I always have trouble with that word. Of course, your use of contractions is not exactly honor roll worthy. Once we withdraw from Afghanistan, al qaeda and the Taliban are right back in power, terrorist camps will be up and running and the threat of an attack on our shores magnifies exonentially.
But I have a 6th grade education, Uncle Jed. I don't think so, and neither do many of the terrorism experts. Afghanistan has always been a lawless tribal society with one strongman or another in charge. When the Taliban took over, Al Qaeda took advantage of this lawlessness to establish training bases. It is important to remember that Al Qaeda are not Afghans, but foreigners, most Saudi, Yemeni, and Egyptian. When the Taliban refused to turn over Al Qaeda (probably because they really couldn't force Al Qaeda to do anything) it resulted in the US taking them out of power and killing thousands of them. The Taliban has an agenda of pursuing "pure" islam in Afghanistan, they do not have an agenda of attacking the West. It was a mistake to harbor AL Qaeda and it cost them the country. Neither the Taliban or any of the warlords that contest them want the US to remove them from power if they get it. Harboring Al Qaeda will only bring them more grief. The insurgents in Afghanistan now are not fighting us because of Al Qaeda, they are fighting us because we are there. There are not jobs there, what else do young men do but join the fight to cast out the invaders, like they did to the British and the Russians before us. The insurgency ceases to become a problem when we leave, then the rags will go back to fighting each other as they have for millennia. Which is fine with me. We must continue to pound Al Qadea in Pakistan and Yemen with missiles and influence Pakistani and Yemeni governments to undercut them until their last hideouts are denied to them. This will work eventually to end it. But occupying country after country has failed to halt terrrorism and you know it. I don't advocate warring on our enemies less, I want to war on them more . . . just smarter. And this is happening. Not every raghead is an enemy, SF. We must focus on those that are and not waste money, lives, and energy on those that are not.
I don't advocate occupying Afghanistan but I think troop removal at this point is premature and is being discussed only to appease the far left who don't want Obama acting like a moderate. In my mind, every raghead is suspect.
Which is why NATO, the Afghan government, and the Obama administration are being clear about extending the deployment to 2014. Premature withdrawal is bad, but endless war is worse. Fair enough, but then the task is to separate the dangerous from the harmless. Kill one, ignore the other.
The military budget is a joke. Most of the huge dollars are in procurement, which funds jobs in Congressional districts. Don't delude yourself. Most of this discussion has been about Al Queda and ragheads, and I hate them. I bet I watched a video of body parts flying from around a campfire fifty times this weekend. But...what does that have to do with the F-22, the F-35, the SSN's most of the Aircraft Carriers, Most of the air force and most of the navy. Not much. The problem with procurement is that we are so far from a big war, not saying that we will not have another one, but that the technology we are spending money on will be outdated. A lot more research and a lot less procurement would be better. The huge national debt that we have run up, will ultimately have to be dealt with...either in democratic process or through some kind of revolution (yes it could happen here). Regardless, our foreign policy is gonna have to change dramatically, and the instrument of it, the military will have to as well. Anything other than an agile, low intensity conflict force, alongside a small nuclear deterrent capability is waste. Remember, jobs in Congressional Districts drive most of the budget. And when Congress is involved, EVERYTHING is HOSED UP. That is why BRAC is so contentious. It is not about defense, it is about getting re-elected. I only spent 11 years in DoD resource management, unfortunately, I know about what I am talking about. Geaux Navy, Beat Army!!!
Not really, most of the huge dollars are in operations and maintenance and in personnel. Procurement comes in third. Still huge, of course. The world hasn't gotten any smaller and superpowers must have global reach and they must have air and seas supremacy when they get there. We don't need too little, we don't need too much, but we do need an adequate force. Adequate for a superpower is "better than anyone else". But you are correct, we have been guilty of overkill sometimes. Wars can't be timed. Worse, modern wars are "come as you are", there will be no three-year mobilization like we had in WWII. We can't wait until there is a war to create a military again. We can't plan on what we think our enemies might do, we must plan for what they are capable of doing. Agreed, but the waste is in political infighting. Not just weapons procurement, but in 150 unnecessary bases, especially unnecessary national guard bases and armories, where a ton of cash is wasted. The pols will protect bases in their states, no matter what. Agile, yes, but high-intensity is essential. Even this is extremely expensive if we maintain the global logistics and power-projection capabilities that we have enjoyed and depended on for 60 years. Modern weapons are expensive. A professional military is expensive. A master sergeant in WWII earned $1,470 annually. A master sergeant today makes $84,000. Generals make over $200,000. And they have fabulous benefits and retirement. This is it, for sure. But I see no way to get the politicians out of it.
Gentlemen, can't we all agree on this issue? We'd like the Dept of Defense to scrub the books scrutinize all systems and processes with a view towards reducing costs, fraud, waste and abuse. We'd like each Federal Agency to do the same. Become more efficient, where feasible. Reduce costs. Minimize fraud, waste and abuse. Take politics out of the equation to the extent possible. GET SMALLER, where possible. I think that we are all on the same page here with regard to the items I mention above.
The real problem is keeping local politics out of it. Nobody has figured a way to do that. Congressmen will protect funding in their districts.
