U.S. military giant, diplomatic dwarf?
Email 
Print
— Bernd Debusmann is a Reuters columnist. The opinions expressed are his own —
The U.S. armed forces, the world’s most powerful, outnumber the country’s diplomatic service and its major aid agency by a ratio of more than 180:1, vastly higher than in other Western democracies. Military giant, diplomatic dwarf?
The ratio applies to people in uniform (or pin-striped suits). In terms of money, the U.S. military towers just as tall. Roughly half of all military spending in the world is American. Even potential adversaries in a conventional war spend puny sums in comparison. The 2010 defense budget now before Congress totals $534 billion, not including funding for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. China’s defense budget is $70 billion, Russia’s around $50 billion.
Is the huge imbalance between the size of the U.S. armed forces and the civilian agencies that make up “soft power” — chiefly the foreign service and the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) — destined to remain a permanent fixture in the political landscape?
The gap is not likely to shrink dramatically, despite a growing internal debate over how to balance the instruments of power. Ironically, the man who has provided some of the most memorable statistics illustrating the hard power-soft power gap is Defense Secretary Robert Gates, the only holdover from the cabinet of George W. Bush and President Barack Obama’s most inspired choice.
One of Gates’ favorite examples: The 6,600 foreign service professionals of the State Department equal the number of personnel of one (out of 11) aircraft carrier strike group.
The Pentagon spends slightly more on health care for the military than the State Department spends on looking after foreign affairs. And the United States employs more military musicians than professional diplomats.
The gap is meant to shrink, so that the United States can “renew its role as a leader in global development and diplomacy,” in the words of the White House Office of Management and Budget. It lists $53.9 billion for the Department of State and other international programs in the 2010 budget, a tenth of the defense budget.
The Obama administration wants to double foreign assistance by 2015 and “significantly” increase the size of the foreign service and USAID, the foreign assistance agency which shrank from a high of about 15,000 during the Vietnam War to just over 1,100 now.
OBAMA TURNS AWAY FROM OLD NOTIONS
Building up “soft power” is a sign that Obama is turning away from the notion that diplomacy is largely a tool to convey threats – a notion popular among the neoconservatives who drove the Bush administration’s policy – rather than to negotiate compromise and avert war instead of cleaning up the post-war ruins.
Adding people to civilian agencies that promote U.S. foreign policy interests may well be easier than adjusting the arsenal of the armed forces to the wars they are fighting now or are likely to fight in the near future.
Cutting the size of the military itself is not a subject of debate in Washington, not only because it is obvious that they are badly stretched by the two simultaneous wars in Iraq and Afghanistan but also because few Americans, and even fewer American policymakers, doubt the wisdom of permanent military supremacy for the United States.
How that should be guaranteed is a perennial subject of debate, reignited this month by the defense budget Gates submitted. It calls for a 4 percent increase over the previous year, not insignificant in a country facing a $1.2 trillion deficit next year, and showed that the “military-industrial complex” the late Dwight Eisenhower warned about is alive and well.
In his presidential farewell address in 1961, General Eisenhower said the military establishment and a permanent arms industry combined to create a military-industrial complex whose “influence –economic, political, even spiritual– is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the federal government.”
That influence is still felt, as shown by the reaction to Gates’ decision to readjust the arsenal, moving more money to the tools of irregular warfare and scrapping high-ticket items originally designed to fight a Cold War enemy who no longer exists. Case in point: the F-22 jet fighter, an aircraft pilots describe as the Ferrari of the air. It costs $140 million apiece.
The Air Force originally wanted 381 of the planes, Gates wants to halt production at 187 already built or in the pipeline. The aircraft is being built by companies in 44 states. That translates into 88 senators and ensures broad political support in Congress as well as vivid complaints over job losses once production ends.
Before betting on the outcome of the congressional fight over big-ticket weapons systems, keep in mind an old Washington adage: “The president proposes, Congress disposes.”
Comments RSSPost Your Comment
But that’s the point. When you have a super giant military you don’t need much diplomacy. Dishing out 4×4′s is a lot more fun than waving toothpicks. Also, we never heard of diplomacy-industrial complex haven’t we?
Seriously, the US military since WW2 has gone way too big for national security. Because it is there as the sharp end of US industrial and trade. It also supplies allies with a lot of their military gears. In other words it’s there to create jobs and fight for the corporations.
wars in the past centuries use to bring “money to the winner
Now , it is the opposit
I have lived a long time and see our country win the military battles and loose the diplomacy; starting with Viet Nam. We win the battles then go to the table and in the name of peace we put our solders in grave danger while diplomats argue over the shape of a table or some other nonsense.
My question is would hiring more diplomats make us smarter as a nation?
Or would it just make it more expensive to give up our freedom to world organizations?
I don’t think we need more diplomats we need to find diplomats that are looking out for the best interest of the United States so our military doesn’t have to do their job for them.
What? The US diplomacy is a dwarf? It’s throwing its weight around like an 800 lbs gorilla. The bad thing is, it’s just about as intelligent. It can’t tell the fundamental policies from political expedience, and the latter from political correctness.
