Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
TatonkaJames

Republicans need more than rhetoric on defense

Rate this topic

22 posts in this topic

Republicans need more than rhetoric on defense

 

By George F. Will, Published: February 8

 

Through 11 presidential elections, beginning with the Democrats’ nomination of George McGovern in 1972, Republicans have enjoyed a presumption of superiority regarding national security. This year, however, events and their rhetoric are dissipating their advantage.

 

Hours — not months, not weeks, hours — after the last U.S. troops left Iraq, vicious political factionalism and sectarian violence intensified. Many Republicans say Barack Obama’s withdrawal — accompanied by his administration’s foolish praise of Iraq’s “stability” — has jeopardized what has been achieved there. But if it cannot survive a sunrise without fraying, how much of an achievement was it?

 

Few things so embitter a nation as squandered valor; hence Americans, with much valor spent there, want Iraq to master its fissures. But with America in the second decade of its longest war, the probable Republican nominee is promising to extend it indefinitely.

 

Mitt Romney opposes negotiations with the Taliban while they “are killing our soldiers.” Which means: No negotiations until the war ends, when there will be nothing about which to negotiate. “We don’t,” he says, “negotiate from a position of weakness as we are pulling our troops out.” That would mean stopping the drawdown of U.S. forces — except Romney would not negotiate even from a position of strength: “We should not negotiate with the Taliban. We should defeat the Taliban.” How could that be achieved in a second decade of war? What metrics would establish “defeat”? Details to come, perhaps.

 

The U.S. defense budget is about 43 percent of the world’s total military spending — more than the combined defense spending of the next 17 nations, many of which are U.S. allies. Are Republicans really going to warn voters that America will be imperiled if the defense budget is cut 8 percent from projections over the next decade? In 2017, defense spending would still be more than that of the next 10 countries combined.

 

Do Republicans think it is premature to withdraw as many as 7,000 troops from Europe two decades after the Soviet Union’s death? About 73,000 will remain, most of them in prosperous, pacific, largely unarmed and utterly unthreatened Germany. Why do so many remain?

 

Since 2001, the United States has waged war in three nations, and some Republicans appear ready to bring the total to five, adding Iran and Syria. (The Weekly Standard, of neoconservative bent, regrets that Obama “is reluctant to intervene to oust Iran’s closest ally, Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.”) GOP critics say that Obama’s proposed defense cuts will limit America’s ability to engage in troop-intensive nation-building. Most Americans probably say: Good.

 

Critics say that defense cuts will limit America’s ability to intervene abroad as it has recently done. Well. Even leaving aside Iraq and Afghanistan, do Americans want defense spending to enable a rump of NATO — principally, Britain and France — to indulge moral ambitions and imperial nostalgia in Libya, and perhaps elsewhere, using U.S. materiel and competence?

 

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta says that the Army should contract from 570,000 soldiers to 490,000 in a decade. Romney says that the military should have 100,000 more troops than it does. (The Army is 88,000 larger than it was before Afghanistan and Iraq.) Romney may be right, but he should connect that judgment to specific assessments of threats and ambitions.

 

Romney says: “It is unacceptable for Iran to have a nuclear weapon,” that if he is elected, Iran will not get such a weapon, and if Obama is reelected, it will. He also says that Obama “has made it very clear that he’s not willing to do those things necessary to get Iran to be dissuaded from” its nuclear ambitions.” Romney may, however, be premature in assuming the futility of new sanctions the Obama administration is orchestrating, and Panetta says Iran acquiring nuclear weapons is “unacceptable” and “a red line for us” and if “we get intelligence that they are proceeding with developing a nuclear weapon, then we will take whatever steps necessary to stop it.” What, then, is the difference between Romney and Obama regarding Iran?

