From the Wall Street Journal-OpEd

[TAB]

Yeah...like our illegal immigration problem just started 10 years ago.......... 

no it didn't, but for awhile they held both houses of congress and the presidency, they could have stoped it.  they didn't. 


Tom I'm not impressed with RR,  its not just that he also signed in the ADA laws.  Its one of the biggest anti biz bills ever written.

Its litterly cost employers and shop owners trillions, not to mention how many went under becuase of it.

[fightingquaker13]

I don't see the shallowness. What I do see is a lot of drift in strategic thinking. What are America's vital interests? Ask five experts and you'll get at least three answers. Is it to maintain the status quo? Is it to contain China and Russia? Is it to fight Islamic extremism? Is it to protect "sphere's of influence"? Do we focus on economic and cultural dominance? Are we authoring and enforcing a global order ala Wilson or FDR? What do Kosovo, Korea, Iran, Afghanistan, Taiwan and our own Southern Border have in common?
Since Clinton we seem to have flitted from crisis to crisis, doing an ok job, but without a strategic vision. Given that the Russians, Chinese and Iranians all seem to have one, this seems like a bad idea.  I think what I was trying to sugest is that step one in any serious debate about military spending and force structure needs to start with defining our vital national interests. Then we decide what we need to do to protect that. I would suggest that PC or not, getting control over our own borders is by definition job one. Until we have this debate and make a decision however, I think we are destined to be reactive rather than proactive.
FQ13

[tombogan03884]

You are using arguments that Jefferson had to eat. What he argued against, until as President he was forced to admit it, is that "America's interests" are freedom to trade with the entire world, regardless of the policies of other states.
The false belief of Jefferson and his adherents that America's military interests ended at her borders and shores is directly responsible for the ass kicking we took from the British in 1812-14, had his policies been ignored we would have had sufficient naval power to defend our own shores by diverting British ships for the protection of their own trade.
Instead, he advocated a fleet of coastal defense gun boats that , while ideal for defending our coastal waterways , had no ability to project power to the point where it was needed. His adherents compounded the mistake by not funding a tenth of the number needed even for defense.
America's vital interest is getting the materials we need to support our economy, your mistake is in "Asking experts" instead of applying common sense . At this time the biggest threats to our getting the things we need and selling our produce abroad are Muslim Extremists (again ) nations that threaten our trading partners, (N Korea ) and competition from other industrialized countries.
We have always in the past excelled at economic dominance, of course that was before the "entitlement mentality", but I do not understand why you would want to dominate other cultures, I thought you were a "Libertarian", that sounds more like a colonizing Imperialist to me.
You are right on 2 counts, we MUST control our borders in spite of congress, and the Governments Strategic vision , which is currently focused on the "one world" Nanny state must be forcefully rejected in a manner they can not misunderstand.
In fact, it would be beneficial to return to the Cold war. Regardless of what they may personally think, the Russians have seen that, it is why the SVR still refers to the US as the "Main Adversary". By establishing an us versus them mentality it gives a focus to their foreign policy and explains their continued opposition to us in international matters, France is the same.

[fightingquaker13]

You're assuming quite a bit. I'm not an isolationist like Ron Paul or the early Jefferson. However, I do believe that defending the homeland is job one. Beyond that, economic and cultural (read political cultural) dominance is worth looking at. Liberal democracy/republicanism has been ascendent for quite some time. It beat out monarchy, facism and communism. Now it is being challenged by Chinese and Russian authoritarianism (basically facism), Islamic extremism and tribalism. If we cannot convince the world that democratic capitalism is the best way to govern, we are screwed. We must become once again a fighting faith, not apologizing for colonialism, racism and the rest. If we have to apologize before offering an argument we lose. Period.
As far as the rest, what do we want? What do we need? Where do we wish to be twenty years from now in terms of security? This is what I mean by asking experts. Put the wise old men in a room and there is no coherent voice. it seems to me that economic dominance is the key to anything. Without money, its all pipe deams. Secondly comes an ideology worth defending and commonly agreed upon. Third comes a plan to define and defend those interests that are vital and create new alliances and rethink old ones that no longer serve our interests.
FQ13 I have more to say, but this is just where I think a debate should start.

