What we support and defend

[Bob's World]

Better yet, name the single existential treat to our nation. Besides ourselves, that is.

The world is a dangerous place, and when one meddles too deeply in the business of others one draws fire. We have drawn some fire, but more warning shots than anything else.

We have a military that is still some 30% too large. I get it, the military is not going to volunteer for that cut. But it needs to happen none the less, and it will make us more secure in the process. Our national security is a function of many factors, and military strength is only but one. When we over invest and over engage with that single aspect it throws the entire system out of balance. We need to rebalance.

We are becoming a nation that is both excessively fearful and violent. That is a good definition for a bully, but not for a nation. Our self-image is incrasingly out of synch with reality and out of synch with how others perceive us. Going back to our roots to reassess how we best move forward is sound advice.

To simply imply that the Constitution and the Declartation are irrelevant to America in the modern age is the kind of rhetoric that should be saved for some Mein Kampf-type manefesto. I realize you don't mean that, just as I assume you must realize that I am not a strict constructionist. Most aspects, however, say what they say and mean what they mean. What the court interprets is if some law meets the constitution, not if the constitution meets some perspective or law.

The second amendment, for example, guarantees the right to keep and bear arms, but it did so in an era where every adult male was required by law to be a member of the "well regulated militia" and to provide his own firearm. Should we take that right away simply because such a duty no longer exists? Perhaps better that we re-instate the miliita duty if we are a nation at such grave risk as to require a war fighting army on the active books...

[Bob's World]

"If you consider the North rolling down south with Soviet tanks and aircraft a Vietnamese solution then I would argue your logic is is skewed. Let's not forget the Soviets established a large Naval base there after their glorious people's victory. What kind of legitimacy is that exactly?"

As you fully realize, the final conventional battles in Vietnam were the long planned "Phase III" finale of the Maoist model of insurgency adopted and applied in Vietnam. As to Russian and Chinese support? Who else would dare assist them in a fight against the French and then the US??

When one must fight the most powerful nation in the world to gain their independence, one takes help from whomever is willing to offer it. Typically that means from the largest peer competitor of that powerful nation one is fighting.

Did taking support from France make the United States an illegitimate stooge of the French? Who else would dare help us in a fight against England?

How is that different than Vietnam seeking and accepting the support of Russia and China? Sure Russian ships used the facilities we built for a while, but were gone by 2002 when the balked at the price demanded for a new lease. We will likely pay that rate and enjoy the expanded facilities that the Russians built. Will that contract convert Vietnam into our stooge to lease us that same space? No. Just sovereign nations doing business seen as mutually beneficial to their respective interests.

I am sure that Britain was none too pleased with France in the first case, just as we were none too pleased with Russia and China. Big difference is that Britain was pragmatic enough to get over it in time. Just as they also shortly after the war of 1812 entered into a major treaty with the US via the Monroe Doctrine to leverage the US to secure their interests in the Western Hemisphere as they protected our commercial fleets and our shores from the sea. That relationship has evolved, but continues to serve our two nations where we share interests (though we need to be cautious about assuming that Great Britain shares all of our interests, even strong friendships can be destroyed is pressed hard to the benefit of one and the detriment of the other)

The US gets far too emotional about these things in general. Look at how we still hold grudges against Cuba and Iran, for example. I hate to think how we would respond if China or Russia provided the same sort of support to the Taliban that we provided to the Muj. Thankfully those countries do not see such engagement to be in their interests, or surely they would have done so by now. Just one more metric that they do not want to provoke a hot war with the US. Deterrence still works between major powers, even if non state actors are little affected by the mechanisms of deterrence we had grown so comfortable with.

[carl]

As you fully realize, the final conventional battles in Vietnam were the long planned "Phase III" finale of the Maoist model of insurgency adopted and applied in Vietnam. As to Russian and Chinese support? Who else would dare assist them in a fight against the French and then the US??

The USSR and Communist China were communist. They were supporting fellow communists. They made that clear. If the North Vietnam had been a heriditery (sic) kingdom or representative democracy it would have received no support at all from those two. That is a pretty big thing that should be noted.

Just as they also shortly after the war of 1812 entered into a major treaty with the US via the Monroe Doctrine to leverage the US to secure their interests in the Western Hemisphere as they protected our commercial fleets and our shores from the sea.

The "they" you refer to is Great Britain. I think you are wrong again. I don't believe there was any treaty. There was an understanding. And the US wasn't securing Britain's interests when the doctrine was promulgated. At that time the US was too weak to secure anybody's interests in the western hemisphere except our own immediate contiguous interests. The Royal Navy enforced the doctrine, they just got to do it by magnanimously deferring to the Doctrine, not that anybody from Europe was going to go adventuring anyway, except for France that one time.