Make no mistakes. The US diplomacy is not directed from Foggy Bottom. Nor by Pentagon, or CIA, or any other institution. It is directed by, and implements the vision of whoever is the current White House resident. And he is a man. And men make mistakes. Even the greatest of them.
Take Reagan, the greatest President after WW2, if not of the whole XX century. Unfortunately he forgot that the enemy of your enemy is not necessarily your friend. He supported Islamic fundamentalists against USSR just to stick it up to the Commies. Wrong on both ends. It were not Afghanistan losses that brought about the collapse of Communism, but shortages of basic staples like meat, sugar, and vodka. But US support brought about the raise of Bin Laden and al Qaeda.
Carter’s foreign policy was a complete blunder from the beginning to the end. The worst of it was the loss of Iran to the mad mullahs. Instead of chastising the Shah for not upholding human rights to the top Western standards, and withholding support for that noble but stupid reason, he should have provided all necessary assistance, and ensure that the airplane with Khomeini on board would never land in Tehran (or, for that matter, anywhere) after it took off in France. Now we have a problem of Iranian nukes, and it’s hard to see BHO to succeed at that.
Bush Sr. lost a great opportunity in Iraq. If he let Schwarzkopf to press it all the way, then the UN would pick up rebuilding Iraq after Saddam was gone. But he stopped short. Bush Jr. had to finish the job – that time without explicit UN blessing, so he could not just get out of defeated Iraq and leave it to UN. We all know the results were not as stellar as desired.
Clinton’s involvement in former Yugoslavia had a lot of unforeseen and undesired consequences. The worst of all was alienating Russia. It was total disregard to Russian objections that made Moscow to turn away from their earlier course aiming at alliance with the West. And the total damage of this remains to be counted.
Throwing more resources at the diplomacy will not help. The State Dept. only implements Presidential policies. It’s the President that must tell fundamental American interests (security and stability the chief of them) from politically correct dish of the day.
And re-distributing defense budget towards diplomacy and whatever else is not a solution. The people who don’t want to feed their own army will have to feed foreign army.
The saddest thing about all this is we still have wide open borders and essentially zero security there despite the daily drug war shootouts 10 miles away.
As one who spent 6 years in the U. S. Navy, I, too, wonder what it’s all for. Yes, we could probably defeat any other nation’s conventional forces with relative ease, but we studiously avoid those kind of fights. Take the Somali pirate situation for instance. That’s a clear threat to world trade. One would think we could eliminate them in a matter of days, but do we? No. We hear that’s not what our navy does best. Which leads me to ask: just what does it do? In my seafaring days all we did was sail here and there, stop at exotic ports, and burn up a lot of fuel to no real purpose. They called it training. Training for what? Who are we going to have a sea battle with? The Chinese? The Russians? Don’t make me laugh.
I came away from my military experience with the firm conviction that it was little more than a jobs program for many small town and inner city kids. Now, I will admit that post-invasion Iraq and the current situation in Afghanistan are hard duty for the boots on the ground, but even they are a very small fraction of the total American forces. Sadly, I have a gut feeling that all of this fighting in the Islamic world will not end well for us. It will be diplomacy that turns things around.
Defense? from what? the astonishing failure to detect 9/11 is the greatest example of our societal preoccupation with technology, and lack of the most basic intelligence which can only be gathered on-the-ground from human relationships, such as diplomacy. Intelligent use of technology comes from the intelligent gathering of information and assessment. Instead we seem to prefer technology to intelligence, sending in a wave of technology first and getting killed, rather than finding out if there really and truly are “weapons of mass destruction”. Is there an historical trend? – anyone remember the “agent orange” technology of Vietnam? If we diverted just half of our military technology spending to schools, education, global health,safe food sources, and environmentally responsible industry both at home and helping other countries, its a good chance the political screwballs of the world would never get traction, and we would be more welcomed than disliked. As for corporate complicity even further back in history, when Coca-Cola couldn’t make Coke in Nazi Germany by US law, it invented Fanta, and continued to repatriate profits. The historical facts appear to support Eisenhower’s statement, a path we perhaps can no longer afford financially or morally.
Example of lunatic technology – hundreds if not thousands enter the USA illegally and daily from Mexico and the Caribbean, but God help the businessman who provides us with business and jobs. Just saw a businessmen fully vetted by Homeland, with a visa, employing dozens of Americans in valuable green-tech jobs, go through a facial recognition picture-taking, and full fingerprint at the airport in Canada, all while carrying an USA installed RFID tag in his passport. The ONLY question asked was, “Where are you going”!! Are we stupid, deranged or just mind bent on destroying any good will we have out there? This technical self-pleasuring (politely described)went on with everyone, and apparently occurs every time with every person. It was damn embarrassing, and frankly makes me ashamed of being American. Gosh we really are stupid.
One of the worst parts of this situation, is that, despite veterans certainly being deserving of stable employment after their tours, they should not get so much of an advantage when applying for Foreign Service or USAID positions. This basically makes the foreign service a diplomatic extension of the military, since it is predominately filled with vets. This same argument holds sway for any federal government job.
