tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6762928.post113658704552729417..comments2024-01-03T05:23:36.046-08:00Comments on The Citizens: How Much Do We Spend on Defense?Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger35125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6762928.post-1137467040643512352006-01-16T19:04:00.000-08:002006-01-16T19:04:00.000-08:00Pedantophile? // posted by LTGPedantophile? <BR/><BR/><A></A><A></A>// posted by<A><B> </B></A>LTGAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6762928.post-1137055163533095692006-01-12T00:39:00.000-08:002006-01-12T00:39:00.000-08:00Yes, LTG, you are right. "Pedanticist" was indeed...Yes, LTG, you are right. "Pedanticist" was indeed meant as a joke.Dr. Strangelovehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14407042105777411150noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6762928.post-1137014664072901212006-01-11T13:24:00.000-08:002006-01-11T13:24:00.000-08:00As Wombat o'Love knows, of course, here in America...As Wombat o'Love knows, of course, here in America, it's pronounced "zee" not "zed." <BR/><BR/>And I think the term you're looking for is pedant. Or crank. <BR/><BR/><A></A><A></A>// posted by<A><B> </B></A>LTGAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6762928.post-1136952011644851792006-01-10T20:00:00.000-08:002006-01-10T20:00:00.000-08:00With a zed? Is that because you are a pedanticist...With a zed? Is that because you are a pedanticist? <BR/><BR/><A></A><A></A>// posted by<A><B> </B></A>Wombat o' LoveAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6762928.post-1136945641430560332006-01-10T18:14:00.000-08:002006-01-10T18:14:00.000-08:00LTG's last comment made me laugh out loud. Loved ...LTG's last comment made me laugh out loud. Loved it. (Yes, it's been that kind of day.)Dr. Strangelovehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14407042105777411150noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6762928.post-1136942435080137422006-01-10T17:20:00.000-08:002006-01-10T17:20:00.000-08:00When I patronize, I use a "z."  // posted b...When I patronize, I use a "z."  <BR/><BR/><A></A><A></A>// posted by<A><B> </B></A>LTGAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6762928.post-1136939332930399882006-01-10T16:28:00.000-08:002006-01-10T16:28:00.000-08:00That's okay. LTG was trying to patronise me with ...That's okay. LTG was trying to patronise me with the term "Koala Boy" once. They're just furry stomachs with very metholated poo. <BR/><BR/><A></A><A></A>// posted by<A><B> </B></A>Wombat o' LoveAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6762928.post-1136933888167129592006-01-10T14:58:00.000-08:002006-01-10T14:58:00.000-08:00Oops, sorry, Koala Boy. I've caught myself making ...Oops, sorry, Koala Boy. I've caught myself making that mistake in the past!<BR/><BR/> <BR/><BR/><A></A><A></A>// posted by<A><B> </B></A>UswestAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6762928.post-1136927702094658002006-01-10T13:15:00.000-08:002006-01-10T13:15:00.000-08:00Koala Boy (earlier comment): "If the tool you have...Koala Boy (earlier comment): "If the tool you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail."<BR/><BR/>LTG (latest comment): "to a man with a hammer, everything looks like a nail."<BR/><BR/>Now <B>that's</B> agreement! :-)<BR/><BR/>USWest: please note, it's "KOALA" boy, not "KOLA" boy. (He's writing from Australia.)Dr. Strangelovehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14407042105777411150noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6762928.post-1136921379178768562006-01-10T11:29:00.000-08:002006-01-10T11:29:00.000-08:00I don't want part of Koala Boy's point to get lost...I don't want part of Koala Boy's point to get lost. Leaving aside his very true comments about the present US military being particularly aggressive in its posture, with its glorification of "kickin' ass" to heavy metal tunes, I agree that the military is <I>institutionally </I> biased in favor of using military force. They train for it and want to use it. Their leaders learn to view the world in military terms. Put another way, to a man with a hammer, everything looks like a nail. To a man with military training, world problems are viewed in terms of possible applications of force. As a lawyer, I know I must fight my own tendency to see everything in legal terms. <BR/><BR/>Also, a big military increases military options. Britain doesn't make war on Iraq because it can't - to some extent, then, the USA did because it could. A man without a "big stick" won't use one. <BR/><BR/>I also believe a large standing military decreases the burden on the public of war, making it a more attractive option for policymakers. <BR/><BR/>I won't make hay of the facile correlation between military spending and war, but I pose this question: would the USA have entered either world war earlier if we had had a larger military beforehand? I suspect so, for good or ill. <BR/><BR/><A></A><A></A>// posted by<A><B> </B></A>LTGAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6762928.post-1136897783757164112006-01-10T04:56:00.000-08:002006-01-10T04:56:00.000-08:00"And persisting is a fine example of why policy ma..."And persisting is a fine example of why policy makers get impatient with academics."