Thomas Ricks, author of new book, "The Generals," was interviewed on Fresh Air today. He shared many of my same ideas:
First, he said that one percent of America is accumulating significant wealth and one percent of America does all the dying in war. Without a draft, we (and more importantly, the one percent who control the wealth and power), become disconnected from the politics of war and take it for granted that soldiers die in these conflicts. We would be more careful in our politics if we had a draft.
He also mentioned that in war, there is wisdom in not setting withdrawal deadlines, and in setting them. You should know the arguments on both sides if you have thought at all about this issue. Mr. Ricks agrees with President Obama. Here's when I think it cuts one way or the other, and why I also think President Obama is right and Mitt Romney is wrong (and frankly I think Mitt simply disagrees just to disagree):
If you are in for the long run to wage all-out war and completely annihilate the opposition until there is unconditional surrender, you don't tell them when you are withdrawing. On the other hand, if you are a foreign force that is acting as a surrogate for a domestic armed force (as we are in Afghanistan), you need those local, domestic forces to know they have to take on the responsibility for their own country's security, or they will take it for granted that you will always be there. It's like telling an adult child that the free ride in Mommy and Daddy’s house is going to come to an end.
Although I recognize that President Obama's administration has not been perfect, Obama has shown more balance, more understanding, and more wisdom in world affairs than Mr. Romney.
When the political right claims that we are disrespected in the world, who are they talking about, and what is their proof? Answer: not Europe, and not our allies. They are talking about terrorists and dictatorships in places where the political and cultural dynamics are completely beyond our power to effectively direct or influence. The radical elements in these places hate us and disrespect us because of the values that we share collectively, not because of the things that divide us politically, or because of any of Romney's contrived perceptions of our weakness. These radicals have created a god of hatred and homicidal rage. This is their motivation. This is what drives them, not any perceived weakness that they have come to know by reading spreadsheets on our military spending. The configuration of our military means nothing to them until our helicopters are at their doorsteps.
Mr. Ricks also believed Mitt's desire to increase the military budget to over four percent of our GNP is irresponsible in peacetime. In virtually all instances, when the U.S. has wound down from war, its military budget has decreased. Ricks also mentioned that at the height of the British Empire, the British spent two percent of their GNP on its military. It should also be remembered that the collapse of the USSR was substantially due to its bloated military spending. We shouldn't make that same mistake at this time.
Finally, Mr. Ricks emphasized that just as Republicans lament or allege that Democrats throw money at problems, there is currently substantial inefficiencies and waste in the military. Throwing more money at it will not equate to a stronger military.
Moreover, as is being silently, but wisely understood by President Obama, Pakistan (with over 100 nuclear warheads) is a greater threat to world peace than Iran. It is spiraling into radicalism.
When you vote, think about which candidate is most likely to endanger our troops unnecessarily by prolonging war in Afghanistan, or by starting a war in Iran or other places to try to "install friendly" governments. (Mitt Romney.)
I urge you to vote for the wiser of the two: President Barack Obama.
Loren M. Lambert © November 2, 2012
First, he said that one percent of America is accumulating significant wealth and one percent of America does all the dying in war. Without a draft, we (and more importantly, the one percent who control the wealth and power), become disconnected from the politics of war and take it for granted that soldiers die in these conflicts. We would be more careful in our politics if we had a draft.
He also mentioned that in war, there is wisdom in not setting withdrawal deadlines, and in setting them. You should know the arguments on both sides if you have thought at all about this issue. Mr. Ricks agrees with President Obama. Here's when I think it cuts one way or the other, and why I also think President Obama is right and Mitt Romney is wrong (and frankly I think Mitt simply disagrees just to disagree):
If you are in for the long run to wage all-out war and completely annihilate the opposition until there is unconditional surrender, you don't tell them when you are withdrawing. On the other hand, if you are a foreign force that is acting as a surrogate for a domestic armed force (as we are in Afghanistan), you need those local, domestic forces to know they have to take on the responsibility for their own country's security, or they will take it for granted that you will always be there. It's like telling an adult child that the free ride in Mommy and Daddy’s house is going to come to an end.
Although I recognize that President Obama's administration has not been perfect, Obama has shown more balance, more understanding, and more wisdom in world affairs than Mr. Romney.
When the political right claims that we are disrespected in the world, who are they talking about, and what is their proof? Answer: not Europe, and not our allies. They are talking about terrorists and dictatorships in places where the political and cultural dynamics are completely beyond our power to effectively direct or influence. The radical elements in these places hate us and disrespect us because of the values that we share collectively, not because of the things that divide us politically, or because of any of Romney's contrived perceptions of our weakness. These radicals have created a god of hatred and homicidal rage. This is their motivation. This is what drives them, not any perceived weakness that they have come to know by reading spreadsheets on our military spending. The configuration of our military means nothing to them until our helicopters are at their doorsteps.
Mr. Ricks also believed Mitt's desire to increase the military budget to over four percent of our GNP is irresponsible in peacetime. In virtually all instances, when the U.S. has wound down from war, its military budget has decreased. Ricks also mentioned that at the height of the British Empire, the British spent two percent of their GNP on its military. It should also be remembered that the collapse of the USSR was substantially due to its bloated military spending. We shouldn't make that same mistake at this time.
Finally, Mr. Ricks emphasized that just as Republicans lament or allege that Democrats throw money at problems, there is currently substantial inefficiencies and waste in the military. Throwing more money at it will not equate to a stronger military.
Moreover, as is being silently, but wisely understood by President Obama, Pakistan (with over 100 nuclear warheads) is a greater threat to world peace than Iran. It is spiraling into radicalism.
When you vote, think about which candidate is most likely to endanger our troops unnecessarily by prolonging war in Afghanistan, or by starting a war in Iran or other places to try to "install friendly" governments. (Mitt Romney.)
I urge you to vote for the wiser of the two: President Barack Obama.
Loren M. Lambert © November 2, 2012
No comments:
Post a Comment