• Twitter
  • Facebook
News-Sentinel.com Your Town. Your Voice.
Opening Arguments

Defense

Is President Obama's intention to create a leaner military a "pragmatic vision" that takes into account our deep fiscal problems?

It is based on the idea that the country must be smarter and more restrained in its use of force — a relief after President George W. Bush's disastrous war in Iraq. It will mean a significant reduction in the size of the Army and Marine Corps. But it doesn't minimize the fact that the world is a very dangerous place and says the country must still be ready to fight a major land war — although one lasting for years would require.

Or are the proposed cuts indefensible?

This will have consequences. Reducing our war-fighting capabilities can only be interpreted as an aggregate disengagement of U.S. power, or the potential use of power, that will cause global actors to think and decide differently — starting not next decade or next year, but today. It will change the way we think and decide as well. Since a nation with decreased capability tends to change its behavior to match that capability, the next few years could see a United States acting less muscularly simply because it has less muscle — regardless of what the right policies might be.

This sounds about right to me:

Of course, we avoid those wars through the use of our dominating naval and air power, and China has become a long-term threat in the Pacific to the former.  We do need to invest in bolstering our Pacific fleet, and we should reconsider our security arrangements with western Europe, which can and should shoulder the costs of their own security.  Those are healthy areas for consideration, but cutting tens of thousands of troops sounds like a dangerous direction for the US at this time.

It's always worth debating how strong we have to be to stay safe. How many ground troops do we really need, and how big should the budget really be, and do we really have to always be ready for two ground wars? The trouble is that it's hard to take the debate seriously when you don't trust the competence of the commander in chief. The political cliche has always been that Democrats come along and gut the military, then the Republicans have to fix the resulting mess. Not always true, but President Obama sure seems to be living up to it.

Providing for the national defense is a constitutional requirement of the federal government. Redistributing wealth through transfer payments is not. In 1960, when John F. Kennedy was elected president, defense spending was 52 percent of the budget  and 9 percent of GDP. Today, it's 19 percent of the budget and 4 percent of GDP. Social spending (payments to individuals), on the other hand, has gone from 26 percent to 64 percent and growing.  We can argue about how much mois appropraite for either task,

Comments

littlejohn
Fri, 01/06/2012 - 1:39pm

Your frequent point that redistribution of wealth is not required by the Constitution is kind of like me pointing out that the death penalty for conservatives isn't prohibited by that same Constitution. It's a non-argument.

Tim Zank
Fri, 01/06/2012 - 4:02pm

On the contrary Littlejohn, it's an extremely important and valid argument that needs to be raised over and over until the mooches understand they don't have a "right" to everything like cable tv, free food, free housing, free healthcare, broadband internet, cell phones, etc.

The redistribution of wealth by the socialist democrats of this country will be our ruin.

It may be too late to though, I'm beginning to think the leeches are starting to outnumber us now.

Andrew J.
Fri, 01/06/2012 - 4:57pm

Does the Constitution say marriage has to be between a man and woman?
AJ

William Larsen
Fri, 01/06/2012 - 7:14pm

This is the problem between conservatives and liberals. What are a right, privilege and benefit? When the phrase "Well being" is used what did it mean then and now?

When the constitution was written the colonists had declared their independence from the King. All they wanted was to be free to live their lives. Well being was not to be denied rights. I do not see anywhere in the Declaration or Constitution the words benefit or privilege.

The US was growing in prosperity since the 1800

Harl Delos
Fri, 01/06/2012 - 7:32pm

Mr. Larsen, it won't be cheaper to once again build old folks homes, and to staff and run them than it is to have us stay in our own places, shop for and cook our own food, and vacuum our own carpets.

But even that would be cheaper than having 118 million people who can't come up with the cost of living, and have nothing to lose if they decide to riot.

We fed the younger generation, clothed them, and sent them to college. It's not unreasonable to expect that the younger generation return that investment, with interest.

littlejohn
Sat, 01/07/2012 - 12:42pm

Tim, you're pursuing a bit of a straw man argument. It's easy to make fun of what liberals say when you put words in their mouths.
It would be like me denouncing conservatives for demanding the blood of virgins. They never made that demand, although I may have put an idea into their minds.

Tim Zank
Sat, 01/07/2012 - 1:48pm

I'm not putting words in anyone's mouth, you (personally) believe everyone has a right to health care, do you not?

William Larsen
Tue, 01/10/2012 - 7:27pm

"We fed the younger generation, clothed them, and sent them to college. It

Tim Zank
Tue, 01/10/2012 - 7:45pm

"As a parent, I want my children to be independent. I teach them save, budget and the value of a dollar, just as my parents did."

Me too Bill, but we are the exception to the rule. Unfortunately most parents now, having been brainwashed by public schools and progressive "victim" mentality (i.e. everyone is a victim of something and the government is here to provide and protect everyone from everything) don't worry at all about personal responsibility.

Quantcast