4 ms·

It's clear that you and I simply have very different world views. You use the term "has to" in talking about what I believe is a pathological need to dominate e

It's clear that you and I simply have very different world views. You use the term "has to" in talking about what I believe is a pathological need to dominate every other country everywhere. I favor a far more coalitional approach where we don't have to lead nearly as often as we do now. I'd prefer our defense department focus more on actually defending us rather than defending US corporate interests overseas. > Unless you have a viable plan for reducing that waste Yep. It's the same plan that works so well for dealing with type-II diabetes. You cut back significantly, funding rather than calories, and force the military to economize. The reason you get waste is a lack of accountability and consequences for overspending. Forcing the military to cut everything non-essential and then keep cutting the cost of the essential until they're spending no more than the next-largest military will force the tough decisions to be made. When you always say yes to military appropriations, those tough decisions are never forced. The US military is an obese, lumbering 600lb gorilla. It needs to go on a diet to become a svelte, agile and precise tool of last resort. As a bonus, that would either come with tax cuts, national debt reduction or the prolonged life of Social Security. All three of those are, in my view, far superior ways to spend money.

forapurpose 9y ago
> It's the same plan that works so well for dealing with type-II diabetes. You cut back significantly, funding rather than calories, and force the military to economize. You haven't established that there is significant waste or where; I don't even know what problem it solves, and the above has no basis. It's not good policy, it's a talking point. I'd love to cut waste, but there needs to be a serious discussion, not wishful strategies based on wishful conceptions of the situation. I don't know about the parent, but often this argument is used by partisans who want to cut government no matter what, regardless of the consequences. > I favor a far more coalitional approach where we don't have to lead nearly as often as we do now. I'd prefer our defense department focus more on actually defending us rather than defending US corporate interests overseas. Again, this sounds like a nice theory, but do we have any reason to believe it works? AFAIK, history shows that in an anarchic situation like international relations, coalitions aren't stable; you need one actor. What I've read from international relations experts and practitioners is that coalitions don't work now: Effectively, very little happens in the international arena without the U.S. pushing it. So before we take that plunge, we need to know. Mistakes are very, very costly.
- p1esk 9y ago
  I think his point was we don't need to know beforehand where the waste is happening. The funding cuts will force them (the spenders) to figure that out. What exactly are you afraid of, if we reduce the funding for US military by 90%? Fewer regime changes? Fewer regional conflicts? Fewer civil wars? Because US definitely has been behind some of those in the post Cold War era. What exactly is happening in the international arena, that wouldn't be happening without US interference? P.S. You don't think there's waste? How about trillions of dollars spent on Iraq/Afganistan invasion, that ultimately led to destabilization of the entire region, deaths and destruction on a massive scale, and emergence of ISIS as a major source and inspiration of countless current and future terrorists worldwide?

forapurpose 9y ago

> It's the same plan that works so well for dealing with type-II diabetes. You cut back significantly, funding rather than calories, and force the military to economize. You haven't established that there is significant waste or where; I don't even know what problem it solves, and the above has no basis. It's not good policy, it's a talking point. I'd love to cut waste, but there needs to be a serious discussion, not wishful strategies based on wishful conceptions of the situation. I don't know about the parent, but often this argument is used by partisans who want to cut government no matter what, regardless of the consequences. > I favor a far more coalitional approach where we don't have to lead nearly as often as we do now. I'd prefer our defense department focus more on actually defending us rather than defending US corporate interests overseas. Again, this sounds like a nice theory, but do we have any reason to believe it works? AFAIK, history shows that in an anarchic situation like international relations, coalitions aren't stable; you need one actor. What I've read from international relations experts and practitioners is that coalitions don't work now: Effectively, very little happens in the international arena without the U.S. pushing it. So before we take that plunge, we need to know. Mistakes are very, very costly.

p1esk 9y ago
I think his point was we don't need to know beforehand where the waste is happening. The funding cuts will force them (the spenders) to figure that out. What exactly are you afraid of, if we reduce the funding for US military by 90%? Fewer regime changes? Fewer regional conflicts? Fewer civil wars? Because US definitely has been behind some of those in the post Cold War era. What exactly is happening in the international arena, that wouldn't be happening without US interference? P.S. You don't think there's waste? How about trillions of dollars spent on Iraq/Afganistan invasion, that ultimately led to destabilization of the entire region, deaths and destruction on a massive scale, and emergence of ISIS as a major source and inspiration of countless current and future terrorists worldwide?