Financial Times), mostly from people paying off their credit cards. That’s about $150 billion coming from lack of spending and those tax cuts that Obama included in the stimulus bill. That’s not stimulative. It’s eventually necessary, but not stimulative. Building roads, bridges, etc. (which we need to do more of) is stimulative. Rewarding people who spend is stimulative.
This recovery is going to be long and slow. There is a massive amount of both corporate and individual debt that has to be unwound back to reasonable levels. As a result, these entities will not be spending like the days of yore for a while. We’re at a juncture where the government is the spender of last resort. Hopefully that will only last another year or two.
33 MI-GOPer // Oct 30, 2009 at 3:01 pm
sinz54 notes: “lfc: You’re so wrong about so many things.”
And then you go ahead and confuse him with the facts. He doesn’t want facts; he wants unquestioning faith in the Obama Messiah.
lfc contends: “Sensible. Smart. Mature. That means that in today’s GOP, this makes you a wild-eyed liberal.” I’m not sure how you’d know what makes for anything inside the GOP given your lifetime membership in MoveOn and ACORN. It’s like asking a Hollywood producer or NYC Broadway actor to teach your kid morality lessons –you couldn’t make a worse choice of it.
Just like trusting that Obama will serve honorably as Commander in Chief. Given the experience we’ve had with Kennedy, Johnson, Carter, Clinton and Obama, I think that future Democrats ought to pledge to the American voter that they’ll lock-box their power as Commander in Chief while in the WH because they almost always choose to cut defense programs, dismantle weapons systems that took yrs to bring to 2nd, 3rd, or 4th stage procurement, downsize the military, mothball ships and planes, cut recruitment, place more US military tasks under NATO or UN control, cut budgets, stiff arm intel gathering agencies, demoralize the troops and natl security personnel and trust that a lock-jawed liberal diplomat at a treaty meeting can accomplish far more than well-trained boots and guns on the ground.
It’s always been that way. From Carter destroying the 600 ship Navy to Hillary & Bill badmouthing our military leadership and troops because the 1st Lady had to mythically duck intense sniper fire and mortar rounds whilst running for cover in Bosnia.
A lock-box for the Commander in Chief function for the balance of Obama’s 4 yr reign. He can put it right next to “bipartisanship” and “truth” and “transparency” that he’s also, evidently, locked away earlier in his reign.
34 MI-GOPer // Oct 30, 2009 at 3:05 pm
wrs10, not to bring to fine a point on it but Andie Sullivan’s writing is better suited for the folks over at Advocate or Out… not here. He’s a discredited, fake-conservative with the morals and loyalty of an alley cat.
You’d be better off quoting a National Enquirer article… and have more credibility probably. Except with BlankHead.
35 ottovbvs // Oct 30, 2009 at 3:16 pm
sinz54 // Oct 30, 2009 at 10:31 am
“I agree with you that Afghanistan is not the be-all and end-all of that mission.”
………It sure ain’t……I don’t know if you saw this piece by Chris Buckley this morning and also links to the memo by Hoh the foreign service officer and decorated Iraq vet which is a superb summing up of the situation…..It really is worth reading……..there’s no way the American people are going to sign on for what’s required to fix Afghanistan……even assuming it’s fixable…..I hope Obama bites the bullet but I doubt he will…..he’ll probably go for the most minimalist of MacChrystal’s scenarios which will essentially keep us in a holding pattern which is where we’ve been for the last eight years.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-10-28/its-time-for-us-to-go/
36 seeker656 // Oct 30, 2009 at 3:25 pm
We continue to view our security through the military filter at our peril. Isn’t it likely that in the 21st century the global struggle will be primarily economic and the long term winners will have a solid economic bases from which to project their global power?
The current economic collapse and resulting bailouts and and near panic spending have exposed our fundamental weakness. As the president is arguing, we have to restructure our economy and build a solid base for future growth, a base that is dependent on activities that actually produce things and not just shuffle money around the Wall Street world allowing a few to capture huge profits while the middle class stagnates or declines.
In spite of the fact that our military expenditures far exceed those of most other nations combined, we still approach the world from a position of fear and false bravado. Andrew Bacevich, among others, has argued in his book “Limits of Power: The End of American Exceptionalism” our military power is limited and that our belief that we can have it all is a dangerous illusion.
Our true strength lies in our returning to the values that have been perverted in recent years by our willingness to torture, to invade a country that was not a threat at a cost of more that $1 trillion, to implement tax policies that intentionally worsened the disparity of wealth between the poorest and the richest, and so forth.
We can benefit from a return to realism and a willingness to see that the challenges facing us are complex and not amenable to simplistic solutions that we can control.
37 ottovbvs // Oct 30, 2009 at 3:31 pm
mi-goper // Oct 30, 2009 at 3:05 pm
………This guy’s rantings while amusing most of the time but occasionally crossing the line into offensiveness do demonstrate one thing…….He’s no conservative……..he has no respect for the institutions of the state; no respect for the competence and integrity of dedicated public servants like Gates or Mullen; he can’t even observe societal norms of behavior……what he is in fact is a loutish obsessional……he hasn’t the slightest idea of what the central tenets of conservatism are.
38 ottovbvs // Oct 30, 2009 at 3:37 pm
seeker656 // Oct 30, 2009 at 3:25 pm
“We continue to view our security through the military filter at our peril. Isn’t it likely that in the 21st century the global struggle will be primarily economic and the long term winners will have a solid economic bases from which to project their global power?”
………..It was ever thus……….There’s no question that the German army in both the first and second world wars was superior to all others……but in both cases Germany was ultimately defeated by a superior economic combination…….or take the British French competition in the 18th century……by all the strictly military yardsticks France should have come out top but it was beaten by a country with a superior economic system that was capable of financing these prolonged wars.
39 balconesfault // Oct 30, 2009 at 3:52 pm
lfc: I’ve read several analyses which show that tax cuts are the least effective type of stimulus, as people tend to either save or deleverage from their outstanding debt, which is massive.
That along with the purchase of things manufactured abroad, so that the spending has a very low multiplier effect here in America, and serves to further weaken the dollar.
If we’re preparing for being competitive globally throughout the rest of the 21st century … we need to target how our federal dollars are spent. That means instead of handing money to a household which as you note might just be they might use to pay down debt … or to buy a new plasma TV from China, new clothes from Pakistan, or a vacation to Cancun … you put out tax credits for a household to buy new energy efficient appliances, or a new higher SEER HVAC unit – which have a far better chance of being built in the US than their new stereo system might be – you incentivize them putting solar panels on their roofs, or putting new insulation in their attic. Not only are these more likely to involve a labor component to put people to work, and involve US manufactured equipment, but they’ll contribute to a decline in our gas and oil consumption, and thus strengthen our economy on another level while weakening those abroad who threaten our security.
40 sinz54 // Oct 30, 2009 at 4:16 pm
balconesfault:
Which are not applicable to any of the millions of Americans who rent apartments, and whose energy choices are made by the landlord, not by the renter.
Get it? No matter how carefully you try to micro-manage stimulus, you always end up discriminating against somebody.
That’s why I’m in favor of across-the-board stimulus that doesn’t require politicians to decide who wins and who loses. Because they invariably do a terrible job of it. They overlook entire classes of people who aren’t politically well connected.
41 sinz54 // Oct 30, 2009 at 4:29 pm
seeker656:
Absolutely.
But Obama isn’t doing that.
He’s chasing pie-in-the-sky:
Electric cars that are so expensive that only the guilt-ridden wealthy liberals of Hollywood will be able to afford to buy them; solar panels that will get stopped cold as soon as environmentalists figure out how many thousands of square miles of fragile desert ecosystem will be ruined by them; and wind farms that in the past have been stopped by NIMBY (including the liberals of Hyannis, like Ted Kennedy).
Sure, you can spend a trillion dollars to generate a few million kilowatts of power from windmills. But I hardly think it’s worth it.
In the meantime, Americans buy most of their clothing, most of their appliances, imported from foreign countries. Look at where the silicon chips in your computers are manufactured–open up your computer and see.
And if “balconesfault” thinks that America will have a monopoly on energy-efficient appliances, he’s wrong.
When it comes to manufacturing energy-efficient appliances and electronics, the Asians continue to race ahead. Japan is leading the world in robotics, a field that the U.S. is lagging in, and a field that Obama has demonstrated no interest in.
Japan uses robots to pick produce instead of illegal aliens the way we do it.
Japan is planning to have robots replace human nurses and orderlies in hospitals for most routine functions within 5 years or so.
I would rather see America be first in robotics, and last in electric cars and windmills.
Finally, you did mention that we still need to project our global power. Obama doesn’t agree with you about that. He, like most liberals, are uncomfortable with the notion of America projecting global power–ANY power, whether it’s military or economic. That’s what happens when you put a bunch of guilt-ridden neurotics in office, who look at America’s proud history and feel guilt, not pride, in it.