For someone like myself, who has significant professional and academic experience, to be passed over, since I don’t have enough “points” ie the massive bonus given to veterans, is absolutely ridiculous. Don’t bother going to school for the Foreign Service, join the military.
Mr. Friedham, we must remember that when we were attacked at Pearl Harbor we were spending most of the federal budget on peaceful endeavor; in fact we were at the table working out our differences with the Japanese. We were showing them our peaceful intent and the political screwballs in Tokyo decided that it was in their best interest to kill Americans.
I foresee that the olive branch that we are offering the dictators of the world will yet be viewed as a sign of yellow rather than a sign that we are reasonable. I am sure that is why the Somali pirates attacked a US ship for the first time in years and they continue now.
Craig, that’s under the assumption that we didn’t know Pearl Harbor was coming. With the economy in shambles you can rest assured in knowing that we wanted every excuse to get into World War 2, just the same as we did in World War 1. Knowing the Japanese are coming and having a battle with them off their coast isn’t going to spark American approval of a war declaration, only letting them attack here on our soil would anger us enough to be willing to shed as much of our blood as we did.
Craig you have completely digested and regurgitated U.S. propaganda. The U.S. in order to avoid a banking collapse on the 1920s reversed a ban on oil exports to Japan. We sold Japan as much oil as she could consume caring not how her empire proliferated. Expecting Japan to give up it’s hegemony she spent 15 years building was unreasonable. We cut off oil and they attacked us. This was predictable.
There can only be two reasons why 4% of the worlds population would need to spend as much as the rest of the world combined for armed forces. Either we are maintaining an empire or we fear the entire world. Or both. Any way you slice it our dependence on foreign goods and war time military expenditures has bankrupted this nation.
This is the inevitable path of Empires.
Wow, some people are digesting and regurgitating some propaganda all right. It would be funny if it wasn’t sad what people will believe. I hear Americans eat babies, it’s true I saw it on the internets…..I fail to understand how people honest and truly believe some of this crap but then again, I think how stupid the average person is, and half of them are dumber, so that explains a lot. Oh well, I think my babies are done and I need to go see what the media wants me to think. I mean unless it’s on a conspiracy website or some anti American screed we all know it’s lies. No one but Americans lie or have nefarious motives. I mean hell those Japanese were just wonderful guests in most Asian nations they conquered. Hell those Europeans always treated the indigenous people so well while giving them a fair share of the natural resources they took. I could go on but that’s just American propaganda again.
Mr. Blake said it best. It’s amazing that we have reached a point in history where a nations own citizens feel apologetic for there success and military power. Does anyone really believe that those other countries are spending less money on defense because they value diplomacy above military might? I doubt it. I doubt China or Russia decided to cut their defense budget in half so they could invest more in diplomacy. Those countries spend alot less the US, but even what they do spend is at the expense of the quality of life of its citizens. I guess some just believe that diplomacy just sounds more civilized than military power. However, this country, by any criteria, is the most successful civilization in history. Diplomacy has its place. But with the most powerful and best equipped military the world has ever seen (how is that for propaganda?), much of our diplomacy is insinuated.
Think of it this way.
Diplomacy is America’s political currency. But their military is their political gold reserve.
The ability for America to negotiate with rivals or third party nations depends ultimately on their military strength.
After all, the point of negotiation is to avoid the consequences of failing to reach compromise.
If America has no means of enforcing military demands by force, then why would anyone bother to negotiate with them in the first place?
Michael, are you saying that Mr. Obama is offering diplomacy to despots around the world so they will attack us so we will spill blood to get us out of this economic mess we are in?
Bernd emphasizes the ratio of American military spending to American diplomacy, but then compares the raw dollar amount of American spending to other countries. I’d be very interested to know the ratio of miliatary : diplomacy of Russia and China before busting the US’s chops.
Well Russian certainly rolled out the diplomatic approach in Georgia..oops I forgot this space reserved for America bashing only. Sorry about that, back to your regularly scheduled program of anti Americanism.
Edward imagine if Russia responded to Georgia the way we responded to Iraq, imagine if they essentially blew up the country and killed 120,000 Georgian civilians. What would your reaction be?
Craig, no i’m saying the opposite. Like i said Obama and Bush are the exact same thing and no one would consider Bush a beacpm of diplomacy. Obama isn’t being diplomatic, if he were he’d be pulling out of Iraq quicker and by “pulling out” it would mean pulling out. Only in the U.S. can we consider leaving 50,000 troops in Iraq after the war as pulling out. The nation-building continues and is being enhanced under Obama’s guidance.
Like I said all America bashing all the time. If I didn’t find people naivete entertaining I’d probably get mad. Yes the Russians learned from our mistakes, just go in and destroy the military, spread rumors of civilian massacres, get national pride up, continue to maintain sphere of influence and then get out without the messy clean up.
