NYT: cut our military during this war
In the New York Times this weekend was an opinion piece written by a journalist Nicholas Kristof who advocates cutting military spending while we’re engaged in a war beyond our borders. Now I read Mr. Kristof’s biography and I don’t see a thing that qualifies him to make such a statement…well, other than the fact that he’s a journalist, spent his whole adult life as a journalist as so he thinks he knows every thing there is to know about…well…everything. Now he wants to be heard on our global strategy;
• The United States spends nearly as much on military power as every other country in the world combined, according to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute. It says that we spend more than six times as much as the country with the next highest budget, China.
And the problem is? I wonder if Mr. Kristof has noticed that the rest of the world is more than hesitant to use their military. While Serbs murdered Bosnians, the world stood around with their hands in their pockets. While hundreds of thousands of Africans died, the world stood by and watched. While terrorists attack in almost every European country, they’re resistant to send their own military to where the terrorists are being trained.
• The United States maintains troops at more than 560 bases and other sites abroad, many of them a legacy of a world war that ended 65 years ago. Do we fear that if we pull our bases from Germany, Russia might invade?
You do realize that we’ve drawn down our forces substantially in Europe right? It should also be noted that much of the underlying infrastructure in our Europe-based force supports operations in the Middle East. And, yes Russia is becoming a bigger threat to Europe every day.
• The intelligence community is so vast that more people have “top secret” clearance than live in Washington, D.C.
Having a top secret clearance doesn’t make someone a member of the intelligence community. Sometimes just being in the same grid square as mundane, routine classified information requires a clearance. You’d think someone as worldly as Mr. Kristoff would know that. But he probably does and he wants to scare the folks who don’t.
• The U.S. will spend more on the war in Afghanistan this year, adjusting for inflation, than we spent on the Revolutionary War, the War of 1812, the Mexican-American War, the Civil War and the Spanish-American War combined.
Hmmm. I wonder why a high tech war which depends on gee-whiz gadgets would cost more than every war we ever fought with cap and ball weapons while we were mounted atop horses?
“Republicans think banging the war drums wins them votes, and Democrats think if they don’t chime in, they’ll lose votes,” said Andrew Bacevich, an ex-military officer who now is a historian at Boston University.
Hardly, dimbulbs two. it’s not Republicans who beating war drums. It’s people like Ahmadinejad and Il who beat war drums. Do we want to be unprepared when they finally make their move?
Let me be clear: I’m a believer in a robust military, which is essential for backing up diplomacy. But the implication is that we need a balanced tool chest of diplomatic and military tools alike. Instead, we have a billionaire military and a pauper diplomacy. The U.S. military now has more people in its marching bands than the State Department has in its foreign service — and that’s preposterous.
Yeah, because we’ve seen how well the “foreign service” has performed over the last hundred years or so. Even before we had a large standing army. Kristoff is probably home right now Windexing his Rhodes scholar scroll, so proud of how he stood up for an intellectual foreign policy in favor of a brutish military solution to all of our problems. But, he neglected to take into account that we’re not talking about existing in a civilized world like when diplomacy actually worked in the mid-19th century in Europe briefly. Diplomacy actually caused the problems with Iran and North Korea. Diplomacy caused the Iraq War.
Category: Antiwar crowd, Media, Shitbags
All we have to do is look back at the beginning of the 20th century in order to get the answers to Kristoff’s questions. We we isolationist and our military was a shining example of that policy, after the Spanish-American war, we went into Isolation mode, again, same as we did after WWI, and it cost us much more than if we were prepared. As for his assertions that WWII ended 65 years ago; so what? Did he forget what transpired after WWII? I guess, as with the global warming crowd, you just ignore inconvenient facts that don’t fit your preconceived conclusions (I’m talking about the Cold War).
“Let me be clear: I’m a believer in a robust military, which is essential for backing up diplomacy. But the implication is that we need a balanced tool chest of diplomatic and military tools alike.”
That’s liberal-speak. See, it even begins with Obama’s favorite phrase. “I’m a believer in a robust military” means “I want to severely weaken our military.” “We need a balanced tool chest of diplomatic and military tools alike…” means that we should hack down the military budget until it has the same budget as the State Department. The State Department doesn’t have drones of course. Or tanks. Or cruise missiles. Not that the State Department doesn’t have money, but it doesn’t cost nearly as much.
Anyway, every one of the platitutudes contained in this article comes straight from some pamphlet he got on a college campus somewhere. America is always wrong.
“The U.S. military now has more people in its marching bands than the State Department has in its foreign service — and that’s preposterous.”
I find that very hard to believe.
This guy is an expert??Bwaaaahhahahahhaha!
And I should tell those brain surgeons that they are doing it all wrong because I once watched a movie with a brain surgeon in it. I believe his name was “Dr. Frankenstein”>
The U.S. will spend more on the war in Afghanistan this year, adjusting for inflation, than we spent on the Revolutionary War, the War of 1812, the Mexican-American War, the Civil War and the Spanish-American War combined.
Now let’s throw in the casualty rate for those conflicts vs. Afghanistan….just for this year assmunch…
The U.S. military now has more people in its marching bands than the State Department has in its foreign service — and that’s preposterous.
Exactly how many wars has the State Dept either prevented or won???
*chirp, chirp*
That’s what I thought….