42 sinz54 // Oct 30, 2009 at 4:39 pm
mi-goper:
Don’t put JFK in the same category as Carter and Obama.
In 1960, JFK ran on a platform of not spending enough on defense and the space race. He accused the Eisenhower Administration of allowing a “missile gap” in which the Soviet missiles were better than ours.
JFK put America on a clear course to beat the Russians to the Moon, because he wanted us to be first.
He understood the potential of the Special Forces (Green Berets) for counter-insurgency warfare, and expanded them.
JFK did get raked over the coals by Khrushchev at Vienna, but at least he knew he had to respond. He came home to order a military buildup, including the deployment of 41 Polaris missile-firing submarines, way ahead of what the Soviets had at the time.
It’s not widely remembered because of Vietnam, but LBJ had also intervened in Santo Domingo–and stopped the Communists cold there. The Caribbean (except for Cuba) remained an “American lake,” thanks to LBJ.
Clinton did cut defense, but that was because we were coming off the end of the Cold War. Bush 41 had also unilaterally abandoned a number of weapons programs (including stopping production of any more B-2 stealth bombers) for the same reason–the Cold War was over.
Clinton wasn’t afraid to use military force. He did use military force against both Serbia and Iraq–major bombing campaigns.
So I really don’t want to put JFK, LBJ, or Clinton in the same category as Carter. Until Obama got inaugurated, Carter was truly a Democratic President in a class by himself.
43 MI-GOPer // Oct 30, 2009 at 4:43 pm
ottoBS, you may think I don’t know about conservative tenets, but then I’m betting that you’re wrong again. Plus, let’s remember that you are the one with “BS” tagged on your ass, not me.
As for conservative tenets, I was studying with Russel Kirk when you were still faking a baby drool. I’ve worked with Jeanne Kirkpatrick, Everett Ladd, Bob Teeter and Bush 41. I helped organize the New America Foundation, loyally supported CPAC and helped create Michigan’s branch of the Federalist Society.
So, when it comes to understanding conservatives, I’ve got your hyperbole beat with experience.
I’m trying to figure out why as our Village Idiot you keep drawing attention to your failing stupidity? Could it be you got nothing else?
44 balconesfault // Oct 30, 2009 at 4:51 pm
sinz: Get it? No matter how carefully you try to micro-manage stimulus, you always end up discriminating against somebody.
Umm – this is a matter of national security. If our economy flushed down the tank we can’t afford your pretty new bombers and missles, if we continue being heavily reliant on oil and gas we make the Iranians more money to build nuke delivery systems and the Saudis more money to spend on terrorists, if we spend all those dollars buying bigger flat panel tvs we give the Chinese an even bigger economic edge which they’re currently using around the world to force alliances.
When the government is spending money in an emergency like this, I’m much more concerned about rational long term planning, than whether apartment dwellers are discriminated against – and over time investments in mass transit and the electrical grid will directly benefit those apartment dwellers s well, just as lower unit prices for oil and gas that will result from reduced consumption will give them a secondary benefit.
If you want to get fairness for apartment dwellers, start by eliminating the mortgage deduction that essentially forces us to collect more in taxes from non-property owners (actually, from non heavily mortgaged property owners as well) to subsidize debt.
45 MI-GOPer // Oct 30, 2009 at 5:06 pm
sinz54, let’s take a look at the Kennedy record, now that historians have had the opportunity to review this supposedly “modern day Democrat hawk”. They’re conclusion: he wasn’t. In fact, he was so lacking in resolve (like Obama & Carter) that he nearly tossed our S Viet Nam allies to the commies just a month before Dallas ended his lackluster presidency.
NSAM 273, drafted by McNarmara at the instruction of JFK, called for the beginning pull out of 1,000 American soldiers from S Viet Nam. Cut & Run, as a tactic and a strategy, was whole-heartedly embraced by JFK. His signature was so assured that Johnson, just 4 days into being president, signed it as part of OPLAN 34/a. I do agree with you on one point, though… JFK was a lot like Obama in his inexperience in handling our enemies –both men got handed their coats & hats by superior Russian foes.
But I gotta ask, what part of Cut & Run don’t you get? JFK was cutting & running from our S Viet Nam allies.
When the Missle Crisis did finally occur –weak presidents often embolden our enemies, just like LyinJoeBiden warned us before the finish of the Democrat primaries– JFK was a font of vacillation in the face of a superior, resolved foe. Recall the Camelot version was that JFK was torn between advisors who argued for a bombing run on Russia (just kidding) and giving the Russians Florida if they’d get out of Cuba (sacr/). JFK, according to the Camelot version, took the middle course and did the naval embargo, ran to the UN and whined.
Turns out, historians reviewing the archives and top secret docs now declassified find that JFK cut a secret deal with Khrushchev: the Soviets would remove their nuclear missiles from Cuba; the United States would remove its nuclear missiles from Turkey.
I’m sorry if I don’t share your sense of JFK as some Democrat war hawk… he wasn’t. The record shows he wasn’t. The record shows –as guys like Fulbright and Sculz have personally explained since they were in the room– JFK was a waffler… a ditherer. Sound familar? Paging Obama, the Ditherer in Chief.
You can hold your opinion of JFK as some strong, pro-military Democrat hawk. I prefer the truth informed by history.
46 ottovbvs // Oct 30, 2009 at 5:38 pm
mi-goper // Oct 30, 2009 at 4:43 pm
…….am I supposed to be impressed that you’ve absorbed the nutty theories of people like Kirkpatrick……..and as your comments illustrate, yet again, you remain a loutish obsessive…….my son by the way is a fairly conservative lawyer and member of the Federalist society, but even he thinks the Republican party is losing its marbles.
47 ottovbvs // Oct 30, 2009 at 5:41 pm
45 mi-goper // Oct 30, 2009 at 5:06 pm
“sinz54, let’s take a look at the Kennedy record, now that historians have had the opportunity to review this supposedly “modern day Democrat hawk”. They’re conclusion: he wasn’t. In fact, he was so lacking in resolve (like Obama & Carter) that he nearly tossed our S Viet Nam allies to the commies just a month before Dallas ended his lackluster presidency.”
……Pity he didn’t…..it would have saved us all a lot of trouble, the most serious military defeat in our history, and around 58,000 deaths in our military……and that was the ultimate outcome anyway
48 sinz54 // Oct 30, 2009 at 6:32 pm
balconesfault:
When you’re spending money in an emergency, you shouldn’t CARE about long-term planning–unless you’re just using the emergency as an excuse to do long-term restructuring of the nation.
Ever go to a hospital Emergency Room for treatment? They don’t deal with your long-term health. They fix the urgent crisis at hand. The rest is for you to deal with.
Obama was elected to fix the economic crisis of TODAY, which could be done by quick injections of cash into the marketplace. Not to turn America into a Social Democracy over the next 20 years. Sorry.
Everybody wants the American economy to grow.
Only you liberals want the latter goal.
49 sinz54 // Oct 30, 2009 at 6:37 pm
mi-goper:
In 1962, Vietnam was still a relatively minor brush war, one in which U.S. vital interests were not threatened. It appeared that Special Forces could handle it without a major U.S. commitment of regular troops and air forces. If not, it wasn’t that important anyway.
JFK was exercising the better part of valor: Don’t escalate a war in which U.S. vital interests are not threatened.
Had we lost Vietnam in 1964-65, the effect on America would have been tiny compared to the agony we went through in 1967-1973. We wouldn’t have become a cynical and disunited nation. We wouldn’t have lost 50,000 Americans. We wouldn’t have an entire generation of baby-boomer Americans convinced their government was an imperialist aggressor.
NOTE: Even President Reagan, who was certainly no dove, withdrew U.S. forces from Lebanon after the terrorist attack on our Marines there in 1983. He didn’t sent our army charging into Lebanon with both barrels. He knew it wasn’t worth it. He was right. In the end, nobody believes we would have been better off going to war in Lebanon.
We conservatives NEVER believed that “Where the American soldier sets foot, there he remains.” We were always careful to avoid foreign entanglements in which our vital interests weren’t threatened. Whatever happened to that?
50 sinz54 // Oct 30, 2009 at 6:45 pm
mi-goper:
The missiles that JFK removed from Turkey were Jupiter medium-range missiles. These were obsolete; the Air Force preferred its Thor missiles for the medium-range role; and the Jupiter bases in Turkey were not hardened and thus vulnerable to Soviet attacks. We didn’t give up much by giving up those missiles.
