The Military Mission and Budget Talks

A couple of days ago I lamented that cuts in the Defense Budget seemed to be absent in the budget discussions.  But it goes much deeper than that.  What we really need is a discussion of foreign policy goals and the mission of military.  While I never approved of the United States being the World's policeman it should be obvious to anyone not living in a bubble we can no longer afford it.  Is a heavy U.S. presence in the Middle East in the national interest?  And by that I mean is it in the interest of the majority of the American citizens not multi-national corporations.  The answer is no!  The people of the Middle East hate us because we have been messing in their affairs for years supporting tyrants and dictators who supported corporations.  Osama bin Laden himself said 911 was because the U.S. had a military presence in Saudi Arabia.  The United States spends more money on the military than the other top 13 countries comnbined and for what?

Ed Kilgore:

What with the entire national political debate being perpetually centered on fiscal priorities, it’s truly striking how little attention is being devoted (outside a few left-wing or libertarian precincts) to the option of a significant retrenchment of U.S. defense commitments. Yes, there’s plenty of talk, mostly from Republicans, about the deflationary impact of letting the scheduled defense spending sequestration go through (on this subject they are quite happy to be Keynesians). But after all, if there was a consensus that the country’s mammoth military advantage over all adversaries potential and actual was sufficiently safe (particularly at a time when other countries are struggling to make ends meet as well) to allow for a different strategy, we could happily fight over whether to devote the “hegemony dividend” to deficit reduction, domestic spending or tax cuts. And it’s worth remembering that it’s defense spending cuts without significant changes in the Pentagon’s missions or force structure that run the risk of underfunding actual security needs.

I think it is time we look at significant changes to the Pentagon's mission.  We can no longer afford to be the World's policeman and we really haven't done a very good job of it anyway.
Charles Kenny:

Yet even China currently has but one aircraft carrier, which doesn’t have any aircraft stationed on it. It’s a third-hand boat, a hand-me-down from the Soviet Union to the Ukraine, which China picked up at a yard sale in 1998. Meanwhile, the U.S. has 20 carriers—all of which come with actual planes.
..........
As Tufts professor Michael Beckley points out, the U.S. now “formally guarantees the security of more than 50 countries,” which means the U.S. has more allies in the world than at any time in its history. More broadly, war between nation states has been incredibly rare since 1945. Europe is the most obvious beneficiary of Pax Americana: Before today, the last time the Rhine had gone this long without being crossed by armies with hostile intent was more than 2,000 years ago, according to economic historian Brad DeLong. The painful and often violent process of building independent nation states out of colonies was often stoked into civil war by the competing powers of the Cold War. But with the decline of that global struggle, and the growing legitimacy of the new countries, even civil wars are on the wane.
It’s not just land wars that are relics of the 20th century. There’s little incentive for the Chinese to block sea lanes in Asia, for instance, since much of the traffic going through is on the way to or from China itself—the world’s largest exporting nation. Similarly, blocking the Straits of Hormuz would be economic suicide for the Iranians—if they could even manage it. That leaves pirates, operating off rubber dinghies using knockoff AK-47s off the coast of Somalia. How many new $7 billion guided missile stealth-destroyers does the U.S. need to take them out?

 We simply can't afford to do this anymore.  We need to do some nation building alright but here in the United States.  If cutting defense spending will have a negative impact on the economy why won't not spending on infrastructure here have the same negative impact.  If we can't afford to help senior citizens in this country we can't afford to guarantee the security of other countries.  If we can't afford to repair our infrastructure we can't afford to make the world safe for multi-national corporations most of which pay no taxes.

Where's The Beef? Part II

This morning I discussed Richard Lugar's come to Jesus moment on Iraq and expressed some doubts that it really had any significance. Well the WH must see some significance as Lugar has been invited to a secret bunker for some re-education if not water boarding. But that didn't stop Sen. George Voinovich from delivering another meatless burger.
Another GOP Senator Urges Pullout

Sen. George Voinovich said Tuesday the U.S. should begin pulling troops out of Iraq, joining Richard Lugar as the second Republican lawmaker in as many days to suggest President Bush's war strategy is failing.

