Hope and Change, huh?

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-16430405

There's already been tries with this idea of the leaner, cheaper US military and fighting wars. The results in Iraq and Afghanistan utterly and comprehensively discredited this Rumsfeldian nonsense. Instead of cheaper, more effective wars the USA got protracted ugly wars where it was unable to either end the war quickly or provide a sufficient show of force to cow its enemies. The USA also got the absurdity of having to buy ammunition from other countries and a war without either adequate armor or sufficiently protective armor because its leaders were too cheap to buy it or to use it, and wars where it was undermanned so the USA had a war that was sufficiently cheap and not requiring any of the taxes to pay for it.

Remind me again where Obama's precisely differed from Bush in terms of these wars, again? I mean even his withdrawal from Iraq was on a timetable set by George Bush.....

Comments

[a-new-machine.livejournal.com]

He wanted to surge in Afghanistan. That's the major difference between the two, policy-wise. The withdrawal timetable, IIRC, was set by Iraq, and

I think your points have a few problems, though. Most of the under-funding, under-preparedness complaints came out of Iraq, which was our second concurrent theater of combat. Moreover, where we fought actual wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, we won quite handily. The real problem was that our military, for all its absurd expense, is simply not suited to waging an occupation. For that, we'd need to vastly increase our spending, not decrease it, and that would put the final nail in our budgetary coffin.

You are begging a pretty vital question in this commentary, though. You seem to presume that occupying two countries at the same time is either necessary or inevitable. I'm not certain I agree.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Not at all, but I think if we're going to be that stupid the least we could do is not send too small, under-armed and under-armored forces into an occupation. The whole idea of the two wars was ridiculous but even in terms of actually waging the wars the Bush Administration did quite a bit that was utterly and completely wrong. Following that lead is not a good idea. And yes, we won wars by giving a boost to one side in a civil war and smashing the Keystone Cops. We were fortunate Bush kept up the tradition of the USA picking easy targets....

[a-new-machine.livejournal.com]

Well, be that as it may, we still won the wars we picked. Again, the question is whether we're likely to get involved in another occupation. I desperately hope we've learned our lesson on that count.

[surferelf.livejournal.com]

Remind me again where Obama's precisely differed from Bush in terms of these wars, again?

Anyone who was paying attention during the 2008 campaign would know that both Obama and McCain (as well as Clinton, for that matter) had nearly identical positions on Afghanistan and Iraq as GWB.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

And those not paying attention?

[surferelf.livejournal.com]

They projected a lot.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

Obama ran on getting out of Iraq in 16 months no matter what. McCain wanted to stay in until we were done, which were both off from the timeline Buah ended up signing.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

The problem was there was no idea of what "done" in Iraq looked like and I highly doubt Senator McCain had such an idea, and if he would have tried to actually destroy the insurgency instead of bribing it the USA would show it's still not learned basic counterinsurgency lessons in its sad history of irregular warfare. Did the people who wanted a "victory" in Iraq ever have a concept of what victory looked like and how to get there?

[surferelf.livejournal.com]

And when pressed as to what "getting out" meant, he admitted that there would still be a non-insignificant force in Iraq after 16 months. War without end! Amen Amen.

[telemann.livejournal.com]

Obama and McCain (as well as Clinton, for that matter) had nearly identical positions on Afghanistan and Iraq as GWB.

I think McCain said Obama was naive to go any heavier into Afghanistan and do whatever it took to get OBL. In fact, that's one specific reason why Christopher Hitchens supported Obama in 2008.

[surferelf.livejournal.com]

I do remember Obama saying he would take unilateral action in Pakistan if he needed to (which he did), but there wasn't much daylight between them on Afghanistan.

[kylinrouge.livejournal.com]

I am firmly convinced that if Obama was a Senator during the vote to go to Iraq he would've voted for it.

[whak-hat.livejournal.com]

Obama sucks as a leader and will only ever be known as 'the first black dude to serve' …because he has no other accomplishments to his name

[kylinrouge.livejournal.com]

I give you 5/10 for the effort.

[whak-hat.livejournal.com]

I give a 2/10 for not being a dick. (What, it's my turn to have the maturity of a 5 year old, you already got yours)

[allhatnocattle.livejournal.com]

"Nation Building" is supposed to have a financial net gain, isn't it? War is profitable, is it not?

First you invest in a ass-backwards commie-dictatorship through "Freedomizing" it. Then you reap in the rewards through the trade of selling guns, ammo, military training and buying cheap bananas. Hopefully you secure mineral rights and a new military base. Not only that, once they trade in American dollars, all their trade is a financial gain for USA.

USA has 737 military bases in other peoples countries (http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=12824). This is an imperial force that's not only impressively unequalled, it's 553 billion dollars of a burden to it's citizens.

Since the military is thought to be a profitable venture, it is wise to keep it doing what it's doing. However, it seems quite clear that it could continue to do what it's doing with a lot less. I have a feeling this is what President Obama is on about.

[whoasksfinds.livejournal.com]

you have rather liberal interpretation of the term empire.

[allhatnocattle.livejournal.com]

An Empire can be described as a immense political unit exercising domination or control over a large territory or group of states.

The USA certainly has an empire of sorts, even if you just include it's territories like Guam and the Virgin Islands. But if you consider USA's tremendous influence in global-political dynamics, like veto powers in UN, NATO, etc it's even further apparent.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Not in this case he doesn't. Disagree with what the American Empire wants in the wrong place by geography and it pays your army to shoot you and do what it wants to do, no matter what it means for your country. If you're in the wrong country geographically speaking the American Empire will put nuclear missiles on your country's soil, with the expectation that if the shit hits the fan your country is the area from which the USA can use its civilization-busters. If you're in the wrong area and sometimes of the wrong ethnicity you're a terrorist against whom any and all means necessary must be destroyed, even when the actual "crime" is to be a legitimately elected official putting your interests over that of the American Empire. If you're in the wrong area, geographically and politically speaking your economy is beholden to the US economy, and attempts to change this mean instant death. If you're in the wrong area and the American Empire wants to test its nukes where you live, you're moving no matter what you like about it and any compensation will be accidental.

In all this the American Empire is just the most successful Empire of the moment, give its potential rivals actual power and everything will be the same melody with a different tune. Empire is a nasty business for the givers and the receivers.

[yes-justice.livejournal.com]

Someone trying to seriously dismantle it woud be killed.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Supposed to yes, in practice, though, it's usually a net loss. For everyone who tries it. The US military as it is now is a bit of a money trap and I sometimes think if the government were really and truly serious about making it run well they'd do things like absorb the USMC in the army as it's nothing but an auxiliary to the Army now anyway. Its last use as an actual MARINE Corps was at Inchon, since then.....

[meus-ovatio.livejournal.com]

Um, the USMC is already folded into the Navy. What the fuck would the Army have to do with it.

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

You don't win wars with time-tables.

You win wars by utterly annihilating your opponents will to resist.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Of course if we wanted the most strict idea of utter annihilation there's always atomic weaponry......albeit that cure is far, far worse than the disease.

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

annihilate their will to resist, a subtle but important distinction.