<BR/><BR/>I'll not participate in this discussion line any more because I getting the impression you're just going to get increasingly insulting now. <BR/><BR/><A></A><A></A>// posted by<A><B> </B></A><A HREF="http://thecitizens.blogspot.com/" REL="nofollow" TITLE="">Raised By Republicans</A>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6762928.post-1136870125798706752006-01-09T21:15:00.000-08:002006-01-09T21:15:00.000-08:00I think I am agreeing to disagree with RBR. Bob, S...I think I am agreeing to disagree with RBR. Bob, Strangelove, and Kola Boy, thanks for the post, you encapsulated the point well. <BR/><BR/>RBR argues that the size of the military would have little influence if civilian policy makers already had a set of policy preferences. He argues that large military doesn't have to lead to war. <BR/><BR/>Neither Strangelove or I said that having a strong military necessarily lead to war. We did say, however, that we should be concerned about having so much resource devoted to the military-industrial complex because it makes the option of going to war easy to exercise, perhaps too easy. Furthermore, it has too much influence other areas outside of the strict confines of the military establishment.<BR/><BR/>Words matter, and I haven't noticed RBR using the phrase "military-industrial complex". He seems to focus on the military itself rather than on the whole pie. Strangelove and I are not limiting ourselves in this way.<BR/><BR/>The Military Industrial Complex isn't just the military. It is business, PACS, and lobbists. It has plenty of lobbists sitting on K street. And military contractors give big bucks to decision makers. 2006 isn't even 2 weeks old and <A HREF- HREF="" REL="nofollow" HTTP://WWW.CRP.ORG/ORGS/SUMMARY.ASP?ID=D000000104&NAME=LOCKHEED+MARTIN>Lockheed Martin</A>  has already given over half a million dollars to politicians. Senators like having military projects in their neighborhood. In 2001, the government awarded over <A HREF="http://www.govexec.com/top200/02top/s3chart1.htm" REL="nofollow">$143bil</A> in defense contracts. Foreign policy is decided, as we will see with the breaking scandal in DC, in a capital covered with money. Money talks.<BR/><BR/>In addition, RBR talks about civilian leadership. Well civilian is a slippery term because many civilians who currently work in government have military backgrounds. When civilians (non-veterans) work with the military long enough, they aren't really civilian anymore in their view of the world. Don Rumsfeld is a prime example. And there are mandated preferences for veterans in government hiring practices. This isn't a bad thing, nor does it mean that they are all making decision based on military-type preferences. But it means that government places a high value on military experience as a sign of patriotism and skill. And we know that the military establishment didn't much like Clinton because of his lack of a service record. That can be debilitating for civilian leadership.<BR/><BR/>So I am satisfied with the observable facts that are out there that the military industrial complex is influential and that this influence is growing- especially with wars on abstract notions like Terrorism and Drugs<BR/><BR/>It is true that decisions are made, and we don't always know why because we aren't part of the decision-making body. I sense RBR wants some sort of empirical data or model to prove that having a large military leads to war or influences the decision to go to war. Well, I imagine we could develop one and study it as an interesting academic experiment. Perhaps, RBR can put his students to that task. But I don't think pounding away at such an idea that "you can't prove it, thus it can't be" is a reasonable argument. And persisting is a fine example of why policy makers get impatient with academics. <BR/><BR/><BR/> <BR/><BR/><A></A><A></A>// posted by<A><B> </B></A>USwestAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6762928.post-1136860226073396592006-01-09T18:30:00.000-08:002006-01-09T18:30:00.000-08:00RxR has explained well where we agree. But I thin...RxR has explained well where we agree. But I think our area of disagreement has more substance. <BR/><BR/>I argue the military-industrial complex affects foreign policy in several ways (as previously described) and obtains more influence with more money. RxR agrees that having a large military alters the array of feasible policy options, but contends the military-industrial complex has no significant influence on foreign policy beyond that.