Quote Originally Posted by Fuchs View Post
JMA, keep in mind I am educated in economics. This means I have spent almost five years at a university and was indoctrinated with a huge aversion against wasteful behaviour AND the tools to do the analysis which option is more or less wasteful than the other.
I suspect this is the huge difference between us. You appear to be more guided by sentiments than cost/benefit consideration.
Obviously if there is no means to wage and sustain a war no matter how small it would be folly to allow oneself to become embroiled in one. To bankrupt your country through fighting a war in a remote area of the world for dubious advantage is clearly insane.

You blog entry On national defence speaks to this.

Your following point is well made:

What we're (Europe) lacking is not the capability to defend ourselves, it's the capability to launch punitive strikes and expeditions in U.S. fashion.
About "being on the table": I don't subscribe to it as totally excluded or as being only a tool of last resort. I have (as mentioned) my reasoning for its use or non-use.

edit: Notice the difference between war and intervention when I write. I attempt to stay clear and conscious in my choice of these words.
Having been in a war I would tend to believe (and agree with you) that to start a war must surely only be an option of last resort or as you state:

Violence is justified if it's the least terrible choice.
... to act in defence of your sovereign territory is another matter of course (which offers no choice).

However all the above said and done I do believe that the capacity of the US and Britain to project (and indeed use) military violence all across the globe is a valuable option to have and use to contain by deterrent or action those countries which threaten the world trade routes, remote trading partners and oil sources. (here I speak of intervention rather than war)

Countries which are unable to project military force to protect their means of survival are vulnerable to been cut off. To ignore the risk of this on the basis that free trade will prevail is quite frankly irresponsible.