Don’t let me or facts distract you, the US is the source of all evil, I read it on the internet. I mean that whole invasion was America’s fault to begin with. The economic downturn is America’s fault, swine flu…America, if you have erectile disfunction issues blame America. I guess it makes it easy when you don’t need to think.
Edward I’m now 100% certain you aren’t a libertarian, I’ve never in my life heard one who’s so quick to apologize, make excuses for, deflect, deny on behalf of the Republican/Democratic machine.
You say we’re ignoring facts, yet you have no response for the FACTS I and the other poster brought up about us wanting into WW2. It seems pretty obvious to me, we did everything we could to antagonize the Japanese, we were in economic turmoil, best thing for us was a large scale war.
Maybe you votedf or Barr but that doesn’t automatically make you a libertarian, McCain was probably too much of a liberal for you and I will at least commend you for that.
Again where am I defending anything? I guess not joining in the knee jerk America is always wrong camp makes me an apologist. That of course by your logic makes you an America hater, not Democratic/Republican hating, but America hater. Isn’t it nice when people warp what you are saying to fit into their worldview. Point out where I say America is right for what it does? All I do is show how skewed your “facts” are and all you can do is attack me. Much like when faces with reality all you do is continue to bash America.
I’m sure you also believe that the CIA arranged 9/11 in order for the government to steal our liberties. While it’s clear that the attacks were a godsend to the neocons to run roughshod over our freedoms that doesn’t mean we did it. Same as WWII, just because it jump started our economy and catapulted us to superpower status doesn’t necessarily mean we wanted it. The logic fallacies are the same, but again why let logic, reason or facts interfere with your self loathing liberal dogma?
You must be right America is a uniquely evil nation composed of greedy fascists and gullible drones, excepting you of course what with your righteous hatred of all things American. I’m off to lunch on babies and plot how to rip off the rest of the world for my corporate masters. I await your bitter self hating response.
enough of this ww2 bs. its already over and we won. as the most powerful nation in the world we have an obligation to protect ourselves from danger. but for the most part the threat is over. soon enough we will be finnished with iraq and we can move on. millitary wepions like the f22 are esential for keeping other superpowers from geting too power hungry. are we power hungry? nope were full, we already have the power now its just a matter of keeping it.
Mr. Ham,
It’s pointless to try to convince people of the reality of our situation. You simply cannot alter the thought process of those who rely on the controlled media for information and fail to look at history’s repeated warnings or the real evidence that is all around us. The only way for most of the sleeping to awake is by events that will cause an awakening. We haven’t reached that point yet, even though those who are intelligent enough to do their own research can and will see it. It’s like putting together a puzzle, you have to do the work…frankly very few are willing to even open the box.
There is plenty of evidence you can cite to show that our elected leaders have (for a long time now) no interest in doing what is best for the people of our country. If you look at history, there has never been a government, NEVER EVER who has not succumb to the temptation of power and corruption. America is a great country, but not for our current policies or our leaders. It is a great country because of who built it and put our Constitutional laws in place to protect us from the very same kinds of powers that now want to dismantle it. Our founders lived through tyranny, and they knew what would happen if/when the government became too powerful that the people no longer had a voice.
For example: Americans, if really made aware of where the “bailout money” was going (because the FED has enshrouded it in secrecy) would probably be in their own “shock and awe”. Would it be enough for people to change their view? Probably not. We’ve become so apathetic. Until everyone is caged up like an animal, no one will care…and history will again have repeated itself.
Best of luck,
-The Red Pill
and blake. im thrilled that your such a pessimist but why dont you start using arguments that make sence. you seem to think every american has been brainwashed by the media to eat babys at worship the devil. well it isint. you sound like a godamned anarcist and your childish aditude is only making the social situation in this country worse.
sorry blake, i meant ham. but i cant say i support either of you.
Edward I just dunno what else to say, you’re incapable of making the distinction between the american people and the american government. Am I an american government hater? Yes, yes of course, they’re slowly destroying the country that I love. This government does nothing in line with what we want so when people point out it’s blatant and obvious flaws you should be more quick to agree with them rather than point the finger at some other gov’t or give some reason for our gov’ts blatantly stupid policy stances.
Are our people evil? No of course not, is our government? Yes, no doubt about it. Edward as time goes on you’re going to have less and less people who are quick to defend and deflect in favor of this gov’t, and you’ll be stuck justifying your perspective by calling all those who question this gov’t and it’s tactics un-American.
You can not fight terrorism without some military might. This fight could just as easily move to Pakistan and other regions. Terrorists do not “negotiate” per se. Their view is more “My way or the highway.” To root them out requires ground forces and smart weapons that can respond immediately to the tactical situation that is prevalent now. Not ten minutes from now.
Some countries can not afford or will not support this mission for political reasons. Therefore, we must fight this battle alone if necessary. Other countries will reap the benefits but not be part of the solution so alone we shall go. The fight is necessary and will go on until done or until some “spineless jellyfish” decides we can not keep going. The latter is the part that chaps my hide. If I had a loved one lost in this fight, and we pull out prior to it really being done, it will all be for nought.