<BR/><BR/>That's more than a quibble about pie-in-the sky details.Dr. Strangelovehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14407042105777411150noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6762928.post-1136850080285828952006-01-09T15:41:00.000-08:002006-01-09T15:41:00.000-08:00I found Bob's statement of the argument much more ...I found Bob's statement of the argument much more understandable actually. I can certainly see how not having a large military would preclude a whole range of policy options. It would by the way also seriously alter the value of negotiations as a policy option. <BR/><BR/>Koala Boy seems to be implying though that the Military gets to decide how it is used. They don't (or at least they aren't supposed to). Civilians decide that. <BR/><BR/>As for why we might not expect a clear link between military size and agressive foreign policy. Consider a strong civilian leadership with a committment to settling problems through multi-lateral negotiations or by encouraging or discouraging long term trade with various countries. If a civilian government had those preferences, the size of the military wouldn't neccessarily lead them to change those preferences. <BR/><BR/>I'm not saying "Big Military = peace" I'm saying "we don't know that Big Military = war." <BR/><BR/>I can see that there might be some indirect effects from propoganda etc. However, such propoganda about the glories of war predates our large military expenditures by 100 years or more. Consider the cheering picnickers at the First Battle of Bull Run watching two hastily assembled (poorly funded) militia armies slug it out in Northern Virginia. They got one hell of an education. It was all "hurah hurah" on the way there and a massive bloody panic on the way back.<BR/><BR/>Where I think we agree:<BR/>1) Military expenditures are so high that our government is taking funds away from other more productive projects.<BR/>2) Our military expenditures relative to other countries are so high that we could reduce our military expenditures significantly and still have a decisive advantage.<BR/><BR/>To me, those are the important issues because they directly relate to plausible policy positions. The other stuff is just quibbling about details and pie in the sky stuff like the nature of humanity.<BR/><BR/> <BR/><BR/><A></A><A></A>// posted by<A><B> </B></A><A HREF="http://thecitizens.blogspot.com/" REL="nofollow" TITLE="">Raised By Republicans</A>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6762928.post-1136844914432635932006-01-09T14:15:00.000-08:002006-01-09T14:15:00.000-08:00Thanks, Bob, for your exposition of the main line ...Thanks, Bob, for your exposition of the main line of reasoning that USWest, Koala Boy, and I were following: "Having a large military... enables policies that otherwise might not be feasible."<BR/><BR/>Although that is the clearest and most defensible line of reasoning, it is not the only one we have put forth. USWest and I have also argued that the military-industrial complex a very well funded and organized special interest group... and having an aggressive foreign policy is in its interest. <BR/><BR/>Of course few would be so crude as to directly lobby for war, but (as Koala Boy pointed out) defense contractors certainly pump out a lot of slick propaganda that makes war look like a cheap, bloodless, easy solution to foreign policy problems... and (again, as Koala Boy mentioned) those who have been raised on that pablum will argue for war as a first choice rather than last resort.<BR/><BR/>Remember the early estimates for cost and casualties for the Iraq war? With the support of industry "experts," the neo-cons talked themselves into believing that we could achieve total victory in a matter of weeks, and it would cost so little that Iraq would be able to pay for its own reconstruction!<BR/><BR/>Frankly, I have yet to hear a well laid out reason why we should <B>not</B> expect an excessively large military to have an impact on foreign policy. (Honestly, +40% of world expenditures?!)<BR/><BR/>The one place I definitely agree with RxR is that having strong, civilian political leadership is critical. Nothing else will hold the military-industrial complex in check.Dr. Strangelovehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14407042105777411150noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6762928.post-1136842645380089122006-01-09T13:37:00.000-08:002006-01-09T13:37:00.000-08:00Actually RbR I don't think you and Dr S are near a...Actually RbR I don't think you and Dr S are near agreement, unless by that you mean you've forgotten what he argued earlier in the post. You seem to have a habit of doing that; it must be the upbringing... :-).