If you look at the strategic balance in 1964, the U.S. had about five times more deliverable nuclear warheads than the U.S.S.R. And the Polaris force, pushed by the JFK Administration, was highly survivable. JFK also deployed the Minuteman ICBM force. These missiles, being solid-fueled, could be launched in minutes, unlike the liquid-fueled Soviet missiles of that era.
You’re not being fair. JFK was no dove, and nobody at the time accused JFK of disarming the nation.
There’s an American flag on the Moon right now, thanks to him.
51 ottovbvs // Oct 30, 2009 at 7:04 pm
mi-goper:
‘I gotta ask, what part of Cut & Run don’t you get?’
…….you have an astonishingly low mental age mi-goper for someone who claims to practice law in MI.
52 MI-GOPer // Oct 30, 2009 at 7:09 pm
ottoBS, proving again his title fits, claims: “Pity he didn’t…..it would have saved us all a lot of trouble, the most serious military defeat in our history, and around 58,000 deaths in our military”.
Now, what part of Cut & Run escaped your limited mental capacities, my Village Idiot?
53 MI-GOPer // Oct 30, 2009 at 7:39 pm
sinz54, nothing you’ve said discounts the fact that you’re still stuck on the Camelot fiction of JFK and he is, truly, a ditherer equal of Obama and Carter. I didn’t say he was a dove –that was your spinning attempt to paint me into a corner. I said he wasn’t the Democrat hawk prez you tried to –and Camelot writers have– portrayed him. The missles in Turkey in exchange for withdrawl of missles in Cuba should have been changed to include the removal of all Russian military advisers in Cuba, all Russian equipment, etc. JFK sold us and the Cuban people down the river when he allowed Khrushchev to maintain Cuba as a satellite and puppet for nearly 40 more yrs… in violation of the Monroe Doctrine, by the way. But to liberal Cut & Run types, the Monroe Doctrine isn’t all that important, is it?
As for your dismissal of Viet Nam as a brush war, well, to take your words: “You can’t have it both ways”… which was your major criticism of “hard-core” right-wingers a few comments ago. The Viet Nam war had been waging under French prosecution for nearly 3 decades BEFORE Kennedy decided to Cut & Run. In 1962, according to the UN Human Rights Commission, nearly 15,900 Vietnamese died in combat situations. Brush war? What an idiot.
The truth is far more persuasive than your spin, sinz54. I get you think JFK was admirable. Heck, as many men think it’s admirable he sacked all those Hollywood starlets for years and Jackie didn’t know jack. Oops, pun not intended. But he wasn’t a hawk… he was a cad, he was a manipulator of perceptions, he was a Cut & Run prez… solidly in the Democrat tradition. He clearly had the morals of Slick Willy and the typical resolve of a Democrat.
Here’s a little history lesson for you, sinz54, men of character remain men of character even when making the most difficult decisions in life. JFK, like Obama and Carter, was a man of little character and supreme self-interest. He was a cad, a ditherer when it came to the most important crisis of his term, he proved to be a Cut & Run Democrat who was willing to turn his back on our allies in SE Asia. Carter used JFK’s impending flipflop on our allies in SE Asia to excuse his own decision to sell the Shah of Iran down the river and give rise to the worldwide threat of Islamic fundamentalism as a Nation-state enterprise. JFK has a legacy… it’s how easily Democrats turn their back on allies. But then, what should we expect from guys like Obama who toss their friends and expendable political allies under the bus at a hat drop?
You want to keep the glow of Camelot alive? Cool. You have lots of company. I’d prefer to learn from history’s lessons so that we don’t have to endure Carter’s 2nd Presidency now.
By the way, Kennedy didn’t put a flag on the moon. It was Congress. In fact, Tom Moser, who was a very young NASA engineer at the later-called Johnson Space Center was tasked to do exactly that… but the task was sensitive because of world opinion at the time. Dr Moser has said that he was told to do it by a Congressional subcommittee overseeing NASA’s budget… they wanted it done with Apollo 11. Then-president Nixon agreed and concurred. Nixon put the flag on the moon, sinz54. You can bow down with your head toward the west and worship facing Yorba Linda.
Of course, you can’t. That would get someone from Boston out to your home to yank off that Kennedy decoder ring you wear with such pride, no?
54 wrs10 // Oct 30, 2009 at 7:39 pm
sinz54 #27 “with our “allies” sending troops only for support roles.”
????????
http://icasualties.org/oef/
Coalition Military Fatalities By Year
Year US UK Other Total
Total 909 223 364 1496
mi-goper #34 “You’d be better off quoting a National Enquirer article… and have more credibility probably”
Really??? Will this do then:-
http://afpak.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2009/10/29/pakistan_drone_war_takes_a_toll_on_militants_and_civilians
There – a different messenger!
(same table though)
Do you have anything to say about the figures – or are you only concerned about personalities?
55 MI-GOPer // Oct 30, 2009 at 7:43 pm
ottoBS claims: “…my son by the way is a fairly conservative lawyer and member of the Federalist society, but even he thinks the Republican party is losing its marbles.”
Firstly, I doubt you were ever allowed to breed. Second, I doubt your son is a lawyer, a conservative, a Federalist or a GOPer. I think, like all good Village Idiots, you’ll say anything to make your weak case seem stronger than intuition merits.
Like when you and other trolls here routinely say “I always voted for Republicans but Geo Bush turned me off the GOP” or some other equally unbelievable nonsense.
56 MI-GOPer // Oct 30, 2009 at 7:53 pm
wrs, you can have support troops in theatre but not in a combat role and die. You know, being around all that explosive, dangerous equipment or driving on roadways lined with IEDs can kill even support and logistics support personnel. The better numbers are allies combat deaths… but that would be a tough stat to run down.
By the way, you did know that your site, icasualities, used to keep records of how many Iraqis had died from the “unprovoked” terrorism of American and allied forces against the people of Iraq during Desert Storm? Nice group of friends you got there, dude. Let me guess –you aren’t American, you’re a Canucker?
Nice spin, but it ain’t working. We’re a bit smarter and more experienced around here than the conservatives you tangle with on other sites.
57 MI-GOPer // Oct 30, 2009 at 7:54 pm
wrs, by the way, we talked about your “figures”; you’ve been hosed out.
58 sinz54 // Oct 30, 2009 at 8:02 pm
mi-goper:
And if the Russians had refused to allow linkage between nukes and their conventional forces, especially their advisors? You would have then suggested what, exactly?
Suppose YOU had been President, and I were Khrushchev, and you demanded that I withdraw my conventional forces from Cuba too. I would call your bluff, figuring that you weren’t nuts enough to risk a thermonuclear exchange over the presence of some of my advisers in Cuba, who aren’t an existential threat to your homeland.
Would you?
59 sinz54 // Oct 30, 2009 at 8:13 pm
mi-goper:
In 1960, with Atlas and Redstone test rockets blowing up on the launching bad, JFK’s own science adviser, Jerome Weisner, suggested canceling the Mercury program and basically forfeiting the space race to the Soviets. JFK said no.
After Alan Shepard’s limited suborbital flight, JFK called for landing a man on the Moon and returning him safely to the Earth, within 10 years:
“Those who came before us made certain that this country rode the first waves of the industrial revolution, the first waves of modern invention, and the first wave of nuclear power, and this generation does not intend to founder in the backwash of the coming age of space. We mean to be a part of it–we mean to lead it. ”
— JFK, 1962
You know, I’m really glad I’m a registered Independent. I can call the shots as I see ‘em. On NM, you’ve seen me criticize liberals when I believe they’re wrong (which is quite often)–but I reserve the right to criticize conservatives and Republicans too ,when they are wrong.
It saves me from having to take the spin doctor position that “my party is always right, and the opposition party is always wrong.” And you’re pushing it much further, implying that Democrats are just not “men of character.”
You may be pure as the driven snow. But don’t sit in judgment on others’ personal lives. Leave that to the Lord. You do not speak for Him.
60 wrs10 // Oct 30, 2009 at 8:21 pm
mi-goper #57 “wrs, by the way, we talked about your “figures”; you’ve been hosed out.”
Really – on which message numbers? I cannot find anything on drones – quite a lot on cars though. Not the same thing at all. (OK #21 #22 and #26 were quite supportive -what else is there?)
61 wrs10 // Oct 30, 2009 at 8:27 pm
mi-goper #56
You are an ignorant moron.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coalition_casualties_in_Afghanistan
Coalition deaths in Afghanistan by country
USA: 836*
UK: 223
Canada: 131*
Germany: 39
France: 36
Denmark: 28
Spain: 26
Italy: 22
Netherlands: 21
Poland: 15
Australia: 11
Romania: 11
Estonia: 6
Norway: 4
Czech Republic: 3
Latvia: 3
Hungary: 2
Portugal: 2
South Korea: 2
Sweden: 2
Turkey: 2
Belgium: 1
Finland: 1
Lithuania: 1
TOTAL: 1,428
If you really think that the UK and Canada can amass a higher death rate pro-rata to their populations than the US because their troops are “not in a combat role” you are an idiot. Thank you for bringing that to our attention.
