You seem to think that our global military presence is very large... it isn't. We're positioned any many places around the world, but it is primarily small bases - not large hubbs. We're not there against China's public will, although I'm sure at least part of them would prefer we weren't there. We have no true allies, and if we want anything done the world has shown it is going to take us stepping up to the plate for it to get accomplished. Why do you believe we're too interventionalist? Give examples other than freeing countries from dictators.
Global presence is not imperialism either. I'm not arguing against cutting military spending. I believe defense spending could be easily cut just by lowering the amount of defense contracts we give out for building fantasy weapons. That would be far more efficient than cutting our global presence.
If it is streamlined, cool. Can't say I know the degree to which we permanently extend ourselves abroad. I'd like the commander in chief to keep bases only where reasonably necessary and to seriously consider making our global positioning as efficient as realistically possible. I keep hearing we're building a Taj Mahal of a base in Iraq, which doesn't seem to jive with your position. I have those suspicions as well. I suppose you're talking about Iraq. I'd argue that we take the lead far too often in too many situations. Iraq... Georgia... Iran... Pakistan... Afghanistan... we send tons of dollars overseas to Israel and Egypt as well as other places. I'd have to study to give more examples, but I buy into Ron Paul's argument that both parties are too involved abroad and try to lead the charge when I think we could really look to regional powers with more of a stake in the outcome to take the lead.
Well, I kind of do. The Netherlands keeps soldiers as safe as possible by never allowing them to fight anybody. We can't have an effective military without risking the lives of soldiers. Commanders cherish their soldiers, but good ones know that they must order men to die. It has always been that way. Priority #1 is to make the military more effective and them use them shrewdly. Soldiers safer when they have control of the battlefield and can fight a short, very violent war and be done with it.
We already have more advantageous and more defendable bases in both regions. Many of them. Japan, Okinawa, Guam . . . Britain, Spain, Iceland, etc. It's not always necessary to keep so many troops forward deployed in the absence of a war crisis. It's not even militarily sound to keep too many airpower and naval assets forward deployed. Agreed. But unbridled interventionalism has also failed. The key is to elect someone who understands that the proper balance must be found.
Untrue. Britain sticks with us through thick and thin. All of NATO and Australia sticks with us in Afghanistan. In a crunch, as in 1981, and during the cold war, dozens and dozens of countries line up with us. Not all of our allies have the same vital national interests as we do, but they are allies none the less. We cannot be respected by them without also respecting them. We should have asked ourselves twice if we were doing the right thing when our allies could not back us in Vietnam and Iraq. It is true that "Without the United States, nothing is possible. With the United States, everything is possible." But it is also true that we cannot do everything alone.
What I mean by "true allies" is that they are not always going to have the same interests as us. Should we question why when our allies do not back us? Yes, but that doesn't mean it isn't the right decision (not saying Vietnam & Iraq were). And I don't think anyone is saying that we should do everything alone, we just have to know that we may not always have support.
Oh, and as for who I'm voting for - I've made up my mind. I'm voting for... McCain. :grin: Ultimately, my issues with McCain are much smaller than my fundamental issues with Obama. The thought of Palin as President still scares the hell out of me though...
