The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

[Bob Gray]

Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

And the promise of better relations between Turkey and the Kurds looks to be taking a hit.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/...0HX0XF20141008

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

On a related vein at least we would have had consistency in our foreign policy across situations and across enemies as well. This piecemeal, wing it on the fly, make it up as we go along, crap has been a total disaster. "leading from behind" is sounding more and more like a fancy way to dress up "I don't know what the f I am doing" after the fact.

Do you really think it would make one iota of difference? I don't. I don't see any evidence it would either.

[FadeToBlack&Gold]

Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

So Canada was able to muster up a full half-squadron of fighters, two recon planes, and an airborne fuel tanker. Gee, thanks. Were they going to add a few spit wads into the mix, too?

To be fair, the Canadian military is used to going home at 5 most days.

[St. Clown]

Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

Canada joins the air war against ISIS.

So Canada was able to muster up a full half-squadron of fighters, two recon planes, and an airborne fuel tanker. Gee, thanks. Were they going to add a few spit wads into the mix, too?

[SteveP]

Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

Canada joins the air war against ISIS.

OTTAWA - Powered by a majority of Conservative MPs, the House of Commons voted Tuesday night in favour of an air combat mission in Iraq.

Liberal and New Democrat MPs voted against the motion, after two days of trying to outdo each other in opposition of the government.

The vote passed with 157 MPs in favour and 134 against.

The mission will see six CF-18s sent to war-torn Iraq to help protect civilians from the brutality of ISIS fighters.

Up to 600 supporting crew members will also be sent, along with two surveillance aircraft and a refuelling tanker.

[FreshFish]

Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

Free trade is mutually beneficial, and that's true to all first world - and many third world - nations. If it weren't, the trade would never occur in the first place. We, the USA, have taken on a disproportionately large chunk of maintaining free trade. The US Navy can patrol the waterways to abate piracy on the open waters. What good does an Air Force or Army base within the middle of the plains of Germany do to enforce free trade? We can trim the military budget, push the security of European land onto Europe, while using our navy to keep safe those waterways traveled by American merchants.

Perhaps yes, perhaps no. Indirectly, I was questioning whether it makes sense to look at these budgets in isolation or to have a more holistic interconnected overview of all our competing priorities.

One of my daydreams if we had a Romney presidency would have been to hear him say, "why do we have 15 Cabinet departments with so much overlap and so much redundancy? What a waste! Here is my plan to consolidate agencies yada yada yada."

On a related vein at least we would have had consistency in our foreign policy across situations and across enemies as well. This piecemeal, wing it on the fly, make it up as we go along, crap has been a total disaster. "leading from behind" is sounding more and more like a fancy way to dress up "I don't know what the f I am doing" after the fact.

[Bob Gray]

Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

Free trade is mutually beneficial, and that's true to all first world - and many third world - nations. If it weren't, the trade would never occur in the first place. We, the USA, have taken on a disproportionately large chunk of maintaining free trade. The US Navy can patrol the waterways to abate piracy on the open waters. What good does an Air Force or Army base within the middle of the plains of Germany do to enforce free trade? We can trim the military budget, push the security of European land onto Europe, while using our navy to keep safe those waterways traveled by American merchants.

Sounds very reasonable to me. Really, we've got bases all over the place, at least some of which it's hard to say they are really needed. But, I'm sure once a base is in place somewhere, it's hard to dislodge. Maybe we need a BRAC process for overseas bases, like we had for domestic bases. Kind of ironic we keep expanding bases overseas, but shut them down at home.

[St. Clown]

Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

More "tunnel vision", it sounds like.

How many times do we hear that we live in an interconnected, interdependent world?

According to the US government International Trade Administration:



Sounds like, when looked at from a "big picture" perspective using a dispassionate cost-benefit analysis, our overseas commitments are probably a good investment and might even be viewed as a bargain in some quarters.

That's a big reason why some people are so critical of the current administration: rather than address nascent problems as they arise, the neglect and hubris allowed them to fester and become far more serious than they ever needed to be.