He said the Iraqi people must become more involved and "I don't think they'll get it until they know we're leaving."

But where it the beef?

"We must not abandon our mission, but we must begin a transition where the Iraqi government and its neighbors play a larger role in stabilizing Iraq," Voinovich wrote in a letter to Bush.

Lugar and Voinovich said they were still not ready to insist on a timetable for withdrawal.

So what are the ready to do? Hold their breath until they turn blue. I'll repeat what I said this morning:

"Where's The Beef"? The Bush/Cheney cabal will change nothing on their own while still in office. Neither one of them gives a damned about the Republican Party or the country. If the Republican lawmakers really want to change the course rather than stay the course they will have to do it with the only weapon they have available, the budget. The democrats can't and won't do it on their own - it's up to the Republicans to walk the walk. Will Lugar and others be willing to do that in September? I'm not going to hold my breath.

Where's The Beef?

We have already had Senators Chuck Hagel, Gordon Smith and even John Warner talk the talk when it came to Iraq but none of them have walked the walk. Well Senator Richard Lugar has become the latest to take the walk.
Lugar urges Bush to change course soon in Iraq

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Republican support for President Bush's Iraq war policy suffered a significant crack Monday evening when Republican Sen. Richard Lugar of Indiana urged the president to change course in Iraq "very soon."

The well-respected GOP voice on foreign affairs took to the Senate floor to urge Bush to avoid further damage to America's military readiness and long-term national security.

"Our course in Iraq has lost contact with our vital national security interests in the Middle East and beyond. Our continuing absorption with military activities in Iraq is limiting our diplomatic assertiveness there and elsewhere in the world," he said.

Lugar, the ranking Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, also sounded a pessimistic note on the prospects for internal political progress in Iraq.

He said he sees "no convincing evidence that Iraqis will make the compromises necessary to solidify a functioning government and society, even if we reduce violence to a point that allows for some political and economic normalcy."

The senator said continuing military operations in Iraq were putting a damaging level of stress on U.S. forces, "taking a toll on recruitment and readiness."

"The window during which we can continue to employ American troops in Iraqi neighborhoods without damaging our military strength, or our ability to respond to other national security priorities, is closing," he said. "The United States military remains the strongest fighting force in the world, but we have to be mindful that it is not indestructible."

Lugar also said he believes the chances for success of Bush's strategy of boosting troop levels in Iraq to try to get the security situation there under control is "very limited within the short period framed by our own domestic political debate."

"The costs and risks of continuing down the current path outweigh the potential benefits that might be achieved," Lugar said. "Persisting indefinitely with the 'surge' strategy will delay policy adjustments that have a better chance of protecting our vital interests in the long term."

Sounds good alright but how does he plan to force Bush's hand? "Where's The Beef"? The Bush/Cheney cabal will change nothing on their own while still in office. Neither one of them gives a damned about the Republican Party or the country. If the Republican lawmakers really want to change the course rather than stay the course they will have to do it with the only weapon they have available, the budget. The democrats can't and won't do it on their own - it's up to the Republicans to walk the walk. Will Lugar and others be willing to do that in September? I'm not going to hold my breath.

Update
Rick Moran feels vindicated.

It’s just that when everything that I’ve put into building this site up has basically gone for naught because so many of my friends on the right have abandoned reading this blog – mostly because my position on the Iraq War has diverged from GOP and conservative orthodoxy – that I now feel compelled to do a little fist pumping because more and more Republicans are saying exactly the same things I’ve been saying for months; that it’s time to start redeploying our troops so that we can salvage something short of an unmitigated disaster from this military adventure:

[.....]

Every single conclusion reached by Lugar in the above excerpt was reached by me late last year. The lack of progress by the Iraqi government in dealing with their problems making the surge an exercise in futility; the toll on our military; and the ticking clock of public support for the war were all pointed out by me – for which I received the most vile criticism imaginable from some of my erstwhile friends.