As an veteran, I have witnessed first hand the half coked approach to solving problems. All you do is inflame the terrorists and increase their propaganda/recruiting efforts.
I am equally as exasperated as you, where have I defended the governments actions? All I do is point out that no other country seems to have any nefarious agendas. Only American and Israel have anything to answer for, how is that in any way fair and how does it advance any dialogue other than America is bad and not to be trusted. The inference is that other countries are moral and just and only do bad things because of the US and Israel or don’t matter because the US and Israel are so much more evil.
I don’t see how you don’t get that unflinching criticism without perspective is equally as bad as unwavering defense.
If you want to “debate” with people who agree with you and don’t want to bring any real world perspective, be my guest but don’t try to brand me a defender of the American government simply because I know all governments are basically as corrupt and grasping as their power allows. Do you really think if the US wasn’t doing it’s dirty tricks in these 3rd world nations, some other greater power would not be there fueling the corruption and stealing the resources with just as much gusto?
It’s all well and good to hold ourselves to high standards, but to think that somehow the world wouldn’t be as screwed up if America didn’t interfere is pollyannaish and pointless.
I know how corrupt our system is, how the two parties just represent different special interests at the expense of the middle class. I also know that the rest of the world’s governments are just a corrupt and greedy and would happily step into the vacuum left if the US stopped it’s unjust actions. So don’t tell me I support the system, I just know that America isn’t the only offender. If that is defense in your narrow view, so be it. It’s impossible to judge ethics in the real world by normative standards.
Edward,
I understand what you’re saying I do, trust me I don’t want our gov’t to be terrible at everything. More military musicians than diplomats, more border security in other countries than ours, the IRS can’t account for 30% of what they take in, costs them 3 cents to make a penny, etc, no efficiency or common sense.
I just tend to not bring up other gov’ts cuz really I’m not overly concerned with them, if we take care of what we take care of then our country will be safe and free.
*if we take care of what we need to take care of*, man typos all over with me lol
I think that the real core culminating in the events of the last eight years is competely obfuscated and hidden behind wrong ideals, policies, fears and ego.
The requirement for US534 billion spending on an apparently ineffective military service (not one war won and not one objective completed and held since WW11) seems to be based on the same ideals of the last British empire under Victoria.
Surely in such an over-crowded planet the apportionment of even half the 2010 defense budget coupled with the true humane professionals (aka not employed by government, military or religious organisations) would have a greater and longer lasting effect for Earth.
I would dare to venture that such an outflow of intelligence, humanity, aid and a willingness to listen would go a long way to helping start a return to what USA citizens once aspired to be.
Today’s terrorists were yesterday’s guerillas nee freedom fighters. All that has happened is that over the preceeding fifty years the consistent and pervasive expansion of ‘Americanism’ across the world using political, economic and military means has raised non-american ire in the form of annoyance, anger and frustration with the irreverance shown to non-USA cultures and beliefs. Ironically, Victoria’s empire preceeded and paved the way by spreading English as the global language.
500 F22 fighter and 50 aircraft carrier strike groups cannot defeat a civillian clothed force that carries out strikes against a well identified military force.
Transferring funds from hard asssets to create non-human devices of war (being called irregular warfare) is just as absurd. The development of a purely remote mechanised armed service will remove the last vestiges of humanity left in armed conflict and will just underpin and accelerate the threat.
It seems that the proposed 2010 budget is just perpetuating the malnourished thinking of the last thirty years of USA government.
How come other countries’ military budgets aren’t so overextended and yet they survive, whatever their political regime?
Eisenhower said it already in January 1961 upon leaving his Oval Office – and he certainly knew, because he helped its creation – it’s the military-industrial complex, the big non-transparent black box which sucks money (though also a big corporate government employer…oh, how leftist!) which keeps striving for survival whatever it takes.
Actually, just a supersized organism like many other trying to survive and keep its host organism – the federal budget maze – alive.
“500 F22 fighter and 50 aircraft carrier strike groups cannot defeat a civillian clothed force that carries out strikes against a well identified military force.” – Posted by Alan Murgatroyd
_______________________________
This might happen only for one reason – namely, when the military is burdened by concerns other than completing their purely military mission. Particularly – avoidance of collateral damage, respect to local sensitivities, and doing tasks not common for the military such as building schools and hospitals in enemy territory.
Worse yet, these things surely happen when political correctness prevails over the military concerns. Things like proportionality of response, civil rights of enemy combatants, whatnot. And all the do-gooders threatening to sue officers in ICC and whatever other kangaroo courts for violation of whatever civil rights.
The US Army potentially can pacify Afghanistan in a matter of days. However it would take the tools like carpet bombing and napalm. Scorched earth tactics. The problem is, there will be no Afghan people remaining to enjoy peace and quiet. This is the price not even Bush thought appropriate, let alone BHO. But lesser tools will not work. Same with Iraq. If the troops could call for a massive air or heavy artillery strike at any suspected insurgent target, and would shoot at any moving object within zones of exclusion set wherever deemed necessary, Iraq would have been a quiet place – as quiet as a cemetery. The body count of locals though would have been much higher – many times over what it is.