[carl]

I just finished watching a program on CNBC about Red Chinese cyberespionage.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/47962207/?__s...nsinc|&par=vty

The program concentrated on theft of commercial and trade data from individual US companies. It said there is a state sponsored effort to steal basically everything from every company that has anything worth stealing in the US and amounts to the biggest transfer of wealth...EVER.

This is germane to this discussion because Bob's World stated that Red China is not our enemy ("But they are not our enemy and we need to learn to work with them at all levels,..." from the 08:44 PM post). The Red Chinese state sponsored cyber spying and thieving is very strange behavior for a state that is not our enemy. If that is not the action of an enemy, it is very strange behavior for a friend. It seems to me they at least consider us an enemy, otherwise these actions make no sense.

The program also said that we had better wake up and start doing something about this. They didn't say exactly what. My personal preference is that we allow the companies being attacked, companies filled with very smart people, to do what comes natural and defend themselves, themselves. If servers in Red China start frying, so be it. You can't constantly parry sword thrusts with your shield. You have to make a few thrusts of your own.

[Bob's World]

Carl,
That is an impressive load of ideologically fused tripe.

Revolutions among populaces where agriculture is the key industry and where land is owned by an elite few tend to respond to a message of land reform wrapped in communism. Revolutions in desert regions where land is moot tend to respond better to religious themes. The challenged establishment always lays blame on the message and the messenger, but the reality is almost always in the codified inequities between the goverened and those who govern, coupled with an absence of trusted, legal and certain means to address those reasonable grievances.

You are so focused on the sizzle that you can't seem to appreciate the steak.

[carl]

Carl,
That is an impressive load of ideologically fused tripe.

Now is that the judgment by an appeasing propagandist for murderous totalitarian police states of some simple observations and points, the evaluation of the spouting of a card carrying fear monger by a rigorous, nuanced thinker well trained in logic and critical thinking or a combination of both?

Revolutions among populaces where agriculture is the key industry and where land is owned by an elite few tend to respond to a message of land reform wrapped in communism. Revolutions in desert regions where land is moot tend to respond better to religious themes. The challenged establishment always lays blame on the message and the messenger, but the reality is almost always in the codified inequities between the goverened and those who govern, coupled with an absence of trusted, legal and certain means to address those reasonable grievances.

You are so focused on the sizzle that you can't seem to appreciate the steak.

Thank you for the lesson in the etiology of revolutions. I will note it and carefully write it down. Of course, that it doesn't address the points nor the observations I made is not unexpected.

I love steak. I wish I could afford it more often.

[Bill Moore]

Better yet, name the single existential treat to our nation. Besides ourselves, that is.

I used to make this argument, but can no longer support it. First off, existential threat can be interpreted in many ways, physical, economic, culture, political system, our rights, etc. Second, and perhaps more to the point we're obligated to defend our nation from all threats not just existential threats.

The world is a dangerous place, and when one meddles too deeply in the business of others one draws fire. We have drawn some fire, but more warning shots than anything else.

9/11 was a kick in the jollies, much more than a warning shot. Pearl Harbor, the strategic raid of 1812, etc. were all more than warning shots. I saw a quote recently (a link that David provided I think) during a video about a knight reporting to the King that he has been out fighting the Kingdom's enemies for the past few months. The King replied somewhat puzzled that we don't have any enemies. The Knight answered, "we do now." This is loosely paraphrased, but it captures the intent. Excessive meddling will bring us no good.

We have a military that is still some 30% too large. I get it, the military is not going to volunteer for that cut. But it needs to happen none the less, and it will make us more secure in the process. Our national security is a function of many factors, and military strength is only but one. When we over invest and over engage with that single aspect it throws the entire system out of balance. We need to rebalance.

I don't know how you came up with 30% as the magic number, but the answer is the force must be capable of protecting against potential threats to our interests. Additionally a cut in military spending has huge repercussions across the economy, not just on the military, so any projected savings that will be gained by reducing military spending by 30% are suspect.

We are becoming a nation that is both excessively fearful and violent. That is a good definition for a bully, but not for a nation. Our self-image is incrasingly out of synch with reality and out of synch with how others perceive us. Going back to our roots to reassess how we best move forward is sound advice.

Weak Presidents have always promoted fear for political gain. The most recent was the "weak on terrorism" argument. We won't get away from it, it is part of culture. The new boogie men are illegal immigrants.

The second amendment, for example, guarantees the right to keep and bear arms, but it did so in an era where every adult male was required by law to be a member of the "well regulated militia" and to provide his own firearm. Should we take that right away simply because such a duty no longer exists? Perhaps better that we re-instate the miliita duty if we are a nation at such grave risk as to require a war fighting army on the active books...

Oh boy, I can see the new militia getting mobilized, MS-13 gang members, skinny boys with tattoos that can't shoot straight but are well armed, crypts, bloods, fat red necks from the KKK, etc. If historians thought the militia was poorly trained, disciplined, and ineffective in the early 1800s, they'll have a field day with the new one. I recommend we stick with a professional army.