62 MI-GOPer // Oct 30, 2009 at 9:25 pm
sinz54, this is an argument you have neither the intellectual skills nor history on your side to win. You’re the one who was spinning a few comments ago that for me to write Kennedy was no hawk except in the Misty Eyed Land of Camelot was the same as saying he was no dove. I didn’t, you did.
I pointed out what learned and balanced historians have come to appreciate about JFK. That you have some idol-worship love fest with the man from Boston ain’t my problem, it’s your problem.
You said that Kennedy put a flag on the moon. I pointed out that you were not just wrong –you were 100% wrong and the people who actually did put the flag on the moon have said how it happened. You and your Camelot mists may try to blur reality for comfort, I don’t need to. Ihave the comfort of truth and history and being correct on this and many, many other matters.
Finally, you were the idiot who claimed that a) JFK didn’t Cut & Run from VN and our allies; I provided reference to the very memo where JFK formulated his Cut & Run plan that his peer, LBJ signed just 4 days after the Dallas shooting… b) you said that VN was just a… just a… let’s see… just a “brush war” even though the French had been fighting the same war, the same way for more than 3 decades and the UN says that over 15k nationals died the year JFK wanted to sign the Cut & Run Order and leave our allies high and dry… just like Obama wants to do in Afghanistan, just like Carter did with the Shah, just like Johnson did with eastern Europe… it’s a pattern. It’s Democrat presidents who dislike, distrust and despise the military… Clinton included.
As for you trying to lecture me about what is fair game about mens’ character, I can only say that God has, indeed, given me the power to make those judgments & the Jesuits who trained me would say I have the moral obligation as a moral agent to make those judgments… I’m not crippled as you are by moral relativism.
Look, if you want t odebate these issues, bring your better arguments and man-up. It doesn’t take much to punch through the silly notions you trot out like a horse all the canter… especially when the issues key in on Democrats acting as presidents, their Party’s collective anti-military RECORD, and the failure of past CIC and why Obama dithers like JFK, Johnson, Carter and Clinton. It’s in their political blood and partisan hides. You can get angry and indignant but it doesn’t change the truth I speak here. Sorry you can’t handle the truth, son.
63 MI-GOPer // Oct 30, 2009 at 9:40 pm
wrs10 gets a 2 on the 10 pt scale with this: “You are an ignorant moron”.
No, wrs2.5, you get a F for comprehension. I didn’t dispute the numbers that your far Left socialist site is offering as legit deaths in-theatre… I said that the real number that matters is combat deaths, you 1st grade reading level moron. In fact, the very page you cited, the last death listed proves my point… he was a support soldier who died of non-combat related injuries… the majority of deaths by allied forces have been non-combat, support troop situtations… landmines detonated while building roadways, construction accidents, IED while in transit to a school site or bridge building site, etc.
American troops have taken the brunt of combat deaths because we’re the ones in forward positions. We the ones patroling areas other than the neighborhood around Karzai’s palace. We the ones getting overrun by Taliban forces emboldened by a President who dithers.
So get your numbers right and get your facts straight. The original point that sinz54 made was:
“And in Afghanistan, the U.S. has sent 80% of the troops, and nearly all the combat troops, with our “allies” sending troops only for support roles. In all these alliances, it’s the United States that ends up doing the heavy lifting. Just compare the sizes of their militaries to ours.”
You took exception to it by pointing out that our allies have troops dying in Afghanistan… but they’re support troops, wrs2.5
Now, who was the moron? I think you got a lock on that title… now we know you’re comprehension-challenged I’d suggest a remedial course at your local community college? You don’t have to stay a moron, wrs2.5, all through the Obama Admin.
64 wrs10 // Oct 31, 2009 at 8:40 am
mi-goper #56
“By the way, you did know that your site, icasualities, used to keep records of how many Iraqis had died from the “unprovoked” terrorism of American and allied forces against the people of Iraq during Desert Storm?”
No I do not know that. Do you have anything to back up that smear?
http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/UK-News/Afghanistan-Combat-Deafening-UK-Troops/Article/200810415135024?lpos=UK_News_Article_Related_Content_Region_14&lid=ARTICLE_15135024_Afghanistan%3A_Combat_Deafening_UK_Troops_
1:18pm UK, Thursday October 30, 2008
Hundreds of British soldiers who have served in Afghanistan are being deafened because of the noise of intense combat……………
“The original point that sinz54 made was:
“And in Afghanistan, the U.S. has sent 80% of the troops, and nearly all the combat troops, with our “allies” sending troops only for support roles. In all these alliances, it’s the United States that ends up doing the heavy lifting. Just compare the sizes of their militaries to ours.”
OK – so the US can do without the others. Have it your way if you wish. That, after all, was the goal of the Marxist advisers in the State Department in the FDR/Truman administrations.
Anyway:-
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/onthefrontline/2097987/UK-death-toll-in-Afghanistan-hits-100-Gordon-Brown-praises-sacrifice.html
09 Jun 2008
………Of the 100 British troops killed in Afghanistan, 74 have been killed in action by enemy fire or explosives and 26 have died as a result of non-combat related injuries. ………..
Clearly the military use a different distinction between “combat” and “non-combat” deaths than you do.
Are you on a BS course? Do you really think that smearing and bluffing endlessly will prevail regardless?
65 MI-GOPer // Oct 31, 2009 at 9:52 am
wrs2.5 sleazes with :”No I do not know that. Do you have anything to back up that smear?”
Just the truth… and for you, that’s usually been insufficent to penetrate your tin foil hat.
I get it that you don’t like to stay on the original point… I get it that you want to move the goalposts whenever you’re trapped in an untenable position –it goes with the life of a troll you’ve chosen. The original point was that most non-US NATO forces in Afghanistan were limited in their role to non-combat activities –logistics, clearing roads, removing demolitions, building schools, security for non-combat high valued targets serving in the govt, etc.
You didn’t like that bit of truth. You countered sinz54’s statements with a overly broad statistic that only YOU think proved something else. In YOUR own stats, many of the reported stories on site were about non-combat support troops being killed in non-combat actions… but that doesn’t stop you from smearing and continuing to bluff.
I wasn’t the one who tried to use Andie Sullivan as a credible source in the beginning –that was you, wrs2.5
Get some classes on reading comprehension, stay off the DailyKos for a while and I’m sure your shortcomings will correct themselves with time. That’s my advice to you. Until then, try bringing the right tools to the debate… not your usual variety of inconsequential blather, ok?
66 sinz54 // Oct 31, 2009 at 10:05 am
mi-goper:
I did NOT say that. You won’t get away with putting words in other people’s mouths.
What I said was, JFK was a big fan of the Green Berets, and used them extensively in Vietnam. IOW, in the early 1960s, our commitment was quite limited. But if Vietnam was still falling apart, JFK was correct that the loss of Vietnam would be a very minor blow to America, and we would be better off getting out of there. If Vietnam had fallen apart in 1964-65, America would have been FAR BETTER OFF.
in 1983, terrorists attacked our U.S. Marine contingent in Lebanon and killed 241 U.S. Marines. President Reagan’s response? Let’s get out of there! He too realized that America would be far better off exercising the better part of valor, than lashing it in retaliation. He was right. Reagan is remembered for demanding an end to the Berlin Wall, not for fleeing from Lebanon.
In the game of poker, if you’re dealt a poor hand, you always have the option to fold and cut your losses, which is what JFK wanted to do with Vietnam. You seem to believe that it’s always necessary to double down on your bets, and double down, and double down, because anything else offends your pride. Take my advice and never play poker. You’ll lose your shirt.
mi-goper:
That statement speaks for itself.
You may be pure as the driven snow. If you are, good for you.
The rest of us know that we’re all sinners in one way or another. I’ve done things in my own life I’m not proud of. And so I don’t want to sit on a throne and denounce someone else for being a sinner too. All I care about is whether a public servant earns his salary by working hard to serve his constituents. If he does, he can have as many honeys as he wants. In fact, my thoughts will be with him.
67 sinz54 // Oct 31, 2009 at 10:17 am
wrs10 and mi-goper:
We can argue numbers all day long.
But nobody would dispute that in EVERY major military operation launched by the West since the end of WW2, the U.S. did most of the combat operations. That was true with Korean War, the Gulf War, the bombing of Serbia to stabilize the Balkans–and it’s now true with Afghanistan and Iraq. That’s a FACT, that the U.S. did the bulk of the fighting (though Britain often played a pretty good second fiddle).