<BR/><BR/>I feel you also ignored my point: the main thrust for militaries is dropping bombs. Peace keeping and disaster relief is a meal ticket to abide until the real event for many, and here I refer to flight-jock set. Once they have the scarf and moustache they don't lose them when they get in charge of the air force. They will present bombing the crap out of everything as an option to the civilian leadership, if that is possible. With the US that is certainly an option.<BR/><BR/>Now a strong leadership would negotiate and see hope for a non-violent solution when all hope seems lost; a weak leadership will use the easy option. Shrub seems to fall into the third category.<BR/><BR/>BTW I don't see us as a lapdog, more of a lap-wombat. Cuter, but you are never sure what it is going to do... <BR/><BR/><A></A><A></A>// posted by<A><B> </B></A>Koala BoyAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6762928.post-1136840400927152832006-01-09T13:00:00.000-08:002006-01-09T13:00:00.000-08:00It seems to me that the most significant factor is...It seems to me that the most significant factor isn't 3% of GDP, it's 40% of world military spending.<BR/><BR/>I'm no defense secretary, but it seems to me that any government that doesn't act like America's lapdog has to consider the threat of attack from the US, one of its allies with US aid and support, or a country that's bought arms from the US (Iran, Iraq,...). Insofar as we try to outspend and outstrip the rest of the world, we are forcing other countries (at least, those trying to preserve their autonomy) to (a) increase the priority of military spending and (b) consider developing "asymmetric" means of warfare.<BR/><BR/>I get the impression that RbR is asking for some socioeconomic argument as to why a foreign policy would be a consequence of having a big military budget. The argument, as I see it, from USWest and Dr. S is not so much an "A implies B" argument as "not A implies not B". That is, certain military elements (nuclear weapons being the most obvious) make certain foreign policy decisions possible.<BR/><BR/>For example, if the military wisdom holds that we do _not_ have the military resources to simultaneously fight full-scale wars in, say, three military theaters with a reasonable expectation of victory in all theaters, that makes it _very_ difficult to actually pursue war on more than two separate fronts.<BR/><BR/>Having a large military does not, it seems to me, drive a particular policy, but it enables policies that otherwise might not be feasible. <BR/><BR/>Some might argue that we shouldn't limit our foreign policy decisions by limiting our spending, but I don't think that anyone here'd adopt that position. That'd be saying that our government should have all possible means at their disposal, and that we depend on the good judgement of our elected officials to choose the right course. I think everyone here already wishes our current government couldn't push some of the buttons it already can. :) <BR/><BR/><A></A><A></A>// posted by<A><B> </B></A><A HREF="http://thecitizens.blogspot.com/2006/01/how-much-do-we-spend-on-defense.html#comments" REL="nofollow" TITLE="bob dot wieman at bris dot ac dot uk">Bob</A>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6762928.post-1136835174357738562006-01-09T11:32:00.000-08:002006-01-09T11:32:00.000-08:00While it is true that there is nearly always a war...While it is true that there is nearly always a war going on somewhere in the world, the normal state of relations between countries at any given time in any given place is peace. This isn't an impression of mine or a guess. That's an emperical observation. <BR/><BR/>I think the GDP issue is a distraction. I do agree it is getting larger. I do agree it is large in absolute terms and I agree that the US is extending the advantage it has in this regard vis a vis other countries. However, I don't agree with the implication that 3.5% of the GDP (or 3% or whatever) is an indicator of an overly militarized socieity. I think that is a stretch.