What makes Afghani and Iraqi lives more valuable than German lives in Dresden and Japanese in Hiroshima? Apparently only the mindset of current American leadership. If FDR/Truman were as sensitive, the victory would’ve come about much later, if ever. Well, not in Europe, but only because Stalin didn’t give a [insert proper expletive here] to such sensitivities, and he’d won the war with or without Allied involvement anyway. But the Japanese would have then a fighting chance to keep their imperial regime unchanged.
And one more thing. While even Hitler had the decency to admit defeat in the end, the likes of Taleban and Hamas don’t. For them, the more the civilians of their own side suffer the better – that would raise louder outcry among the Western liberals and eventually stop punishing military actions before the military accomplishes their stated mission.
Ah, the tragic cycle of the anti-war lobby.
All wars continue, until one side runs out of willpower. The war is lost, the moment Americans start to claim so.
If America has a reputation for losing wars, it is not the military that is to blame. It is the lack of political will held by her people.
People live comfortably in the land of the free. So confortable, that many no longer feel the need to care about the suffering of people outside their nation.
They can’t bear the thought that their military is killing people. So they decide to condemn entire nations to slavery and despotism, rather then have blood on their hands.
Just like they abandoned Saigon. And like they want to abandon Iraq and Afganistan.
If you are not willing to kill in order to keep other people free, then you do not deserve the freedom that other people fought to give you.
And yet these same people decry the ineffectiveness of the American military. How could it be that the greatest, most expensive military in the world is beaten by some gurillias in the mist?
The answer? Look in a mirror. The troops didn’t lose the war. You did, when you called for the troops to pull out.
“If America has no means of enforcing military demands by force, then why would anyone bother to negotiate with them in the first place?”
I beleive that until now it was interesting for most countries to access the US market, and that was the #1 reason making US diplomacy sucessfull. Besides it is an incredibly efficient strategy to obtain cooperation in way you’d never achieve with any military option.
With the crisis we may see countries looking at Asia’s diplomacy like the real superpower in the near future, whatever army anyone may have.
The $534 billion spent on defense will be paid by american tax payers (around $1780/citizen), imagine what could be done for the country with a bit of that yearly jackpot.
Most dangerous opponents are China and Russia, their defense budget totals $120 billion, let’s get crazy and add Iran’s and North Korea budget as well… vs 534 billion there’s still something I dont understand
It would seem that the dynamic trio of Anon, Anonymouse and Edward M. Blake is on their “extend the war mission” on this column too!
They obviously can’t see what many people can, that the War which started out with the mission to eradicate Al Quaeda, (which was thwarted by the same government that initiated it, just as the more than capable US military was closing in on their target), then morphed into Regime Change in Iraq on the pretext of non-existent WMD’s (and the WMD’s that had been in Madass’s possession were largely supplied by the US to support the Iraqi’s in the Iraq vs Iran war), which has now morphed into bringing “democracy” to the unfortunate inhabitants of Afghanistan and saving them from their Talebanised medieval society (who if they did get a vote would most likely vote for their own tribal group anyway), which it now seems there is now an attempt to also include womens’ rights as an issue in order to popularise the long-running campaign in Afghanistan in the minds of the Fox news consumer in the states, in the war that has also been peppered with periods of claimed poppy eradication (which curiously seems to have had the opposite effect) and other periods of re-building (which doesn’t seem to have had any effect at all, other than making money disappear).
The rather pathetic claims that anyone who questions the tactics and methods being used in this seeming never-ending war with “foggy” at best constantly shifting goals is a simpleton who is simply Anti-America and Anti-War is a rather bald, obvious and stupid claim coming from a group of morons whose one intention is to fool the American public to attack Iran under the pretext that we will all be better off if Iran does not get a nuclear bomb (which may or may not be the same as the WMD claim prior to Iraq).
Now don’t get me wrong, I don’t want to see Iran get a nuclear bomb, as I would much as I would like to see all nukes consigned to history. Conventional warfare appears to have enough destructive capacity without adding nukes to the mix. What I don’t agree with is these muppets method of doing it.
To quote the inimitable Gee Doubleyah, “Fool me once, shame on me. Fool me twice, shame on you.” I hope your mission fails and you are sidelined by a society which will never look at an investment brochure the same way they did prior to 2007.
Oops, I’ve done a Bushism! I must correct my last paragraph… It should of course be “Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.”!!
Anon, you don’t get it, people who don’t want to be occupied will fight with their bands if they have to until there’s no one left. 6 million dead vietnamese isn’t enough for you, trust me, they would’ve fought until it was 10 or 20 million. Is there any price that isn’t too high to pay? A lot of people prefer theocracies or dictatorships to the “democracies” like we have here in the US where your essentially rooting for 2 identical politicians every 4 years.
The same will happen in Iraq if we don’t end our occupation soon, they’ll continue being willing to blow themselves up to get us to leave. People just cast off suicide bombers as insane, maybe that’s true but that’s how motivated so many thousands of people are to get their occupiers off their land.