Furthermore, it was the U.S. that initiated such operations. The U.S. introduced resolutions in the U.N. for military action in Korea; to expel Saddam from Kuwait; etc.
Finally, when the U.S. did not step up to the plate, nobody else did either. Did any other nation propose sending an expeditionary force to Rwanda? Or to Darfur?
The historical evidence that collective security can stop a determined aggressor is weak, to say the least. The League of Nations didn’t stop Japanese aggression in the Pacific. It didn’t stop the Italian conquest of Ethiopia. It didn’t stop the Soviet invasion of Finland. And all those treaties signed back and forth in Europe didn’t stop Hitler. One by one, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Holland, Belgium, and then France found out how collective security can be overcome by a determined aggressor.
Heck, the American Indian nations signed treaty after treaty with the white American settlers. How did that work out for those Indians? They lost most of their land and ended up on tiny reservations.
Remember the Kellogg-Briand Pact of 1923? It was supposed to outlaw war as a means of solving disputes among nations. The reason nobody remembers it, is because it failed within a few years, with the Japanese invasion of Manchuria.
What liberals don’t seem to understand, is that a determined aggressor won’t keep his word. He will break it, whenever he deems it advantageous. Lawbreakers, whether domestic lawbreakers or international lawbreakers, aren’t deterred by laws. They’re deterred by the use of force to enforce those laws.
Bottom line: For the U.S. to stop being strong militarily, and instead put its faith in pieces of paper like a modern-day version of the Kellogg-Briand Pact, is suicidal. I don’t want America to end up like Czechoslovakia or Belgium. Or like Finland, forced to prostitute itself to a more powerful aggressor (that’s where the term “Finlandization” comes from).
68 athensboy // Oct 31, 2009 at 10:27 am
Is our country willing to go bankrupt fighting a unwinnable war in Afghganistan? It would take half a million troops to “pacify” Afghganistan. Are we to let our own country go to hell as we fight overseas? Were already in 130 countries, bases scattered all over the globe. Rome over extended its military too, and its empire died. All these chickenhawks wanting to fight everywhere wouldn’t know how to fire a gun if there life depended on it. Quit advocating to bankrupt our country by fighting stupid wars. Al Queda is in Pakistan now, want to invade that country too?
69 MI-GOPer // Oct 31, 2009 at 10:37 am
sinz54, well said.
But I’m not sure it’s just an argument about numbers with the likes of wrs2.5 or Obama or Carter.
Underpinning his attempt to deflate US leadership in combat action is a barely hidden contempt for the American military and the proper exercise of power to advance liberty, democracy or US interests abroad. People like wrs2.5 and Obama and Carter think America has been wrong all these years and the right way to handle aggressive dictators and thugs is to talk, talk, talk and then –most importantly –walk away when the talking doesn’t work out.
Iranian aggressors and even terrorists like former-Taliban operative and al-Qadea Khalid Sheikh Mohammed said, upon capture, “America doesn’t have what it takes to stop us; you are a nation of cowards.” Cheney & the CIA proved him wrong. Thank God!
The terrorists read the NYTimes. They hear the vacillation in our leadership on CNN. They know the current crop of leaders don’t have what it takes to prosecute the war on terror –heck, our people can’t even call it a war on terror anymore. And so they wait… inflict more deaths upon US soldiers just to place some added aggitation and heat back home… the N Vietnamese did it to a “t” and used Hollywood starlets to advance their agenda and propaganda. The Taliban and others know that lesson and know how fickle American leadership truly is.
America has always led in the major conflcits and many of the Lefties like wrs2.5 think that makes us bad. What they have to learn at some point is that life isn’t a Pepsi or Coke commercial… just holding hands won’t make it all better.
70 MI-GOPer // Oct 31, 2009 at 10:44 am
athensboy, weighing in from outer space, asks: “Is our country willing to go bankrupt fighting a unwinnable war in Afghganistan? It would take half a million troops to “pacify” Afghganistan.”
Well, that kind of logic may work over at MoveOn or an ACORN rally, but it doesn’t work here athensboi. First, the country is only going to go bankrupt because of the massive social service spending that your boi, Obama Messiah, has brought to the table. More natl debt in his first 9 months than in the ENTIRE history of the republic… including 2 WWs and the Gt Society spending.
Second, no one with a twits brain thinks it will take “half a million” troops to “pacify” Afghanistan. You need to sit back down because as long as you remain standing, you’ll be tempted to continue to pull figures and ideas like that out of your ass.
Finally, athensboi, your anti-military, anti-American sentiments are not especially welcome. You certainly have a right to express hold those uninformed, ranting opinions as much as we all have the right to tell you you’re nuts. And you are. The only chickenhawk I know of, right now, is Obama, the Dirtherer in Chief.
71 ottovbvs // Oct 31, 2009 at 11:32 am
mi-goper // Oct 30, 2009 at 7:09 pm
” Now, what part of Cut & Run escaped your limited mental capacities, my Village Idiot?”
……..the bit that involved about 58,000 names on a black wall in Washington and made no difference whatever to the ultimate outcome…….a united Vietnam under communist rule that forty years later is gradually mutating to a semi capitalist societal model a bit like China…….all this would have happened without the 58,000 deaths in between but mi goper preferred stupid route because stupid is his preferred operating mode.
72 ottovbvs // Oct 31, 2009 at 11:36 am
mi-goper // Oct 31, 2009 at 10:44 am
” Second, no one with a twits brain thinks it will take “half a million” troops to “pacify” Afghanistan. You need to sit back down because as long as you remain standing, you’ll be tempted to continue to pull figures and ideas like that out of your ass.”
…….Consult the Petraeus suggested ratio of troops to indigenous population required to fight a successful indigenous war……Afghanistan has a population of around 33 million in a territory about three times the size of Vietnam……ergo you need about 600,000 troops……..of course Petraeus could have a twits brain
73 ottovbvs // Oct 31, 2009 at 11:37 am
“successful indigenous war” …..succesful counter insurgency war
74 ottovbvs // Oct 31, 2009 at 11:56 am
“General Petraeus’s own “Counterinsurgency Field Manual,” while noting that force size calculations depend on the situation, acknowledges that “[t]wenty counterinsurgents per 1000 residents is often considered the minimum troop density required for effective [counterinsurgency] operations.”
……..I couldn’t copy the actual pages from the army/marine manual which actually posits 20-25 per thousand…..but if you take the minimum with a population of around 30 million it’s 600,000!!…..and you mi-goper claim to practise law in MI?…….thank god I’m not your client
75 ottovbvs // Oct 31, 2009 at 12:00 pm
mi-goper // Oct 31, 2009 at 10:44 am
………Btw just in mi-goper responds with his usual hate filled twaddle……here’s the link to the army/marine manual
http://books.google.com/books?id=lbyFW9eCUJ4C&pg=PA23&lpg=PA23&dq=Petraeus+troop+ratios+for+counter+insurgency&source=bl&ots=seSNLfnCHs&sig=SM2tzLHRaojkKo9VOYTtMzR4L9I&hl=en&ei=ZV7sSp2nFdK9lAfr15yABQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CBUQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=&f=false
76 sinz54 // Oct 31, 2009 at 1:03 pm
athensboy:
Suppose al-Qaeda hits us again, with WMD this time.
What would YOU recommend?
I’m still waiting and waiting to hear the LIBERAL solution for how we put al-Qaeda out of business.
Or do we just sit here cowering behind SWAT teams and shoe inspections and backpack inspections, nervously wondering whether any swarthy looking guy around us could be a terrorist?
77 sinz54 // Oct 31, 2009 at 1:13 pm
ottovbs:
BTW, Petraeus didn’t invent that number. A study by the U.S. Army War College in 1995 came up with that number:
http://www.carlisle.army.mil/USAWC/Parameters/1995/quinliv.htm
So when Rumsfeld planned out the invasion of Iraq, it was already well known for years that you needed 500,000 troops to keep the country stable. Rumsfeld ignored this.
This RAND Corporation study in 2003 reaffirmed that conclusion:
http://www.rand.org/publications/randreview/issues/summer2003/burden.html
Again, Rumsfeld ignored it.
Just FYI.
78 sinz54 // Oct 31, 2009 at 1:16 pm
ottovbs:
Look at it this way:
Kenny Rogers: “You gotta know when to hold ‘em, know when to fold ‘em, know when to walk away, and know when to run”
mi-goper: “You gotta know when to hold ‘em, know when to shoot ‘em, know when to shoot ‘em, know when to shoot ‘em, know when to shoot ‘em, know when to shoot ‘em….”