<BR/><BR/>Furthermore, I still have not heard a well laid out reason for why we should assume that a bigger military budget is a cause of particular policy. <BR/><BR/>All that said, I don't think we're really that far apart in our views on this. We are essentially quibling over details and theoretical niceties. <BR/><BR/><A></A><A></A>// posted by<A><B> </B></A><A HREF="http://thecitizens.blogspot.com/" REL="nofollow" TITLE="">Raised By Republicans</A>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6762928.post-1136831204889393392006-01-09T10:26:00.000-08:002006-01-09T10:26:00.000-08:00RxR: well, we are nearing agreement to the extent ...RxR: well, we are nearing agreement to the extent that I have agreed with your point that civilian political leadership is the key to controlling foreing policy. <BR/><BR/>Unfortunately, in your very next sentence, you specifically refute the whole notion that sinificantly enlarging and/or increasing the offensive capabilities of our military could have an indirect impact on our foreign policy, i.e. making our foreign policy more aggressive and militaristic. So you have expressed no agreement with <B>me</B> at all.<BR/><BR/>You also now seem to have dropped the GDP thing entirely... may I presume then that you at least concede that the U.S. military <B>is</B> indeed large (and getting larger) by any measure, relative or absolute?Dr. Strangelovehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14407042105777411150noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6762928.post-1136830616195648252006-01-09T10:16:00.000-08:002006-01-09T10:16:00.000-08:00RBR says. "The vast majority of human behavior thr...RBR says. "The vast majority of human behavior throughout history and throughout the world is peaceful."<BR/><BR/>I find that to be an interesting thought because I would say just the opposite. I have to agree with Strangelove.  <BR/><BR/><A></A><A></A>// posted by<A><B> </B></A>USWestAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6762928.post-1136810841020887472006-01-09T04:47:00.000-08:002006-01-09T04:47:00.000-08:00Civilian leadership (or misleadership) is the key....Civilian leadership (or misleadership) is the key. I don't see how shrinking the military or making it less capable of offensive action will solve that problem or how the opposite will make it worse. <BR/><BR/>Why negotiate when you have a military? Because negotiating is cheaper most of the time. The overwhelming majority of interactions between countries (even including Bush's America) are peaceful. The decision most of the time is to negotiate. <BR/><BR/>I think Dr. Strangelove and I are nearing agreement.  <BR/><BR/><A></A><A></A>// posted by<A><B> </B></A><A HREF="http://thecitizens.blogspot.com/" REL="nofollow" TITLE="">Raised By Republicans</A>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6762928.post-1136794424017733622006-01-09T00:13:00.000-08:002006-01-09T00:13:00.000-08:00I should say, though, that none of this dilutes an...I should say, though, that none of this dilutes an important point RxR has made: foreign policy is still very much the result of civilian political leadership (or misleadership). That's the key problem we need to fix.<BR/><BR/>While the military-industrial complex has an agenda of its own, their do not have nearly enough influence (in my opinion) to have actually caused any wars. So far. Keep feedin' it, though, and that might start to change. <BR/><BR/>For example, I have to wonder whether the slick videos Koala Boy mentions of stealth bombers, smart munitions, and other expensive new techno-wizardry might have helped convince Bush that we could beat Iraq in a clean, "surgical" strike with Rumsfeld's "smaller footprint"...Dr. Strangelovehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14407042105777411150noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6762928.post-1136793482000311602006-01-08T23:58:00.000-08:002006-01-08T23:58:00.000-08:00RxR asks, "Is there any reason to believe that a l...RxR asks, "Is there any reason to believe that a large military - especially one based on offensive warfare - is automatically linked to particular foreign policy actions?"<BR/><BR/>Rumsfeld famously answered a soldier's question about lack of proper armor saying, "You go to war with the Army you have... not the Army you might want or wish to have at a later time." [Kuwait, Dec. 8, 2004]<BR/><BR/>What Rumsfeld's answer obsfuscated was that we would not have chosen to go to war in Iraq <B>at all</B> if the White House had not judged that we had sufficient military might to win a quick and decisive victory... and they bungled the calculation.<BR/><BR/>Gen. Shinseki had testified to Congress before the war that we would need 200,000 - 300,000 troops for several years for a successful Iraq operation. What Shinseki did not state, but which any fool could see, was that ongoing operations in Afghanistan plus the need to keep reserves on hand (in case an <B>actual</B> threat emerged...) made it infeasible to send in 300,000 troops for an extended period. For daring to give such an estimate, Shineski was shown the door. In order to calculate that we could win in Iraq, Rumsfeld had to argue that we only needed a "smaller footprint" of soldiers in Iraq (much as Christopher Columbus had to fudge the size of the Earth to get the funding for <B>his</B> pet project.)