Free trade is mutually beneficial, and that's true to all first world - and many third world - nations. If it weren't, the trade would never occur in the first place. We, the USA, have taken on a disproportionately large chunk of maintaining free trade. The US Navy can patrol the waterways to abate piracy on the open waters. What good does an Air Force or Army base within the middle of the plains of Germany do to enforce free trade? We can trim the military budget, push the security of European land onto Europe, while using our navy to keep safe those waterways traveled by American merchants.

[Kepler]

Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

That's a big reason why some people are so argle bargle

Rhetorical tactics 101: "Some are saying that..."

How to cloak your attack as a survey of broader opinion.

[Bob Gray]

Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

I noticed you left out the reason for that, which the collossal f-up that was the Iraq War....

Ya know, you are sure hard to please. You're unhappy even when we largely agree on an issue!

[FreshFish]

Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

More "tunnel vision", it sounds like.

How many times do we hear that we live in an interconnected, interdependent world?

According to the US government International Trade Administration:

The percentage of GDP represented by exports is the highest in nearly a century and is indicative of how important exports will be in any effort to encourage economic growth and the creation of new jobs, according to new research recently published by the Department of Commerce. In 2008, the United States exported nearly $1.7 trillion in goods and services. These exports supported more than 10 million full- and part-time jobs and accounted for 12.7 percent of gross domestic product (GDP).

Sounds like, when looked at from a "big picture" perspective using a dispassionate cost-benefit analysis, our overseas commitments are probably a good investment and might even be viewed as a bargain in some quarters.

That's a big reason why some people are so critical of the current administration: rather than address nascent problems as they arise, the neglect and hubris allowed them to fester and become far more serious than they ever needed to be.

[St. Clown]

Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

The goal posts for "isolationism" have also moved. We have 270,000 military stationed in 150 countries. We have a hot war in Afghanistan and are bombing the bejesus out of Pakistan, Iraq, Syria, Yemen, and Somalia. "Isolationism" used to mean pull back to the US border and wait. Today it's thrown around whenever somebody suggests we not start yet another war.

Yeah, this is more in line with what I was thinking. It's nuts to say we're isolationist these days. We could use more of it, truthfully. At the very least, a scale down of our foreign bases, things that could be consolidated, like Ramstein. Unless the Germans wanted to pay us to keep it there because there's no reason we can't do pare down those bases, leaving only naval bases and aircraft carriers to take care of our peacetime adventurism for us.

[Kepler]

Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

There are more voices of isolation out there than you would have found, say, 20 or 30 years ago. And my general impression of public polling is that the public is a lot more gun shy about at least certain military foreign entanglements than in the past. Certainly there are strong forces at work that tend toward being interventionist, but I think there's more push back against that then there used to be.

The goal posts for "isolationism" have also moved. We have 270,000 military stationed in 150 countries. We have a hot war in Afghanistan and are bombing the bejesus out of Pakistan, Iraq, Syria, Yemen, and Somalia. "Isolationism" used to mean pull back to the US border and wait. Today it's thrown around whenever somebody suggests we not start yet another war.

[Rover]

Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

There are more voices of isolation out there than you would have found, say, 20 or 30 years ago. And my general impression of public polling is that the public is a lot more gun shy about at least certain military foreign entanglements than in the past. Certainly there are strong forces at work that tend toward being interventionist, but I think there's more push back against that then there used to be.

I noticed you left out the reason for that, which the collossal f-up that was the Iraq War....

[Bob Gray]

Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

In what ways has this nation shown signs of becoming isolationists? Republican hawks want boots on the ground everywhere in the world until the president also wants that, and both parties want to show the world how the American way is best.

There are more voices of isolation out there than you would have found, say, 20 or 30 years ago. And my general impression of public polling is that the public is a lot more gun shy about at least certain military foreign entanglements than in the past. Certainly there are strong forces at work that tend toward being interventionist, but I think there's more push back against that then there used to be.