Indiscretion is our watchword...
Pete:
Long history of that; there were some minor complaints during Korea in which some European support was provided (but only by the British in any reasonable strength), many major screams from Europe about Viet Nam (far worse than the noise about Iraq...). France, a noted intervenor in former French Colonies complaining about Iraq causing much frothing about the French to include the abysmally stupid 'Freedom Fries.' That and Russia complaining about US meddling anywhere are some examples of the castigation bit. Western Europe in general for not handling the Bosnian and Kosovo operations. Note I said "some" criticism -- it's quite minor but present and waxes and wanes with the mood of the day...
Dayuhan:
Quote:
A better measure of affordability would be the cost of these wars as a percentage of discretionary federal spending... along with, of course, a look at what's competing for slices of that pie.
Basically true in one sense but I broadly disagree as I strongly believe the Federal Government's overarching problem is that it is trying to do too many things that are none of its business and therefor fails to do a decent job of the things it should be doing. I also have hangups with the phrases 'entitlements,' 'non-discretionary' or 'mandatory' spending. Affordability is really dictated not by those things but by funds available and the priority accorded a particular issue. In essence, that 'discretionary' spending bit is a political sham -- all the programs, including Social Security and Medicare / Medicaid exist as whims of Congress. The entire Federal budget other than interest on the National Debt is actually discretionary.
However, in the interest of fairness, one can check this LINK and get a picture of all that. Note that about 25% of outlays are not Federal Business but Federal intrusions into State and Local business and are a mix of Federal expenditures (relatively small amounts) and grants and transfers to the States and Localities. Dumb way to do business but it gives the Federal government the ability to micromanage programs and people. Note also at the bottom of the page the amounts the Federal government disburses in the 'Mandatory' category on things also not its busness (IMO). :mad:
All that said, it is reality and the net cost of the wars over the past 10 years has averaged a little less than $120B per year. As 'discretionary spending averages about a third of the budget (average for the period 2.4T) or around 800B per year so the 'war cost' is about 15% of Discretionary Spending, 20% of DoD spending -- which is at it's historic level of approximately 20% of Federal outlays -- it's hovered there in most of our peacetime years since 1945. Here's another chart with a reasonably accurate 10 year breakdown. (LINK).
Any way you look at it, the costs of these wars in dollars has not been excessive as a fraction of expenditures.
A quick response, have to go...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
JMA
It is this national interest thing again. If there was any agreement within the US of what constitutes US national interest it would help outsiders understand what the US is doing and take the US seriously.
Heh. If there were any agreement within the US publicly available about what constitutes US national interests we'd all be smarter -- but nobody really takes us seriously and so that's okay. :D
Quote:
Watching the US budget debate.. A truly bizarre spectacle.
Yes it is. Been that way for 200 plus years. Our first big ship purchase in 1794 was six large frigates built in six shipyards in six different States. Madness. it's a minor miracle we'll still here. ;)
Quote:
Ken, you would have noted that I often ask some of the serial offenders in the use of "we" who in so doing somewhat arrogantly purport to speak on behalf of the American people on what basis do they believe they are able to speak on behalf of the American people. Never had a straight answer.
Those people -- me included -- are no more arrogant than you are. They are stating their opinion on an internet discussion board. They are stating their belief or sensing of the mood or issue. Most are probably reasonably accurate. With over 300M people from virtually every nation, total consensus is almost impossible so most people bounce back with responses that mirror their reading and conversations with others.
Quote:
Now you have used the term national interest in terms of how it guides US decision making.
True -- and that obviously is my opinion, hopefully reasonably well informed and as I see the actions and reactions of whoever constitutes the current administration added to long term or habitual US predilections.
Quote:
I have noted that supposed US national interest seems to change with every change in Administration. This has not done US credibility much good in the third-world or anywhere. In the good old bad days this could have meant that what you did last year was OK but if you do that this year you could receive a visit from a few squadrons of B52s. All very confusing.
It is confusing and it is not helpful; however it is a function of the governmental system we have and most of us are content with it-- while acknowledging that it does indeed cause problems in foreign policy. An added factor that many miss is that US domestic politics will always be a bigger driver of what occurs than most anything overseas. Always.
Quote:
I served with a fine ex-Marine officer in the 70s and asked him this question back then. His reply was something like this. The use of "national interest" is the fall back position for a person who has no sane and/or logical argument to support his position on normally some foreign policy issue. After that the argument degenerates into a "not it isn't", "yes it is" exchange where the merits of the various arguments are then lost.
There's some truth in that but it isn't really that simple. There is also the problem that an item of national interest can be known to many but for many reasons cannot be discussed openly -- an example is Franklin Roosevelt deliberately goading the Japanese into war. Everyone knew it, no one in the US government could talk about it in an open forum. There are a couple of hot items nowadays but to discuss them in an open forum isn't a good idea.
Still, some are out and long standing. For example, one enduring US national interest that has drawn responses from the US for almost two centuries is that Europe doesn't need to play heavily in the Western Hemisphere. Another is free passage and open sea lanes. Those and a few others are pretty well embedded while many if not most change with the Administration and its priorities -- some, like Afghanistan and Iraq occur when others decide the US will not react to a provocation.
Quote:
So to my point. Who decides what is in the US national interest? How do those under possible threat of (nowadays) a drone strike find out what the Americans believe to be in their national interest before its too late?
In theory, the Department of State and the National Security Council react to the President's desires in the are of foreign affairs. Presidents are people and they have beliefs and whims. They change every four or eight years. Some -- not much -- continuity is provided by DoD's excessive intrusion into the foreign affairs arena and by State but it still is the lead of the President that drives most things