Quote Originally Posted by Ken White View Post
The heirarchy wanted nothing more than to do business as usual -- as apparently do you.
Argh.... Dagger straight to my heart.

Actually, those daggers are useful, because they illustrate where our differences are. What you seem to be arguing is from a position of "limited engagement" or :gasp: "isolationism." (I know that often people use these word pejoratively, and I think that is crap. If it is so wrong don't argue aesthetically, argue the point, like I am about to do.) I could easily be persuaded to a position of "limited engagement" and like all good Americans I have a strong isolationist streak. However, what I am most concerned with is a precipitous decline in American strength, such that no other country is able to step into the gap, thereby creating an unstable international situation. As you said,

The object is to NOT have to establish security...
there is an old Roman saying

Quis desiderat pacem, preparat bellum!

Let he who desires peace, prepare for war!
I understand that there are other ways to fight war than big heavy forces charging in and destroying things, but politics and not tactics decide how, when and why we fight wars.

That said, I really don't see a point, including bankruptcy where the U.S. gives up its 'expeditionary' nature. Our first overseas expedition was in 1801 for crying out loud, and that proclivity hasn't ceased since. It isn't just a republican thing, either since Bill Clinton showed an amazing willingness to send troops into every situation a bleeding heart could love. (He was a sucker for anything that he could bite his lower lip over.)

My point being is, as much as we may like it or not, politically, there is no way that we are ever going to go from an Army which takes and holds territory the old fashioned way to one which relies on raids and brief incursions. Until the American political landscape changes, we are stuck with it and we can either grouse about it, or we can deal with it.

re: Mexico This should almost be another thread. I am not talking about telling anyone how to run their country, I am talking about protecting people within our own. I will say though that if the government collapsed completely, which is not out of the question, then we would either have to completely secure the border or face Pancho Villa type problems in our own country. There is no need to reenact the punitive expedition, but we cannot abandon our own people to capricious raids by well armed and organized thugs based outside the country.

re: S. America This should be another thread. So I will leave it alone until I can post that.