[tombogan03884]

You're assuming quite a bit. I'm not an isolationist like Ron Paul or the early Jefferson. However, I do believe that defending the homeland is job one. Beyond that, economic and cultural (read political cultural) dominance is worth looking at. Liberal democracy/republicanism has been ascendent for quite some time. It beat out monarchy, facism and communism. Now it is being challenged by Chinese and Russian authoritarianism (basically facism), Islamic extremism and tribalism. If we cannot convince the world that democratic capitalism is the best way to govern, we are screwed. We must become once again a fighting faith, not apologizing for colonialism, racism and the rest. If we have to apologize before offering an argument we lose. Period.
As far as the rest, what do we want? What do we need? Where do we wish to be twenty years from now in terms of security? This is what I mean by asking experts. Put the wise old men in a room and there is no coherent voice. it seems to me that economic dominance is the key to anything. Without money, its all pipe deams. Secondly comes an ideology worth defending and commonly agreed upon. Third comes a plan to define and defend those interests that are vital and create new alliances and rethink old ones that no longer serve our interests.
FQ13 I have more to say, but this is just where I think a debate should start.

The high lighted area's are your primary mistakes. "Liberal democracy/ Republicanism" is an abject failure, it is what converted America from the most productive nation on earth into a growing welfare state where every one has their hand out that owes it's soul to Chinese banks. It was Constitutional Republicanism that allowed America's entrepreneurs the freedom and stability to make us the greatest power on earth.
The Second point, "If we cannot convince the world that democratic capitalism is the best way to govern, we are screwed", is also flawed by your brainwashed inclusion of "democracy", which is nothing more than mob rule. It means that any tax or other financial regulation is subject to arbitrary change at the whim of people voting themselves bread and circus's, it negates any protections for investors and leads them to put their money elsewhere. (Remember GM ? ) But your point is further flawed by the simple fact that it is not true. We have no reason to care how others rule themselves, we only have to convince them that they are better off trading with us than messing with us. Your opinion on the other hand reeks of the elitism that you claim to condemn in our congress.
Visions of Manifest destiny and the "White mans burden".
Your time in academia is obvious, you come across as an elitist snob, and you are usually wrong.   

[Sponsor]

[Solus]

I think America needs to invade Washington DC.

A most elegant and general solution to most all the problems facing the country I can think of.

[jnevis]

Having been a part of the military for nearly twenty years, we have lost our vision and sense of purpose.  We have made radical Islam our enemy, rightly so, but lost track of the other dozen or so countries that REALLY want us to go the hell away, as a nation.  We have some really intelligent, capable leaders that are being ground up trying to "eat soup with a knife.¹"  They know that terrorists are the target but they are also looking over their shoulders at China, Russia, and NK hoping we don't get sucker punched.  Some of them believe we already have, we just haven't realized it yet.  China OWNS us, Russia is regaining it strength and capability, and North Korea is just waiting for an opportunity to start a fight.  If fighting truly broke out on the Korean Peninsula, South Korea would cease to exist before we could even get a carrier underway.  Even if we did slow them down, we don't have the force strength to do anything about it.  Taiwan is the same way.  Used to be the Chinese could rattle their sabers all they want but they had no way of truly invading Taiwan and keeping it.²  That is no longer the case.  Take a long hard look at what would happen if we no longer had Taiwan, South Korea, and China as trade partners.  Extending that some, Japan would also be threatened and would be preoccupied with survival not supplying iPads.  Securing OUR borders IS important but other borders (power projection, freedom of the seas) is just as important, almost more so in the global arena.

Terrorists have been a fact of life for the last half century and bouncing from country to country to "stop" them is a joke.  Sure blowing up bomb factories and arresting "masterminds" makes for good TV but isn't solving the problem.  If we can prove to the general populace that we are truly willing to help them build/rebuild and make a better life for them they will be able to fix their own problems in time.  The whole "Teach a man to fish" principle.  Blowing up a bunch of stuff and handing the population the debris just makes it worse as they are convinced we will walk away and they will be on their own AGAIN. 