 

Osama bin Laden and many other “high-value targets” are dead, the drone war is being waged more vigorously than ever, and Guantanamo is still open, so Republicans can hardly say that Obama has implemented dramatic and dangerous discontinuities regarding counterterrorism. Obama says that, even with his proposed cuts, the defense budget would increase at about the rate of inflation through the next decade. Republicans who think America is being endangered by “appeasement” and military parsimony have worked that pedal on their organ quite enough.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Funny but I never see that response to pro-republican articles. ;)

Look at C&P's this way, someone has to have an opinion and if they agree with an op-ed, what's the difference if it saves them time writing one of their own ?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Funny but I never see that response to pro-republican articles. ;)

Look at C&P's this way, someone has to have an opinion and if they agree with an op-ed, what's the difference if it saves them time writing one of their own ?

 

most of the reps here dont post article after article either...........;)

 

As tim has saidf before, the site is interested in people opinions, not C&P.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by TatonkaJames View Post

 

Funny but I never see that response to pro-republican articles. wink.gif

 

 

 

John is critical of Republicans and Democrats equally.....

 

it's just that he only posts about the Democrats.....

 

but he has a lot of critical thoughts about the GOP, that he keeps to himself.....

 

but he will assure you.... he has them.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

John is critical of Republicans and Democrats equally.....

it's just that he only posts about the Democrats.....

but he has a lot of critical thoughts about the GOP, that he keeps to himself.....

but he will assure you.... he has them.

 

 

awww frnakie got spill over boo boo feelings in this thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


just sayin',



 



you claim to be very critical of the Republican Party,



but you seem to keep the criticism to yourself......



and just assure us that you have it.



 



TJ is spot on with your MO.



 



it's funny that you call him out on a C&P,



with the volume of C&Ps that your fellow GOP water bearers will post.


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by John M View Post

 

awwwwww I dont attack enough to make you happy.....oh well.

 

no you attack TOO much in my opinion,

 

and you attack only one side.

 

 

 

take this thread for instance, instead of commenting on the article you ran in to denounce C&Ps and derail the conversation,

 

in my thread about the GOP mounting a religious attack on Obama you ran in to denounce it as a troll and derail the conversation.

 

 

 

you are very good at attacking and derailing.

 

 

 

the left.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As tim has saidf before, the site is interested in people opinions, not C&P.

 

So I have to read the article and then post the same sentiment. Odd behavior.

 

most of the reps here dont post article after article either...........

 

There's a method to the madness. My purpose is to see how many I can convert who actually believe in our government.

I'm like a Tea-beral, I want small government but compassion for those in need. I think that's the foundation of America,

helping each other when we're down. Or is that a Jesus thing ?

 

They called it "relief," but it was a lot more than that.

 

It had dozens of names; N.R.A., W.P.A., the C.C.C.

 

But it really came down to just one thing.

 

For the first time in a long time, someone cared

 

For the first time in a long time, you were no longer alone.

 

In the end, it wasn't the dams... or the roads or the bridges or the parks.

 

Or the tunnels or the thousands of other public projects...

 

that were built in those years.

 

It was more invisible than that.

 

Men who were broken only a year before...

 

suddenly felt restored.

 

Men who'd been shattered suddenly found their voice.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

no you attack TOO much in my opinion,

and you attack only one side.

 

take this thread for instance, instead of commenting on the article you ran in to denounce C&Ps and derail the conversation,

in my thread about the GOP mounting a religious attack on Obama you ran in to denounce it as a troll and derail the conversation.

 

you are very good at attacking and derailing.

 

the left.

 

 

 

 

 

 

sorry I despise the left and Ill attack them muchmore as a result

 

as for this thread? C&P is crap.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by John M View Post

 

sorry I despise the left .

 

by the way, thank you for confiming the intense emotions that fuel your posts.

 

I think this "rage" is why you frequently are unable to support your posts with logic,

 

because they aren't made with logic,

 

they are made with blind hate.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Republicans need more than rhetoric on defense

By George F. Will, Published: February 8

Through 11 presidential elections, beginning with the Democrats’ nomination of George McGovern in 1972, Republicans have enjoyed a presumption of superiority regarding national security. This year, however, events and their rhetoric are dissipating their advantage.