Why is it so important for us to expand our empire? Is 136 countries with US troops not enough? How many of your own countrymen are you willing to sacrifice for some far off world to have a government you prefer and they might not? How much are you willing to be taxed in order to pay for this nation-building? There has to be a limit, and apparently thousands of young americans and the average homeowner having 40% of their income go to the government in some form or another isn’t enough. We’re so willing to trade our own freedoms for more government, whether it be here or abroad.
*hands*
Comparing the numbers of military personnel with the number of diplomatic corps personnel is neither relevant, nor logical. Simple as that…
Consider this: in conventional war, if I need to cover a 10 km stretch of the front in “closed terrain”, I need an infantry division. That’s circa 17,000 men. You can try and reason about this, you can try to be smart about it, you could try this or that… but in the end, you will need 17,000 men to cover 10 km of closed terrain in a conventional war. Soldiers operate that way. Wars are fought that way. No amount of intellect will have a profound impact on the physics here.
However, if the government wishes to be represented in a foreign country, they send a diplomatic mission… maybe a large mission if the foreign country is large and ‘an important ally’, maybe a small mission if the foreign country is small and ‘on the fringe of interest’. Since there are a finite number of countries in the world… a finite number of which the government would like to maintain diplomatic ties with. And since there is a logical upper bound to the number of people of a diplomatic mission, you can do the maths – but even without whipping out the calculator, I can guarantee you that you will not need the numbers that you do to cover a 10 km stretch of closed terrain in that same country.
Since your diplomatic corps is smaller (in numbers) than the military engine, the government needs to make up the ‘grunt’ somehow… and this is done by recruiting the type of person for the diplomatic corps that the military can only fantasize over… but know that they’ll never be able to afford to recruit such a calibre by default.
And then… there are the intelligence and security communities. Who do they serve? The military? The Foreign Office? Both? Whose ranks do they swell?
Back to the point… counting heads cannot provide you with a basis of comparison. You need to ‘evaluate’ effect, a far more difficult process since effect cannot always be measured in a scientific manner. But if you could, you’d conclude that the US is a military and a diplomatic giant… albeit a naive and child-like one at times. As with their automobiles, it is all about power but lacks real sophistication.
If the average person got to work in diplomatic services for maybe half a year, I feel the general impression would be one of disbelief. It is hard to imagine paying people to write up position papers, attend meetings, express sentiments in a non-committed manner, take notes, report on meetings and update files. It is far easier to justify the salary of a person holding a rifle and entering hostile environments for domestic interests. The fact that we need diplomats should not translate to us having many diplomats. I honestly think some people, perhaps retired individuals, would be happy to fill these positions expenses paid without pay.
You are the one who doesn’t get it, Ham.
You fail to see the difference between those people who blow themselves up with suicide bombs, and those innocent people the suicide bombs kill.
To you, they are all simply under foreign occupation. And all of them want America to leave.
The idea that those who recruit the suicide bombers might be trying to regain their repressive control over innocent people just does not occur to you.
And why would it? Peaceniks only care that they don’t have blood on your hands via the American military. Once the troops are out, they couldn’t care less about what happens to the innocent.
Likewise with Vietnam. I have to ask. Do you think the South Vietnamise actually wanted America to leave? Do you recall what happened when the North gained control? How many innocent people died soon after?
But the pacifists ran away and tore the assistance agreement in half. And put their fingers in their ears while the people of Saigon screamed.
Warmongers might make dictators and tear them down, but pacifists are the ones who tolerate them.
I concur with Raven re numbers of troops needed for warfare vs the much smaller numbers used for diplomacy. The thing I can’t understand is encapsulated in the http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/i dUSTRE54G0LJ20090517?pageNumber=2&virtua lBrandChannel=0 article. Where are all these troops?
I would also like to point out that both the military and diplomatic assets are, or at least I hope they are, directed by their political masters. Both the military and the diplomatic corps are (or should be) carrying out the instructions of their government, who in a democracy represent (or should) the will of their citizens. If the citizens want a big army, so be it. If they don’t want to use diplomacy, so be it.
It’s a hard life having to make sure the diplomatic vehicle is clean and shiny as it passes by, sometimes disrupting traffic during rush hour. And it’s a hard life playing golf and going to parties. But someone has to do it.
Mr. Debusmann’s comments are palpable nonesense. To whit:
- the United States has probably had more military musicians than diplomats since Pershing organized the Army band, and perhaps since Jefferson organized the Marine band. It may be a fact that military musicians outnumber diplomats, but it is also irrelevant. I don’t recall it being an issue when Clinton, Regean or even Kennedy was president; why should it suddenly be relevant today? Mr. Debusmann does not say.
- Mr. Debusmann is silent on the size of other nations’ diplomatic corps. This absence of a key comparitive statistic is instructive. How do other key powers, or even non-key powers, rate in such a metric. I rather suspect that China and North Korea would not fare well.
- speaking of other powers, does anyone really think that if the US had 100, 1,000 or 1000,000 additional State Department diplomats, the “Dear Leader” would suddenly give up his nuclear ambitions? Or Putin would cease his desire for control over the “near abroad”?
