Well hang on there, cowboy. We don't disagree about a lot. You're kind of going off on a "war is bad" tangent that I have no fight with. But that wasn't your argument. I was simply responding to this part: That's a very different question than "Why should we USE a robust military" (we shouldn't - when you show your hand you go from being a theoretical nightmare to being a practical army and you lose a lot of deterrent force) or "WHERE should we use a robust military" (Kaplan makes a compelling argument that we'd be in much better geopolitical and economic shape if we attempted to pacify Mexico instead of Iraq/Afghanistan). I was simply sharing that I'd recently finished a book that made a compelling argument as to why American militarization was good for the globe at large. Nowhere was I implying that a gun is useless unless fired at someone, and nowhere was I suggesting that Iraq and Afghanistan are the places to do it. I will respond to this, though: Because geopolitically speaking, the United States benefits from keeping Europe as vassal states. The militaries of Europe are the right size for small-scale pacification, which is a very "UN" thing to do, but wholly undersized for any real threat deterrence. As Kaplan points out, clusterfuck that Iraq was, the US lost 5,000 troops out of a half-million deployed. It was expensive, and wasteful, and polarizing, and will likely lead to a resurgent Iran... but we lost a lot more treasure than blood. You don't accomplish that by sending in the Canadians. Asymmetrical warfare is expensive but successful. We've been there for going on a century, though. The United States got to dictate a lot of terms in Paris for the simple reason that we were the biggest military left standing. The United States got to reshape Europe as The Marshall Plan because we were the biggest military left standing (did you know that many factions of the military wanted to extend the Marshall Plan to the USSR?). The US did what the US wanted in Korea because we were the biggest military around. And shit - it was argued in Congress during the Vietnam War that the United States could save money by giving every man, woman and child in North Vietnam $67k a year not to fight. Given my 'druthers, I'd go that way as well - we used up 250,000 bullets for every "insurgent" killed in Iraq. So crazy military spending and crazy military involvement is nothing new.Why do we need a robust military?
why the hell are we wasting so much treasure on an alliance who's members refuse to pull their own weight?
There is robust and there is robust. We are at a point of robustness that looks an awful lot like stupid.
And we would probably do just as well with a Democrat's robust military as the Republicans. We'd still have the 1st and 2nd most powerful air forces in the world, the most carriers, the best tech, the only place we can lose is man power. I'm by no means a peacenik but to be for Republicans because they are for a robust military is sets the bar so far in the favor of flushing money down the toilet that it's absurd. Military spending has been pretty hefty under Obama yet still I know Republicans who constantly bemoan the way Obama is hallowing out the military.
Again - we're on the same page, I'm just making a more limited argument. This is the first "democratic money" vs "republican money" has come up and I would agree that over the past 50 years or so, democratic military engagements tend to be more contained, IF you neglect the Vietnam War (started essentially by Kennedy, blown entirely out of proportion by LBJ). Kaplan would agree with you that forces-on-ground should almost never be used to do anything other than defend your own borders and yes - if you have your choice between a bitchin' army or a bitchin' navy, go navy. Now here's where I'm curious - where'd you get the idea that I'm "for Republicans?" 'cuz I've been voting since 1992 and the only Republican I've ever voted for... ...was George W. Bush... ...in the 2000 Washington State Primary... ...because it was open... ...and because I figured he'd be a much less credible opponent for Al Gore than John McCain. Boy, the universe sure threw us for a loop on that one.
Naw, my whole thing was the parent of being for the Republicans cause they are for a robust military, it's robust no matter what and probably too robust under the republicans. I have no problem with people voting republican, it's a complex world and military spending is just one reason to cast your vote. Not all that eager to see a big republican groundswell on the national level but that is just because they are such nutters at the moment. The candidates put up for election Oregon were just fucking abysmal (How the hell does a lady who's had the police involved in monitoring her stalking of ex boyfriends and husbands get to run for the U.S. Senate?)