79 ottovbvs // Oct 31, 2009 at 1:23 pm
Pity mi-goper couldn’t show the same respect as this well known conservative:
“If I had been free to blog earlier, I would have added my voice to those, starting with Kathryn, who praised the president’s dignified trip to Dover Air Force Base to comfort the families of our fallen, and honor the dead. It was well done, and the right thing to do, and I’m delighted. Moreover, he has continued his regular visits to the wounded vets at Walter Reed and Bethesda Naval. I had worried, in the first days of his presidency, that he might use these occasions as photo ops and promos for his presidency, but he has not. Morale of our soldiers suffers when he dithers, and soars when they see he understands and honors them. Which he clearly does. Good on him,” – Michael Ledeen. “
80 ottovbvs // Oct 31, 2009 at 1:28 pm
76 sinz54 // Oct 31, 2009 at 1:03 pm
” Suppose al-Qaeda hits us again, with WMD this time.”
…….Suppose pigs could fly…….this is a total strawman……al quaeda has much less access to WMD of mass destruction than Saddam Hussein did……despite your mania solutions to our al Quaeda problem aren’t liberal or conservative…….they are, or should be American
81 ottovbvs // Oct 31, 2009 at 1:43 pm
77 sinz54 // Oct 31, 2009 at 1:13 pm
“BTW, Petraeus didn’t invent that number. A study by the U.S. Army War College in 1995 came up with that number:”
…….Actually it pre-dates both of them…….In the mid sixties I was reading reprints of staff lectures that had originated with the British Sir Gerald Templer who led the British effort in Malaya against a communist backed insurgency and he was positing ratios of about 20/1000……this campaign was much studied in the American military in the early to mid sixties believe me…..Templar never had this ratio and was successful, but then he never faced a force that had anything like the resources, combat experience and advanced tactical doctrine of the Viet Minh……not to mention a commander like Giap.
82 MI-GOPer // Oct 31, 2009 at 2:23 pm
ottoBS jumps into the fray with a spin-and-weave attempt that would make a Whirling Dervish proud… “Second, no one with a twits brain thinks it will take “half a million” (American) troops to “pacify” Afghanistan”… the subtle spin that makes you look apprised and all others to be fools was your spin in expanding the argument beyond US troops. We were talking about bankrupting the US and using US troops of 500,000. That you missed that point isn’t all too special –you miss a lot here.
It might, in the theoretical construct of war games, be a need to use more NATO troops to pacify Afghanistan but we were talking American troops, not NATO joint forces. It’s why I wrote that no one thinks it will take 500,000 American troops nor will it bankrupt the US –as athensboi (and you) seem to think.
BS is your sole province, ottoBS… I stick to the truth, logic and facts.
83 MI-GOPer // Oct 31, 2009 at 2:27 pm
Give it a rest, my Village Idiot. You’ve lost the argument to a huckster Prez who only attends events he knows the cameras are running and he’ll get political mileage from it. You’ve been out foxed by your own man… and he was out-manned by Hillary. It’s what happens when we elect a vain-glorious metrosexual coward to the presidency.
84 balconesfault // Oct 31, 2009 at 2:35 pm
You’ve lost the argument to a huckster Prez who only attends events he knows the cameras are running and he’ll get political mileage from it.
A) You know for a fact that Obama doesn’t do other meetings with vets or their families aside from this one?
B) The attention paid to the Dover ceremony was in large part because of Obama’s Presidency – and it drove home a point that many Americans tend to quit paying attention to when worrying about their everyday lives – that our young men and women are still dying over there.
This is part of the President’s job – not only to pay personal tribute to the vets and families – but to bring the message to the American people, no matter how unpleasant the message is.
The attitude shown by mi-goper here shows why 8 years of Republican rule dragged America into the mess it is today – and the more the mi-gopers are the voice of the party, the more the American people will reject a return to power by the Republicans.
You’re your own worst enemy dude. The fact that you excoriate Sinz as a lefty apologist on international affairs just shows what an extreme island you live on.
85 ottovbvs // Oct 31, 2009 at 3:26 pm
mi-goper // Oct 31, 2009 at 2:23 pm
“It might, in the theoretical construct of war games, be a need to use more NATO troops to pacify Afghanistan but we were talking American troops, not NATO joint forces. It’s why I wrote that no one thinks it will take 500,000 American troops nor will it bankrupt the US –as athensboi (and you) seem to think.”
…….Not a theoretical construct…..the army/marine counterinsurgency manual
…….So we need 600,000 troops using their minimum ratio and your suggestion is that say a hundred thousand come from the US and the other 500,000 come from other NATO members like France, Germany, Canada, Italy, Britain, the Netherlands who are really the only NATO Members with armies of any significant size……since we’re currently having the greatest difficulty extracting any more troops from NATO and I think the British who have about 11000 there are the only ones who allow there troops to participate in combat none of this seems very likely to happen anywhere outside your fevered imagination……so who the hell do you think is going to provide them?
……And you’re a practising attorney in MI?
86 ottovbvs // Oct 31, 2009 at 4:06 pm
84 balconesfault // Oct 31, 2009 at 2:35 pm
“The attitude shown by mi-goper here shows why 8 years of Republican rule dragged America into the mess it is today – and the more the mi-gopers are the voice of the party, the more the American people will reject a return to power by the Republicans.”
REPUBLICAN PARTY
FAV UNFAV NO OPINION
ALL 21 68 11
Men 30 62 8
Women 12 74 14
DEM 4 93 3
REP 73 10 17
IND 10 78 12
Other 12 76 12
Non Vote 6 79 15
White 28 60 12
Black 3 92 5
Latino 4 82 14
Oth/Ref 4 85 11
18-29 6 89 5
30-44 35 52 13
45-59 17 73 10
60+ 17 68 15
NORTHEAST 6 89 5
SOUTH 48 37 15
MIDWEST 10 78 12
WEST 12 77 11
……….These numbers are unbelieveably bad…….the latino and black one are off the charts and yet these two groups constitute about 29% electorate and will be 45% in 20 years time……the far right have just collected a scalp in NY 23 and cw suggests Hoffman who doesn’t even live in the district is on his way to Washington……all this going to do is embolden the Hoffmans, mi-gopers, club for growth crowd to push for more doctrinal purity, more extreme candidates, with the inevitable result…..this as I frequently say here is a process that cannot be halted until it has run its course.
87 MI-GOPer // Oct 31, 2009 at 6:04 pm
BlankHead, you gotta stop it… you’re making ottoBS look good by comparison.
Do I know that the Prez hasn’t met with troops or veterans or military families without the lights, camera and correspondents? Yep. The WH posts his schedule and Robert Gibbs, Obama’s PR DoughBoi, tells the press everything short of Obama’s bathroom runs when briefing the press.
Besides, what you suggest would be in direct contrast to the Obama we’ve all come to know through his dozens of campaign stops –no, just the ones while Prez– his never-ending teleprompter read speeches, his slavish devotion to hawking everything, no matter how insignificant… the Obama we’ve gotten to know didn’t take the time to talk with his ranking & handpicked general in Afghanistan about the general’s recommendations… he chose to dither until the general made it a “declining polls” issue for the Obama… and that’s why Obama went to Dover… and used those KIAs and coffins. He wanted to reverse the correct impression Americans have that he’s dithering, dawdling and frittering away while our troops are in Harm’s Way… he’s asking them to make the ultimate sacrafice so he can figure out the best politics for Obama.
I’m not sure why you think, as a troll on a GOP-leaning site, you can advise anyone here about anything with any credibility. I’ve found you boorish and your analysis woefully short of informed perspectives… just like the New Majority Village Idiot, for you it’s two parts praise the Messiah and one part Bash Bush on just about every thread. That might work over at the HuffPo or DailyKos, but around here is just a yawner from a typical troll.
sinz54 was wrong about the cowardly predisposition of modern day Democrat prezs, including JFK. You reduce that disagreement & debate to me making him as a “lefty apologist”?
No surprise there, truth isn’t your strong suit, BlankHead.
88 MI-GOPer // Oct 31, 2009 at 6:07 pm
ottoBS, you’ve posted the same comments in about five different threads here now… it gets old fast… and with you, it got old a long, long time ago.
Either try to be original or stay out of the discussion because to start responding to your silly comments posted, reposted and rereposted in several different threads is to expose us all to more brain damage than you merit.
It takes a village to tame an idiot; it takes a lifetime to train someone like you to be the Village Idiot.
89 MI-GOPer // Oct 31, 2009 at 6:11 pm
ottoBS, you’re reading comprehension skills are below par… take a look at #82 and pay special attention to the discussion about US vs NATO troop levels… it might help you look better informed, but I doubt anything can actually make you better informed.
90 ottovbvs // Oct 31, 2009 at 6:26 pm
89 mi-goper // Oct 31, 2009 at 6:11 pm
” ottoBS, you’re reading comprehension skills are below par… take a look at #82 and pay special attention to the discussion about US vs NATO troop levels”
……..Instead of your usual squirming, hate, abuse, twaddle, silliness……just tell us by country within the NATO alliance where the 600,000 are coming from!!!!