This is nothing more than another attempt to expand an already too-large government. It should be met with the same skepticism as every other attempt to expan government.
A very good question Peter H. And a chilling answer… not all soldiers/marines/sailors/air men (let’s call them soldiers for brevity) are sharp (or in fighting echelons). For every sharp edge soldier, you need a number of blunt edge (rear echelon) soldiers to keep him there. The ratio is determined by a number of factors, including military organisation, culture, length of lines of communication, etc.
This ratio also influences the cost of any conflict. Consider the Viet Cong… marched on rice – if they could get it, carried everything they needed, relied on little cottage industries – a lean, mean, fighting machine with practically no rear echelons and a very flat command structure. How could they afford the war? Because it cost them practically nothing to keep a grunt on the ground.
Now, consider the USS Ronald Reagan, or more formally – what is the complement of the USS Ronald Reagan? And how many of those good people fly the planes on her? The answer? She has a complement of 5,680 and she carries 90 planes and helicopters. She was built at a cost of $4.5 billion. By the way, I’m not even talking about the fleet that has to accompany her wherever she goes… the submarine pickets, the submarines, the anti-air destroyers and cruisers, the bunkers and other supply ships, etc, etc, Or the daily cost of keeping that fleet on station…
So… which approach is the right one? I guess it is a matter of style and culture. I do think that history favours those armies that had managed to shed their baggage trains and leave the camp followers and wagons behind. There is a lot to be said for travelling light, yet hitting hard. But I’m not going to convince anyone in the US military to think otherwise, so we’ll leave it at that.
“It would seem that the dynamic trio of Anon, Anonymouse and Edward M. Blake is on their “extend the war mission” on this column too!”- Posted by Peter H
_________________________________
Who? Me? “extend the war mission”? If anything I believe the mission of US armed force in Iraq and Afghanistan was overextended for reasons having nothing to do with the military and everything to do with PC BS.
The war in Iraq was a great success and it ended with W’s “mission accomplished” speech aboard the carrier. What happened thereafter was democracy building and it was an utter failure even before it started. They forgot to ask the locals if they can handle Western type democracy, or if they want it at all. Instead a local strongman should have been put in charge, and then quickly withdraw, while looking the other way at that strongman’s not-so-gentle treatment of locals. Any strongman is SOB, but it’s OK as long as he’s our SOB.
And Afghanistan can’t be dealt with unless the ones who make decisions are prepared to use scorched earth tactics and accept all collateral damage resulting from it. It’s an archaic tribal society, and as soon as you kill one Taleban, his kinsmen have the unconditional duty to retaliate. They’ll do anything for revenge, unless all of them are killed as well. If you call the result of massive use of force “collateral damage” and accept it as the price to get mission accomplished, you’ll accomplish the mission. If you call it “genocide” or “human rights violation” or whatever politically correct term, and are not ready to accept it, you’ll fail the mission before you start it, and in this case it’d be better to cut the losses and leave. But looks like BHO administration, just as Bush administration before them, is trying to find some other way. Wish them luck but don’t hold your breath for much success.
Anon, I can tell you really have zero desire to answer my questions. I’ll trying asking them again in hopes I get an answer.
How many of your countrymen are you approving the death of to change a foreign country’s gov’t? How many you willing to have permanently injured physically and mentally? Apparently hundreds of thousands isn’t enough so I just wanna know what is.
How much higher are you wanting to be taxed so we can nation-build 10,000 miles away? 30, 40, 50% of your income? How much of a tax burden are you willing to put on your children?
How many of your freedoms and your childrens freedoms are happily willing to flush away in the name of expanded government power? How many more Patriot Acts, how many more bureaucracies, how much more government expansion are you gonna to bob your head up and down for?
The freedoms, liberties, capitalistic integrity and all americans should just be traded away in exchange for foreign nation-building projects. That sure seems to be your stance.
You tell me, Ham. You obviously will not bother to read other posts until your own are answered.
Right.
As many soldiers as are needed to win the war. It probably shocks you to think this, but people die in wars. What matters is that if they die, it makes their nation proud.
As for tax? I approve of nation building, so naturally I approve of the tax. If it got to the point where I valued my greed over foreign policy, naturally I would want less tax.
Regarding nation building, lets look at other nations. China gives weapons and money to embargoed dictators, in order to dig up their natural resources. Russia is building a naval base in a region they recently annexed from Georgia through war.
So naturally America would want to be isolationist, assuming it was a fool.
Your freedom/security argument is a false dichotomy. Just like a man who is angry at buying security bars for his home, because it means he needs to accept the reality of crime.
Now answer my questions:
How many soldiers are you willing to sacrifice, in order to bring freedom to other people? Freedom which you already take for granted.
How many innocents would you sacrifice, to save their entire nation from people like Pol Pot and Saddam?
And finally a corker. Iran nukes Israel and kills millions. What punishment on Iran could amend these deaths?
And what punishment would you want the pacifists to suffer, seeing as their inaction would be partially to blame for genocide?