And those on the right try to paint all Iranians as fundamentalist cavemen who want to kill westerners…meanwhile, in Saudi Arabia…
The Field of DEM candidates is up to 20 (and counting)…
So…is it going to boil down to:
-
Two, almost 80 year old white guys…one an admitted socialist…and one with creepy tendencies.
-
A Native American Wanna-be, and
-
a liar, thug and someone who generally hates Democracy, and praises dictators and strongmen?
MAGA.
(Man…what did we do as Americans to deserve this?)
We chose greed and selfishness as morals.
1 Like
Will team trump jump on the creepy tendencies of biden? Kinda have already, but if they push it too far it really seems like it could backfire, but at the same time hypocrisy does not seem to bother his base.
The “two parties” keep offering us the choice between a douche bag and shit sandwich, and the vast majority of voters keep accepting that as our due, rather than saying “fuck you.” Trump was supposed to be the “fuck you” choice, but he was only running as a goof, and never had a serious plan for what to do if he won, and still doesn’t.
Could there be a “fuck you” choice that is also a decent human being?
The combined defense spending of European NATO states is 40% of American defense spending.
However, it would be a big mistake to believe that the United States could meet its strategic imperatives by cutting defense spending. Indeed, it will need to increase expenditures to invest in the research and development of leading edge technologies and weapons platforms.
More to your implicit argument, it’s erroneous to believe the United States can afford to decrease its spending closer to relative parity with near peer competitors in China and Russia. In any conflict potential conflict in Europe or East Asia, these rivals would be fighting much closer to their home territories and would be in a much better position to concentrate their resources against a fragment of total American hard power.
All in all, decreasing defense spending is a bad idea that invites instability and would inevitably cost much more American blood and treasure after crises occur. Deterrence is a keystone of American strategy and it’s only possibly through a constant effort to increase American absolute power in an international system that is becoming increasing multipolar.
With what? Double our citizenry as a continent?
So we spend 2.5x more with half the people?
I said nothing of the sort. America has too many strategic imperatives when how bad we are at managing them is taken into account.
It is (obviously) equally (and moreso, imo) erroneous to believe that anywhere near a significant difference in spending power is due to geolocation. Happy to have you prove me wrong.
This is a total guess, with absolutely no basis in reality. I would argue there is a supply and demand to global influence, and that if our allies would like it maintained, relative spending dollars should be shuffled.
Spending more due to geolocation AND refusing to leverage said geolocation advantage to even the spending field (even is such a gross word, it’s not even close) is beyond stupid.
You misunderstand. The United States would be deploying forces thousands of miles to join forward deployed forces in Europe and East Asia, Russia and China’s near abroad. There’s a concept in strategic studies know as the stopping power of water. It’s very difficult to project force across large bodies of water and the proliferation of anti-access/area denial (A2/AD) technology means the US can’t assume dominance in a given military theater against a great power near peer. Not commenting on purchasing power parity.
I haven’t but just added it to my list! Thanks for the recommendation. Looks like a fascinating read. I’m a big fan of Steve Coll’s work on Afghanistan. Ghost Wars is concerns the background to the Soviet War to 9/11. Directorate S concerns the immediate lead up to 9/11 though 2016. Both are highly regarded within the US foreign policy establishment, particularly Directorate S among CIA officers and analysts.
2 Likes
You don’t need to scale back 100% of abroad troops to see massive savings. That’s not what I’m suggesting. Consolidation, less waste, and less funding of infinite terrorist cycles can still have our abroad troops in 1-2 countries/continent.
The assumption is that if the rest of the 1st world truly wants to continue the QoL we provide them in a greater sense to our own (as to the geolocation difference you noted) that they would pick up some of the slack.
I really don’t care all that much if Europeans aren’t efficient with their spending. We certainly aren’t tenfold now and it doesn’t stop anything.
This is patently false and betrays a lack of breadth or depth of historical thinking. Germany and Japan were once moral enemies. Through security alliances, support of liberal institutions, and economic development, they became stauch allies that persist to today. The Republic of Korea is another salient example though that exceeded the > ten year transformation of the aforementioned states. You also falsely imply that nation building is restricted to reconstruction efforts after US military intervention.
Please show me where I’ve argued for your bastardized definition of nation-building. I’m arguing against America committing preventive superpower suicide by withdrawing from its global interests and obligations by over-learning the lessons of the last two decades. I that US foreign policy has been preoccupied by terrorism at the expense of other strategic imperatives and that the US should pivot to Europe and especially Asia, but that doesn’t require abandoning counter-terrorism writ large or abdicating American interests and obligations in the Middle East.
Counter-terrorism isn’t by necessity hearts and minds counter -insurgency and exporting American democracy through regime change.