<BR/><BR/>Well now, after nearly three years of grinding operations in Iraq, during which time we have still been unable to restore a security, the Army is obviously looking a bit stretched thin. For this reason, most observers rule out the possibility an "Operation Syrian Freedom" or other adventure in Iran or North Korea. But surely the neo-cons would be saber-rattling if we had the military strength to do so? Surely a primary motivation behind the current, massive capital infusion in the armed forces is to increase U.S. soldiers' "productivity" to allow more simultaneous operations with fewer and fewer troops?<BR/><BR/>There is (of course) no "automatic" linkage anywhere in foreign policy. But show me a country with a large army, and I'll show you a belligerent country. And the bigger the army, the more aggressive they get. It's a simple rule supported by a long history, and I'm afraid the U.S. government is proving, yet again, that we are no exception.Dr. Strangelovehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14407042105777411150noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6762928.post-1136791856113359652006-01-08T23:30:00.000-08:002006-01-08T23:30:00.000-08:00RxR quotes a figure from the CIA World Factbook. I...RxR quotes a figure from the CIA World Factbook. I specifically discussed problems with the CIA World Factbook data in my original post, but I did not go into detail. If you check the book (see link in original post) will find these figures for China:<BR/><BR/>GDP = $7.262 trillion<BR/>Military Expenditures, dollars = $67.48 billion<BR/>Military Expenditures, % of GDP = 4.3%<BR/><BR/><B>These do not add up.</B> The CIA figures would give China a military budget of less than 1% GDP.<BR/><BR/>The CIA World Factbook data derive from different sources. The "GDP" is the pure PPP GDP, while the military budget listed is a combination of PPP and CCER figures--a figure with which the RAND study I cited fully <B>agrees.</B> <BR/><BR/>The quote of 4.3% either comes from some unknown Pentagon study or a miscalculation. I find it suspicious that one obtains 4.3% if one compares the combination $67.5 billion not to the appropriately scaled combination GDP but to the pure CCER GDP ($1.56 trillion in 2004.)Dr. Strangelovehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14407042105777411150noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6762928.post-1136771531013837362006-01-08T17:52:00.000-08:002006-01-08T17:52:00.000-08:00Why? Because why negotiate when you can send your ...Why? Because why negotiate when you can send your troops in to do the job? Why? Because then, if successful, you control the ground. It is called empire building. And you don't do that without using the military. <BR/><BR/>I don't object to having a military. I do object for using for things besides defense. Realism in International politics is about the pure use of force to pursue your foreign policy goals. <BR/><BR/>We use the military every day. We are depolyed in about 170 countries. The military is the boots on the ground that enforce US foreign policy. We train allied armies, we patrol foreign waters, we use the miliatry to back up CIA operations, etc. You don't have to deploy 150K troops to use the military. I don't object to using the military. But I do object to using it for what looks like imperialistic appetites when negotiation would have done the trick. <BR/><BR/>Remember that Johnson had a peace agreement on Vietnam that was quietly destroyed by Nixon because he wanted to fight a little longer. We trust our civilian administration to use our military wisely and carefully. We got lucky with Kennedy in the Northwoods operation. But we haven't been lucky with this Administration. You are correct RBR when you mention that part of the problem is leadership and politics.<BR/><BR/>But organizations have to maintain their raison d'etre. The military wants to justify the spending; they want to try their new toys in the field. Hang out with the real dedicated military guys long enough, and you hear it and see it. <BR/><BR/>Oh, and that language program . . . There are also newly appropriated government grants for college students who major in languages and who agree to work for the government for 3-4 years. That is just one example of many. Poke around your own department and see who many research grants there might be that are funded by government money that may deal with military readiness.  <BR/><BR/><A></A><A></A>// posted by<A><B> </B></A>USWestAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com