We don't know where we want to be, or how to get there and we've squandered away the ability to recover it.  Looking out over the military, as a microcosm of the general society, there is a lot of junior people that have the "entitlement mentality" and lost sight of HONOR, COURAGE, and COMMITMENT to self, Shipmate, and Country.  It's become "What can you do for me?" not "What can I do for you?" Thank God I can retire in 18 months.  Nothing more frustrating than giving direction, explaining why it's important for the junior person to accomplish the goal, and have them ignore it or tell you they don't want to and having no recourse but to say "OK, I'll do it myself if you won't."  There are glimmers of hope but since we are focused on “What will it cost in dollars?” instead of “What will it gain in security/capability?”  good ideas are shot down as to expensive, not our problem, or drug into the abyss of group-think to the point that they never see the light of day.


¹"To make war on rebellion is messy and slow, like eating soup with a knife"  T.e. Lawrence, Seven Pillars of Wisdom, introduction to Learning to Eat Soup with a Knife-Counterinsurgency Lessons from Malaya and Vietnam by John Nagl

² http://www.jeffhead.com/redseadragon/index.htm   Note a 17% decrease in our Navy and a 116% INCREASE in the Chinese Navy over 12 years, including an aircraft carrier and 15 amphibious assault ships.

[ratcatcher55]

I tend to agree with jnevis.

Terrorist are a threat to American lives. Nations are a threat to American interests and allies.

Saying that, the defense budget needs to get smaller. We don't have the money plain and simple.

It might not be as painful as you think. A huge part of the DOD budget is earmarks and set asides for things the military does not want but lobbyist promote to elected officials. Lot's of money are spent on re testing because Congressman A local company came up short on a evalution for procurement.

Then look at systems that can not be delivered or run way over budget.  New tanker for the Air Force, Joint Strike Fighter, Improved Self Propelled Artillery, the Osprey for the USMC.  Millions spent on a new battle rifle evaluation and nothing done.

Lastly the US military is currently used to win hearts and minds when that was never the purpose. The Chinese are running circles around us in this area. We send in military trainers to support the local junta. Chicoms send in engineers to improve infrastructure, creating local jobs so they can get raw materials as cheaply as possible.  They build electrical plants and power generation grids that bring energy to whole areas much like the US did in the 50's and 60's.

A smaller better trained and maintained force is what will have to happen. It also will mean less time deployed or deployable.

[fightingquaker13]

The high lighted area's are your primary mistakes. "Liberal democracy/ Republicanism" is an abject failure, it is what converted America from the most productive nation on earth into a growing welfare state where every one has their hand out that owes it's soul to Chinese banks. It was Constitutional Republicanism that allowed America's entrepreneurs the freedom and stability to make us the greatest power on earth.
The Second point, "If we cannot convince the world that democratic capitalism is the best way to govern, we are screwed", is also flawed by your brainwashed inclusion of "democracy", which is nothing more than mob rule. It means that any tax or other financial regulation is subject to arbitrary change at the whim of people voting themselves bread and circus's, it negates any protections for investors and leads them to put their money elsewhere. (Remember GM ? ) But your point is further flawed by the simple fact that it is not true. We have no reason to care how others rule themselves, we only have to convince them that they are better off trading with us than messing with us. Your opinion on the other hand reeks of the elitism that you claim to condemn in our congress.
Visions of Manifest destiny and the "White mans burden".
Your time in academia is obvious, you come across as an elitist snob, and you are usually wrong.  

Two points of reality. We have aways been a liberal demcratic republic. Classical liberalism has been our creed from day one. your republic vs mob rule thing is not to the ponit. We are arguing over taxononmy when we agree. Let us specify  a classical liberal republic circa early America (or call it bob for all I care) and move on.
Second, the world's view of "the right way to govern" matters. Zietgeist is hugely important, as it legitimates ideologies world wide. The rightwing shifts of the thirties and leftward shift of the sixties and anti authoritarian shifts of the late eghties and early nineties are cases in point. I mean hell, they brought down the Soviet Empire, every undemocratic regime in latin America and came close to taking out the Chinese in the ninties and gave us WWII in the thirties. Ignore this stuff at your considerable peril.

As to Jnevis' point I agree. He echoes what I am saying. We have been chasing down brush fires and not looking at the larger picture.  Al Queda is not an existential threat to America, they are an expensive nuciance, though one we must deal with. China and Russia can be a real threat. Korea and Iran can do tremendous harm to our interests. Our border is vital (though, yes we can ignore it, but it costs us dearly everyday we do).  I guess my point here is that we have become so crisis driven in the last twenty years, and this has intensified during the war on teror, that we have stopped planning for the larger picture. Our overall strategy and procurment plans have become disjointed as a reslt.
FQ13  

[jnevis]

Saying that, the defense budget needs to get smaller. We don't have the money plain and simple.