Thankfully we don’t have a revolutionary dilettante actually follow through on this pipe-dream. Even Trump has been forced by necessity to understand the need for continued engagement despite the intractable difficulties.
I understand your (and Pfury’s”) frustrations, but your arguments are not grounded in good historical thinking. We risk withdrawing from the world at the very moment that we should reinvigorate our commitment to the world order America built over the last 70 years.
I want that hawk strain of ganja you’re smoking man. All told the US has nearly 800 bases in over 80 countries. We have more foreign bases than everyone else combined.
We could still kill anyone anywhere within a day. Or everyone everywhere for that matter… with 600 bases in 60 countries.
Not seeing the “more funding” trope working out when the F35 was a colossal cluster. If they can’t be good stewards of what we’ve given them so far, why give them more.
1 Like
No ganja, just history. Also, it’s humorous that you call me a hawk considering I’m advocating that we don’t burn down the pillars of American pillars of world order that have enjoyed bipartisan support since 1945. There’s a difference between supporting the development of a strong military (without excluding complimentary tools of national power) and advocating for imperial military adventures.
In regard to the quote above: And that’s a bad thing? It’s a huge advantage (and not just militarily) that’s the envy of our rivals.
You’re betraying your lack of understanding of international history and US grand strategy since 1945. I’m advocating for 3D national power: defense, diplomacy, and development. While America boasts the most powerful military forces the world has ever seen, our relative power vis-a-vis China and Russia is eroding. To deter great power war in the 21st century, we need to ensure our alliances and partnerships are maintained and strengthened. Any Chinese or Russian defense white paper bemoans the United States extensive and robust alliance and trade systems. It’s a source of great advantage from both a hard and soft power perspective. Forward deployed American military forces bolster partner capabilities, pacify regional competition, deter aggression against alliance partners, and allow an “island state” separated by thousands of miles of great oceans to prevent and respond to geopolitical emergencies in multiple theaters simultaneously.
I’ve read and reread this and can’t quite grasp what you’re going for here. Do you care to clarify?
Defense spending isn’t simple addition and subtraction. There are very good reasons the US spends much more more on defense than our European NATO allies and our near peer competitor is in China and Russia. Deterrence is a keystone of American defense policy and requires establishing credibility, commitment, and capability. The greater the power advantage a state enjoys relative to a peer they are hoping to deter, the lower the likelihood of costly miscalculations on the part of the aggressor. That’s why investment in defense research and development is critical, especially so given the technological innovations that have already been operationalized by our adversaries (A2/AD platforms) and those on the bear horizon (quantum computing, artificial intelligence, etc).
Unlike China or Russian, the core strategic imperatives of the United States are not restricted to geographic region. Rather, we must field combat credible forces in multiple regions at the same time (not all of these are in active combat, many are forward deployed to bolster allies and deter aggression). In any conflict, we would be contending for a space on the chessboard, while that space IS the chessboard for our adversary. They are able to bring the full brunt of their resources to bear in that event.
In conclusion, the US can’t afford to retrench it’s forward deployed military forces or cut military spending. I’m all for an audit to limit waste and ensure we aren’t spending today’s budget on yesterday’s weapon systems, but it’s clear that systemic imperatives will force higher military expenditures going forward. Note that deference via-a-vis China, Russia, North Korea, and Iran is the focus, not costly efforts at regime change in peripheral areas.
To the contrary. Balance of power is one of the most studied and empirical supported concepts in international relations. History is replete with examples of conflict arising between status quo powers and rising revisionist powers. Relative power between the United States and its near peer competitions is eroding. It would be foolhardy to accelerate that process by unilaterally withdrawing forward deployed military forces in Europe and Asia (a keystone of deference and American security alliances) and cutting US defense spending.
Again, it isn’t clear what you’re going for here. You need to define your terms and clarify your argument.
You referenced geolocation as a reason for inflated budgets and why we cannot decrease ours. That statement is fundamentally wrong, as we would be spending ludicrous more regardless of geolocation.
Good reason to you != Good reason to me.
This is also a guess with no basis in reality. But feel free to provide literally anything other than because you say so.
Absolutely not to the contrary. The act of balance of power being studied does NOT equate to lowering spending = massive instability.
You still just keep blatantly ignoring eu picking up some of the slack.
But if you have some evidence that us cutting it’s defense spending to non retard levels will actually cause this instability you’re talking about, I’d be happy to see it. I’m not sure how one would prove Europe will not pick up the slack when it’s in their backyard
If we have to spend more due to geolocation (ie the enemies are over there) it would stand to reason our allies (who are also over there) would be likely to pick up anything we stop doing, if it’s of actual value.
Tell him to tell the Guardian and BBC that please.
Pfft. Amateurs.
2 Likes
Ghandi beat your empire by sitting still. Just sayin…
2 Likes
And we burnt your capital to the ground with what we had spare. 
2 Likes