Hours — not months, not weeks, hours — after the last U.S. troops left Iraq, vicious political factionalism and sectarian violence intensified. Many Republicans say Barack Obama’s withdrawal — accompanied by his administration’s foolish praise of Iraq’s “stability” — has jeopardized what has been achieved there. But if it cannot survive a sunrise without fraying, how much of an achievement was it?

Few things so embitter a nation as squandered valor; hence Americans, with much valor spent there, want Iraq to master its fissures. But with America in the second decade of its longest war, the probable Republican nominee is promising to extend it indefinitely.

Mitt Romney opposes negotiations with the Taliban while they “are killing our soldiers.” Which means: No negotiations until the war ends, when there will be nothing about which to negotiate. “We don’t,” he says, “negotiate from a position of weakness as we are pulling our troops out.” That would mean stopping the drawdown of U.S. forces — except Romney would not negotiate even from a position of strength: “We should not negotiate with the Taliban. We should defeat the Taliban.” How could that be achieved in a second decade of war? What metrics would establish “defeat”? Details to come, perhaps.

The U.S. defense budget is about 43 percent of the world’s total military spending — more than the combined defense spending of the next 17 nations, many of which are U.S. allies. Are Republicans really going to warn voters that America will be imperiled if the defense budget is cut 8 percent from projections over the next decade? In 2017, defense spending would still be more than that of the next 10 countries combined.

Do Republicans think it is premature to withdraw as many as 7,000 troops from Europe two decades after the Soviet Union’s death? About 73,000 will remain, most of them in prosperous, pacific, largely unarmed and utterly unthreatened Germany. Why do so many remain?

Since 2001, the United States has waged war in three nations, and some Republicans appear ready to bring the total to five, adding Iran and Syria. (The Weekly Standard, of neoconservative bent, regrets that Obama “is reluctant to intervene to oust Iran’s closest ally, Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.”) GOP critics say that Obama’s proposed defense cuts will limit America’s ability to engage in troop-intensive nation-building. Most Americans probably say: Good.

Critics say that defense cuts will limit America’s ability to intervene abroad as it has recently done. Well. Even leaving aside Iraq and Afghanistan, do Americans want defense spending to enable a rump of NATO — principally, Britain and France — to indulge moral ambitions and imperial nostalgia in Libya, and perhaps elsewhere, using U.S. materiel and competence?

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta says that the Army should contract from 570,000 soldiers to 490,000 in a decade. Romney says that the military should have 100,000 more troops than it does. (The Army is 88,000 larger than it was before Afghanistan and Iraq.) Romney may be right, but he should connect that judgment to specific assessments of threats and ambitions.

Romney says: “It is unacceptable for Iran to have a nuclear weapon,” that if he is elected, Iran will not get such a weapon, and if Obama is reelected, it will. He also says that Obama “has made it very clear that he’s not willing to do those things necessary to get Iran to be dissuaded from” its nuclear ambitions.” Romney may, however, be premature in assuming the futility of new sanctions the Obama administration is orchestrating, and Panetta says Iran acquiring nuclear weapons is “unacceptable” and “a red line for us” and if “we get intelligence that they are proceeding with developing a nuclear weapon, then we will take whatever steps necessary to stop it.” What, then, is the difference between Romney and Obama regarding Iran?

Osama bin Laden and many other “high-value targets” are dead, the drone war is being waged more vigorously than ever, and Guantanamo is still open, so Republicans can hardly say that Obama has implemented dramatic and dangerous discontinuities regarding counterterrorism. Obama says that, even with his proposed cuts, the defense budget would increase at about the rate of inflation through the next decade. Republicans who think America is being endangered by “appeasement” and military parsimony have worked that pedal on their organ quite enough.

 

This leads me to believe you're not listening to the candidates, but rather formulating your opinioin based on an article full of sensationalism BS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

by the way, thank you for confiming the intense emotions that fuel your posts.

I think this "rage" is why you frequently are unable to support your posts with logic,

because they aren't made with logic,

they are made with blind hate.

 

 

if you didnt nkow I dont liek the liberals, you are clealry not paying attention.........but thats ok were used to that with you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to register here in order to participate.

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.