Same crap, different year. Libs always scream about Defense spending. (not that some of it isn’t wasted on crap…it is, just like all other government agencies) Then they cut the budget to bare minimum, then the next President gets in, always a Republican, something happens, then the libs scream that we weren’t ready and blame the new president. More Washington 2 step. I sethed when I heard the libs whinning about no armoured Humvees. Didn’t remember Clinton building any, yet it was Bush’s fault we had to go to war “with the equipment we had”. (Rumsfeld’s statement that was so so outrageous…acording to them) Man do I hate these asshats.
1AirCav69 said: “Then they cut the budget to bare minimum, then the next President gets in, always a Republican, something happens, then the libs scream that we weren’t ready and blame the new president.”
Exactly! This really is a complete reversal of what they were saying in ’04, ’05, and ’06. Back then, they were telling us that we’re “spread thin” in Iraq and Afghanistan. Which is basically a true statement. We’re spread very thin. It kind of makes you wish Clinton and Congress hadn’t cut the Army from 20 active divisions to 10. And now we just have a glut of soldiers–more people in the band than the State Department has in the foreign service!
And remember back when they used to make the manpower argument to argue against DADT? What a preposterous one that was. The number of homosexuals chaptered out was miniscule compared to the number of servicemembers who said they would walk if DADT was repealed. But for a moment–one brief, glittering moment–they pretended as if they cared about the manpower requirements of the military.
And now we know that they don’t.
Just a word to the wise–the Left is slippery as hell. They will try to use your own convictions against you. If they ever pretend to care about the military, you should be very, very concerned. They do NOT care about the military, but they might feign support if it means they can advance another goal.
Diplomacy only works if State actually DOES what its directed. But expecting State to get anything done is a losing proposition. Men and women that favor form over function. Military is the exact opposite, favoring function over form. Hence the results we get and State does not.
“Diplomacy actually caused the problems with Iran and North Korea. Diplomacy caused the Iraq War.”
Diplomacy caused the Korean War also.
And, diplomacy caused the latest Balkan War, not to mention it’s worked so well in Sudan, Eritrea, Burma, the Korean Peninsula,Kashmir. But, to give the striped pants set their due, there has not yet been an open conflict inside the Arctic Circle……So far……
Diplomacy only works when there is a “really big stick” backing it up. That and your willingness to use said stick….
Want to cut the defense budget? Real simple, don’t allow the defense appropriations bill to be a vehicle for all the congress critters to lard up with their pork barrel projects.
As for the other assertions he makes, me thinks he is comparing apples to oranges. He may also notice that it costs a lot more to build an automobile today compared to those built in the 18th century.
Look there is one reason for having a robust military. It is so others who think they have one aren’t inclined to test the theory. Cutting defense always makes a nice feel good sentiment but it really is tilting at windmills. Besides, does he hate gays? I mean with the repeal of DADT and the sudden rush on military recruiting stations in San Francisco which I am sure is requiring them to stay open 24 hours a day with increased staffing, does he want to deprive them of this new found opportunity?
Everyone on the left should read about Task Force Smith from the Korean War and how unprepared we were militarily because of liberal / democrat policies on defense issues. Bush the Elder had a reasonable draw down plan after the reunification of Germany that was to last approximately ten years so as not to adversely impact readiness of the military, yet 1993 happened and Monica’s boyfriend and his military hating wife decided that the process had to be accelerated to accommodate his agenda and the Dem’s need to force social justice on all. While I agree that there is a lot of waste in DOD and that it needs to take a hit, it needs to be minimal and targeted, not a full blown percentage hit. Just my opinion
It’s 2010, soon to be 2011. What else can one expect from the NYT? One doesn’t work there because they’ve got two neurons firing in sequence. They work there because they are exceptionally politically reliable.
“I’m a believer in a robust military, which is essential for backing up diplomacy.”-Bovine feces, the military exists to defend the nation and U.S. Constitution… Which means blowing big, gory holes in those that threaten us… Not as blue helmeted “peacekeepers” or other such feel good tripe.
“The United States maintains troops at more than 560 bases and other sites abroad, many of them a legacy of a world war that ended 65 years ago. Do we fear that if we pull our bases from Germany, Russia might invade?”
It would be interesting if someone could find archives of any comments Mr. Kristof made when Sec. Rumsfeld suggested reducing our forces in “old Europe” and got thoroughly ripped by the left. He may not have been one of those attacking Rumsfeld for it, but I’d bet the farm that he also didn’t air this opinion that we’re wasting resources defending Germany from Russia.
[…] always a thing of beauty when Jonn Lylea takes someone to the woodshed. This time, it’s Nicholas Kristoff spouting off about how the defense budget needs trimming: In the New York Times this weekend was an opinion piece written by a journalist Nicholas Kristof […]
“Let me be clear: I’m a believer in a robust military, which is essential for backing up diplomacy. But the implication is that we need a balanced tool chest of diplomatic and military tools alike.”
Hmm.. I am all for diplomacy, however, the problem is that the diplomatic tools don’t understand, or simply fail to see, that diplomacy will ultimately fail in the GWOT. An Islamic terrorist will never cease to be an Islamic terrorist unless he suffers from a change of heart or faith (zero probability), or he finds what he seeks… death. No amount of diplomacy will change that.
Why don’t we reduce the number of military bands and musicians? Apparently, the line about more military band members that FSO’s comes from Condi Rice (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/23/AR2010082304711.html) There are about 13,000 people in the Foreign Service, though only half are Foreign Service Officers.