91 ottovbvs // Oct 31, 2009 at 7:00 pm
89 mi-goper // Oct 31, 2009 at 6:11 pm
” ottoBS, you’re reading comprehension skills are below par… take a look at #82 and pay special attention to the discussion about US vs NATO troop levels”
……..Instead of your usual squirming, hate, abuse, twaddle, silliness……just tell us by country within the NATO alliance where the 600,000 are coming from!!!!
…….And btw ex marine expert and practicing MI lawyer…..a force of around 600,000, actually means a total force committment of at least 1 million including rotations and assuming a 6-8 month tour of duty……this could be sustained for about three years and then the force committment needs to increase dramatically because by then every member of your committment will have done at least three tours and will be f****……. btw the British army establishment is roughly 100,000, and the Bundeswehr around 300,000……I look forward to seeing your numbers with baited breath……of course we could reintroduce the draft in the US
92 MI-GOPer // Oct 31, 2009 at 10:31 pm
ottoBS keeps setting ‘em up and he gets ‘em knocked down before he leaves the parlor… “just tell us by country within the NATO alliance where the 600,000 are coming from?” Guess what, ottoBS, your man, Obama the Messiah, is the guy who promised he would work with our allies and get them to lift a larger share of the burden in Afghanistan. How’s that campaign promise working out for him? To date, England might increase its SUPPORT troop level by 470 men if Parliment agrees… wow, that’s a stunning achievement for Obama!
By the way, ottoBS, you shouldn’t quit your day job to become a military logistics expert –keep flipping those burgers. The 600k you think are required for pacifying Afghanistan included functions now handled by Rumsfeld’s NGOs and paramilitary experts… in General David Petraeus’ own words before Levin’s Armed Services Committee in the Senate: “We anticipate that non-combat functions normally included in our counter insurgency plan could expand to 35% of total force commitment, thereby releasing that pressure on our rotations and NG troops.”
You’re still the New Majority Village Idiot, ottoBS. Flip them burgers, dude.
93 MI-GOPer // Oct 31, 2009 at 10:33 pm
btw, congrats on multiple postings in one thread… as in #91 and #92. Usually you just cut and paste from one thread to the next… this time you’re double posting the same stupid blather in a single thread.
I guess for you and the DailyKos trolls, that’s progress? Wow.
94 VA Shepherd // Nov 1, 2009 at 7:48 am
Other Presidents confer with our allies and visit recovering veterans in hospital, but not this one. In the year that the Taliban mounted their biggest counter-offensive since we removed them from power, this President shows his leadership skills by saluting a flag-draped coffin. Nothing like that to inspire victory! If he sincerely wanted to defeat the Taliban he would have granted the professionals’ requests for reinforcements made so many months ago. It was a calculated decision that this picture, so rich with symbolism, was taken at this time. With this picture, the President is deliberately setting the stage for ultimate mission failure in Afghanistan, and it will come to define the Obama Adminitration’s approach to Afghanistan (although “withdrawal from” will be more accurate). However, expect some increase (25,000?) in troop levels before B.O. pulls them back – otherwise he’d look bad leaving Afghanistan with a resurgent Taliban in place. This strategy is called “Snatching Defeat from the Jaws of Victory”.
http://seanlinnane.blogspot.com/2009/10/riddle-me-this-batman.html
The President’s visit to Dover AFB would have been honorable if he had ditched the press in D.C. Instead the press were notified (on condition of secrecy!), and B.O. used a dead American as a prop for political purposes. The visit was choreographed from start to finish, including lessons on how to salute http://seanlinnane.blogspot.com/2009/10/salute.html. That the families (17 out of 18 reportedly) refused to allow B.O. to have his picture taken saluting the flag-draped casket of their fallen family member shows that they saw through his cheap stunt. If the President were sincere, wouldn’t he have visited Walter Reed since taking office? Certainly he could make time for a visit between interviews and golf.
95 athensboy // Nov 1, 2009 at 8:57 am
Do the loony right nothing this president says or does is right. Thats fine. Because the only thing the loony right understands is getting their asses handed to them on election day. There the only ones that “get it”. Just listen to rightwing radio for 5 minutes, they know everything, Democrats know nothing. They live in an echo chamber where they tell each other how smart they are, and how morally superior they are to Democrats. And your allowed to join their make believe world as long as you always agree with them and never raise any doubts about their ideology. There is no middle ground in their black and white world. The country may well be center-right, but it sure as hell isn’t far right. Eventually with the demographics of the country, the loony right will be a distant memory. Hey mi-goper, how do you like dem fighting words?
96 ottovbvs // Nov 1, 2009 at 10:40 am
mi-goper // Oct 31, 2009 at 10:31 pm
” “We anticipate that non-combat functions normally included in our counter insurgency plan could expand to 35% of total force commitment, thereby releasing that pressure on our rotations and NG troops.”
………..Well yes a substantial proportion of any force deployment will be employed in non combat functions…….it’s called the administrative tail (35% seems low to me but that’s another matter)……but whether they’re employed in paper pushing or running around the Afghan hills it doesn’t alter the size of total deployment……..so while all this is very interesting how about telling us where the 600,000(service personnel or sub contracted private contractors) are coming from by NATO member starting with the USA.
97 ottovbvs // Nov 1, 2009 at 10:42 am
VA Shepherd // Nov 1, 2009 at 7:48 am
…….We’re all very familiar with Mr Linnane’s objective take on matters …….I haven’s seen any of his diaries here lately……why’s that
98 ottovbvs // Nov 1, 2009 at 10:51 am
mi-goper // Oct 31, 2009 at 10:31 pm
” To date, England might increase its SUPPORT troop level by 470 men if Parliment agrees”
…………My point exactly……thanks for the confirmation…….there is no chance whatever that other NATO members are going to substantially increase their Afghan force participation…..reductions are more likely since this is a deeply unpopular war….. hence most of the forces will have to come from the US…….and you were saying at 82 mi-goper
“be a need to use more NATO troops to pacify Afghanistan but we were talking American troops, not NATO joint forces. It’s why I wrote that no one thinks it will take 500,000 American troops”
………..And you’re a lawyer in Michigan…….. right?
99 MI-GOPer // Nov 1, 2009 at 10:56 am
athensboi writes: “Do the loony right nothing this president says or does is right.”
Can you make a complete opening sentence appear coherent? I think not.
Then there’s this gem: “Just listen to rightwing radio for 5 minutes, they know everything, Democrats know nothing.” Well, if Democrats could keep a radio program like AirAmerica going without having it steal cookie money from the Girl Scouts, I’m guessing you guys would actually have someone on radio… but as it is, your message of higher deficits, more taxes, greater govt intervention, more regulation, higher fees, flag desecration as art and Cut & Run ain’t too popular with Americans.
Toss in the whole “turn in your neighbors if they speak ill of the Obama Messiah” White House website, the Democrats building a Nixonian Enemies List, massive corruption throughout the Democrat Congress and the embrace of ACORN’s election fraud makes any sane American want to run away as fast as possible.
Finally, athensboi notes: “They live in an echo chamber ” –sorry, athensboi, that is a claim that’s properly been attached to you and ottoBS and BlankHead and lfc… what? You can’t even be original in the taunts, you have to steal the ones already applied to you? Some debater you are, my mentally challenged friend.
I’m not worried about the 2010 elections –in fact, here in Michigan, it looks like the GOP will retain the top Statewide seats and bump off Democrat Do-Nothing Granholm, possibly 1 or 2 of the newly minted Democrat congressmen who stole into office on Obama’s coat tails and maybe dump one of the obstructionist Democrat Supreme Ct judges. Plus keep the state senate by 6-8 seats and regain control over the state house. It’s a tough time for the Democrats to be Democrats… that’s why they’re all running from the label Liberal as fast as they are running from Afghanistan.
All this in a very blue Obama state that Al Gore thought was “my land” and John Kerry turned a shade blue.
I’m guessing we’re going to Carterize Obama… he’ll be vanquished from office after a single, miserable failure of a term… and Republicans will be left with cleaning up the deficits, getting the economy going with real jobs –not partisan make-believe Stimuli jobs, dismantling the failed social experiments, indicting ACORN and making sure all the Obama tax cheat Cabinet officers serve some time and rebuilding the military and its morale.
Carterizing Obama. You heard it here first.
100 sinz54 // Nov 1, 2009 at 10:57 am
athensboy:
You still haven’t told us what you LIBERALS have decided is the right way to put al-Qaeda out of business. Come on now, you should have figured it all out by now: You’ve had EIGHT YEARS to watch the War on Terror, criticize Bush from your peanut gallery, and come up with a better solution. So what is it?