It might not be as painful as you think. A huge part of the DOD budget is earmarks and set asides for things the military does not want but lobbyist promote to elected officials. Lot's of money are spent on re testing because Congressman A local company came up short on a evalution for procurement.

Then look at systems that can not be delivered or run way over budget.  New tanker for the Air Force, Joint Strike Fighter, Improved Self Propelled Artillery, the Osprey for the USMC.  Millions spent on a new battle rifle evaluation and nothing done.

A smaller better trained and maintained force is what will have to happen. It also will mean less time deployed or deployable.

On paper that sounds like a great idea.  In the reality of it it is not workable.  The largest part of the military budget is NOT equipment but personnel costs, current payroll and retirement plus health care.  Yes, the Acquisition process is broken and Congress has pushed its way into it causing more headaches and costs.  The programs Rat mentioned are prime examples of it. 

The Air Force cannot contiue forever with a tanker designed in the 50s.  The 707 derived airframes are getting old.  The KC-135, RC-135, E-3, and E-6s will have to be replaced.  The biggest problem with that program is the Air Force itself.  They know they need a new tanker but can't decide on how big they want it.  The first Airbus submission was huge and would carry a LOT of fuel to pass, but was limited to only the largest airfields.  The Boeing proposal met the spec for "give" and number of supportable airfields but the AF decided it was to small.  Then a pissing contest insued and the contract is canceled and lots of money was spent to prove the AF screwed up.  They tried it again and worked the requirements to favor the Boeing design and Airbus challenged it, canceling it again.  We're on round three and we still haven't got a tanker.  It's not that it can't be done, just that the leadership can't play by the rules THEY wrote.

JSF is another one.  Requirement creep has hit it HARD.  Lack of oversight and a lot of "Can we make it do...?" has turned a fairly inexpensive, agile fighter into a flying hippo.  Only problem is the only front line fighters we have on the inventory now were designed in the 60s and are quickly nearing the end of their service lives.  We've lost more than one F-15, F-18, and F-16 to airframe failure due to overstress and age.

Osprey is a shining example of what we can do RIGHT if we are given the chance.  Yes, it took FOREVER to field and cost a lot of money.  We proved the concept in the 70s and refined it in the 80s.  Then we decided that we didn't need it so it went on the shelf for a while.  It was dusted off and began production but it had some issues that were only partially due to design but more on training and employment.  The aircraft did what it was supposed to but the aircrew didn't understand some of the limitations.  Now we have them in the field and the units are expanding the operational envelope daily.  Mud Marines specifically ask for them to transport them and thier equipment.  Something that complicated and revolutionary isn't going to be perfect out of the starting blocks.  Look at the Harrier, it seemed to kill EVERYBODY, but it's still in use over 40 years later.

A smaller force will not shorten deployment time, only worsen the problem.  We have the best trained, best equiped forces in the world, but instead of maintaining that edge we want to strip it to the bone and hand them a slingshot and order them to make sure the person you are going to shoot at is actually shooting at you BEFORE you fire.  The whole point of Joint Forces Command is to make the different Services work better together but since they don't have any guns, and have a lot of contractors they have to be bad so we'll get rid of them.  Lot's of Air Force mentality.  "If it isn't a fighter and flashy cool, it is junk."  Stuff that works but isn't high tech with 100#s of computers can't be usable.  No matter how much technology you have and how superior it is, it's still a guy on the ground with a rifle that is ultimately going to win or lose a war.  In that respect the Chinese have the right idea.  "Kill all you want, we'll send more."  Do we need the technological superiority, yes.  Is it the only answer, no. Cutting back leaves us vulnerable.  Look at England.  In a few years they will basically have no military to speak of.  Everything is on the chopping block.  Entire aircraft types are being cut with no replacement because the MoD has determined that they will rely on outside help (NATO) for any defense not within their borders, and that is being cut back as well.  The once great global superpower is now just a hollow shell.  We are headed down the same path.