You can’t evade that question any more. Because YOU LIBERALS are now in charge of the White House and Congress. It’s YOUR responsibility now.
You slip up–if al-Qaeda manages to attack the U.S. on our home soil again–and we’re going to do everything legally possible to drag you out of power in America. That Sword of Damocles is going to be hanging right over your heads.
So you better make sure you get it right. Unlike Bush on 9-11, you can no longer claim to be taken by surprise.
101 MI-GOPer // Nov 1, 2009 at 11:03 am
VA Shepherd writes: “In the year that the Taliban mounted their biggest counter-offensive since we removed them from power, this President shows his leadership skills by saluting a flag-draped coffin. Nothing like that to inspire victory!”
Exactly, VA Shepherd! Well said. Nothing like a Celebrity in Chief trying to act like a real Commander but having it all ring hollow and insincere.
Heck, what’s it say when Jill Biden has meet with the troops and military families more than Obama?
Obama was in Dover for one reason: Obama’s falling polls. He needs a lift and he’ll go for it if it means crocodile tears for the fallen soldiers that his pal, John Kerry, thought couldn’t make in real life so they went into the Army. Who said Democrats are honorable men??
102 ottovbvs // Nov 1, 2009 at 11:04 am
mi-goper // Nov 1, 2009 at 10:56 am
…….all very interesting but why don’t you answer my question about troop deployments in Afghanistan
103 ottovbvs // Nov 1, 2009 at 11:06 am
mi-goper // Nov 1, 2009 at 11:03 am
………Yes we know you hate the president but why not answer my question about troop deployments in Afghanistan then I can go back to reading my book?
104 sinz54 // Nov 1, 2009 at 11:08 am
VA Shepherd:
Like all modern liberals too young to remember the Second World War, Obama doesn’t believe in victory.
He already said on at least one occasion that victory, in the sense of the enemy being willing to sign a formal surrender, isn’t possible.
105 MI-GOPer // Nov 1, 2009 at 11:11 am
ottoBS writes: “My point exactly……thanks for the confirmation…….there is no chance whatever that other NATO members are going to substantially increase their Afghan force participation”.
No, my Village Idiot, that wasn’t your point at all. You made the point that it would take 500,000 men to pacify Afghanistan, I pointed out that was total forces, not just US troops as you tried to spin it, I said Obama pledged that he would get more combat troops from NATO countries and he could do it because he has the metrosexual mojo thing going… he got zip from France and irritated the French, he got zip from Germany and embarassed all Americans in the process, he got nada from Spain, eastern Europe was so unhelpful that he pulled a defense shield in spite… now, what was that again about how the world would be beautiful under an Obama Reign?
The only thing Obama can come up with for Afghanistan is what I call the ACORN approach.
Offer to buy off the opponents, offer to help the other side do a better job at election fraud and when none of that works, pick up your toys in a pout and run for home. Oh, and call everyone a racist. Gotta do that for some cover so no one mentions the yellow stripe running up your back. The ACORN approach to Afghanistan.
106 ottovbvs // Nov 1, 2009 at 11:11 am
sinz54 // Nov 1, 2009 at 10:57 am
“You slip up–if al-Qaeda manages to attack the U.S. on our home soil again–and we’re going to do everything legally possible to drag you out of power in America. That Sword of Damocles is going to be hanging right over your heads.”
……….I’m sure you’re hoping and praying for this Sinz……one can sense it from the entirely juvenile nature of this comment…….sick, angry, pathetic…….how today’s patriotic GOP supporter thinks…….shame on you buddy
107 MI-GOPer // Nov 1, 2009 at 11:14 am
But then, you’re part of the OJ is innocent contingent inside the far Left, so rational observations aren’t your forte.
108 sinz54 // Nov 1, 2009 at 11:18 am
balconesfault:
But that’s the wrong message for any wartime leader.
FDR didn’t go on the radio for “Fireside Chats” to remind the American people that casualties were frightful. He went on the radio to remind them what their husbands and sons were fighting and dying for–and to inspire them to persist through to victory despite the cost.
With respect to Afghanistan, Obama was quite clear about the reasons we were fighting there (”Let me be clear…”, he said) in his speech last March. But now, ever since Gen. McChrystal told him what the cost would be, he’s been very quiet, desperately trying to walk back from his original goals.
That sounds much more like Vietnam, where the goals and objectives kept shifting as LBJ kept trying to balance them against domestic political considerations and the limits of U.S. power. And we all know how that turned out, don’t we?
A President who emphasizes the casualties of war without being clear about the objectives of the war is a President who is going to end up a defeatist. We should all be aware of the cost of war. But we shouldn’t be deflected by it–if we believe what we’re doing is right.
The problem is, Obama’s “netroots” supporters don’t believe in this war–or any U.S. war. And so Obama can’t even look to his own supporters for support to see this Afghanistan thing through. Lacking a firm base of support from his OWN PARTY to see this war through, I greatly fear he’s going to accept defeat (camouflaged for the voters back home, of course).
109 MI-GOPer // Nov 1, 2009 at 11:20 am
ottoBS goes from ottoBS to AutomaticBS with this line: “I’m sure you’re hoping and praying for this Sinz… one can sense it from the entirely juvenile nature of this comment… sick, angry, pathetic… how today’s patriotic GOP supporter thinks… shame on you buddy”
Actually, automaticBS, that’s a line your side used repeatedly in the last 8 yrs with little effect. It went “Bush is hoping the US gets attacked so he can look strong and reunite the country” or “Bush is holding off catching bin Laden so it can be an election eve surge” or “The GOP needs fear to stay in power”.
Then, your guy gets elected and it turns out he still hasn’t caught bin Laden and Obama’s pals in the MSM have curiously stopped the inquiry as to why not… your guys gets elected and the very first thing he does is leverage a legislative package based on the unsupportable FEAR tactic that if we don’t pass the Stimuli, unemployment will top 8%… when it does, all we get is whistling inattention and distractions like Dover from the WH…
Strange how the Democrats have turned reality into an Alice in Wonderland world.
110 ottovbvs // Nov 1, 2009 at 11:22 am
mi-goper // Nov 1, 2009 at 11:11 am
“The only thing Obama can come up with for Afghanistan is what I call the ACORN approach.”
…….The rat in the corner………I said according to the army/marine manual it’s going to require 600,000 (not 500,000)…….first you say most are coming from Nato…..then you say they are not coming from Nato……then you say a lots(unspecified number) of them are going to be contractors……now apparently we’re not sending troops, we’re sending ACORNS……..well rats like acorns I believe so you should be happy.
……And you’re a lawyer in MI…..right?
111 MI-GOPer // Nov 1, 2009 at 11:24 am
BTW automaticBS, I thought this side issue was finished when you lost the debate about whether or not combat troop deaths equated to support, non-combat deaths from NATO forces?
I guess when you’re wrong, you just keep plowing the row hoping that no one will notice another defeat?
112 MI-GOPer // Nov 1, 2009 at 11:26 am
Newsflash: at #110, automaticBS drops reality and fully embraces his Alice in Wonderland costume for Halloween.
For him, up is now down; losing is winning; dropping polls mean support.
113 ottovbvs // Nov 1, 2009 at 11:30 am
mi-goper // Nov 1, 2009 at 11:26 am
“Newsflash: at #110, automaticBS drops reality and fully embraces his Alice in Wonderland costume for Halloween.”
……..And you’re a lawyer in MI…..right?
114 ottovbvs // Nov 1, 2009 at 11:34 am
mi-goper // Nov 1, 2009 at 11:24 am
“BTW automaticBS, I thought this side issue was finished when you lost the debate about whether or not combat troop deaths equated to support, non-combat deaths from NATO forces?”
…….Is incoherence a qualification for practising at MI bar?……..I doubt it……but for rats?…..probably.
115 VA Shepherd // Nov 1, 2009 at 12:03 pm
When defense is the only part of the ballooning Federal budget that’s being cut don’t count on this president being a war-fighter. “The best way to pay tribute to those who have sacrificed is to win the war.” Too bad for the men and women fighting the war that B.O. doesn’t have any sense of urgency about winning the war.
116 ottovbvs // Nov 1, 2009 at 12:12 pm
VA Shepherd // Nov 1, 2009 at 12:03 pm
“When defense is the only part of the ballooning Federal budget that’s being cut”
……But it’s not being cut……..all Sec Gates is doing is reallocating resources to protecting the guys actually involved in ops away from a lot of pie in the sky the main beneficiaries of which are defense contractors.
117 MI-GOPer // Nov 1, 2009 at 10:38 pm
automaticBS offers: “Is incoherence a qualification for practising at MI bar?……..I doubt it……but for rats?…..probably”
And this is the best that our New Majority Village Idiot can muster? LOL.
You must log in to post a comment.