I was thinking about this the other day, and then I saw this re-posted.
Why would we need something like this? Russia? Religious fanatics? These are arguably the biggest threats to the U.S. in the visible future, and we don't need the level of tech to act as a deterrent for those folks. We can take Russia with a couple of F-18s and the religious fanatics? Well, I don't think these bad boys would have led to a different result in Iraq or Afghanistan.
So why? Of course, there is always the propping up of the military-industrial complex, but even that does not feel right. We've scrapped some systems in the last few years which tells me that this is not the main reason why we're moving ahead on this...
So that leaves, who? China.
Yes, right now we have each other right where we want each other, but they are a growing economic and technological superpower, and we may eventually end up in a cold war with them. These sorts of investments in military technology are not necessarily about meeting current threats, but about preparing for future threats, and we don't want to end up in a position where we don't have the best hardware in the world.
So, is this the time to be throwing that sort of money at a weapons system like this? Could it be better spent elsewhere? Probably. But we still live in a dangerous world and I, for one, know our relationship with the only real superpower left goes a lot better down the road if they know they can't take us militarily without one hell of a fight.
Hopefully we are moving towards a world where superpowers can co-exist without living in fear of each other, and we may be there all ready. But are we willing to bet our children or grandchildren's freedom on this?
It's a tough call and one that I am glad I do not have to make.
Well, not that it was a “war.” We haven’t fought a “war” since WWII.
But yeah, it was a war. It always seemed silly to me when I was a kid that a lot of people made a big deal about Vietnam not being a war. Sure looked like a war to me.
And the Iraq conflict, apparently, for now, has entered a new phase where we have no boots on the ground except for those tied to the embassy in Baghdad. Does that mean it is over? God knows. I suspect it is not over for the Iraqis but we can all hope for the best.
I wonder how this will go down in the win/loss/tie column? The Ba’ath Regime definitely lost. However, when you hear American military personnel talking about the logistical nightmare of pulling out the forces while still under fire from enemy combatants, it seems problematic to call it one in the win column for the United States.
Obama mail in my inbox this A.M…
Friend --
Early this morning, the last of our troops left Iraq.
As we honor and reflect on the sacrifices that millions of men and women made for this war, I wanted to make sure you heard the news.
Bringing this war to a responsible end was a cause that sparked many Americans to get involved in the political process for the first time. Today's outcome is a reminder that we all have a stake in our country's future, and a say in the direction we choose.
Thank you.
Barack
Nine years, nearly a trillion dollars later, with perhaps an additional trillion to go over the next 30 years when it comes to taking care of the veterans (figures from NPR), and, well, I just do not know….
It all just leaves me feeling pretty hollow at this point.
Gen. Lloyd Austin, who commanded all U.S. troops in Iraq, says he was also worried about roadside attacks as the troops pulled out. He flew down to COB Adder for the last casing of the colors, when the army division's flag is put into its case and sent back home to the U.S.
This war is not like other wars that have ended with the signing of treaties or an exit from friendly territory, Austin says. One American base not far from COB Adder recently had 47 rocket attacks in a single day. Pulling tens of thousands of troops out in this kind of environment is a logistical marvel, he says.
"You're reposturing while people are still trying to cause you harm," Austin says. "That means that every element that moves has to be protected. It is the most difficult undertaking in our lifetime, in our military career."
Early Sunday, as the sun ascended to the winter sky, the very last American convoy made its way down the main highway that connects Iraq and Kuwait.
The military called it its final "tactical road march." A series of 110 heavily armored, hulking trucks and Mine Resistant Ambush Protected vehicles carrying about 500 soldiers streamed slowly but steadily out of the combat zone.
A few minutes before 8 a.m., the metal gate behind the last MRAP closed. With it came to an end a deadly and divisive war that lasted almost nine years, its enormous cost calculated in blood and billions.
War draws combatants, their societies and politics, into its vortex and forever changes them. It does so not just once, but over and over again, until people forget who they were before the guns started firing.
War has a tendency to generate uncertainties and ambiguities of the most fundamental kind, about who is winning, about what has happened, and about just who we are.
At a moment of supreme - if relative - world power, the US invaded Iraq in March 2003 to prevent Saddam Hussein from rising from the ashes of the sanctions regime of the 1990s. The US sought also to supplant a hostile Iraq with a friendly American client. Iraq would be a base from which to exercise US influence and a replacement for the pliant Gulf monarchies, whose stability in the face of al-Qaeda was then far from assured.
For political consumption, and for gullible idealists, these goals were packaged as the threat of WMD and the spread of democracy.
A mere three years later, the most powerful armed forces in human history were facing defeat at the hands of a many-sided ragtag insurgency. Each pinprick attack in Iraq bled popular support from the war in the US, and made the dream of a stable, democratic Iraq seem fantastical. Meanwhile, around the world, US legitimacy lay in tatters: stained with the WMD that never were, the chains of Abu Ghraib and the blood of Fallujah.
Most of all, the US' reputation as the unquestioned superpower was destroyed. The war in Iraq brought an end to the American century.
The goals shifted. Now the problem was to find some way for the US to exit Iraq "with honour". This was the same problem that the US faced in Vietnam after the Tet Offensive of 1968.
I post this coming from neither a pro nor anti war angle, but when both sides in Washington sit around and start pointing fingers at each other about who caused the deficit and wailing about how their party is not to blame, there is one gorilla in the room everyone tends to ignore...
I'm just saying, you know... The Republicans were in office when we went in. Still, someone should have thought about how we were going to pay for this back in the day...
In the worse case scenarios, this is where the far right and the tea party's rhetoric leads... That is why, while I respect their freedom of speech, I feel that the level and tone of their vitriol is irresponsible and dangerous. There are people out there who take the venomous words of politics way too seriously and become a danger to all Americans.
As the threat of foreign terrorists wanes, at least in the minds of most Americans, the threat of domestic terrorism will increase. And one thing for all of those on the far right who whine about the far left's rhetoric, I will say this. OKC came from the right side, not the left.
Got him. Heard the news last night while at a great show. A good evening. But, I am wondering, with them dumping his body into the sea, how many wackos will start saying that it is all a lie made up by the Obama administration? They surely will not trust the DNA, will they?
Still, the more I think about it, this was probably a good solution. You wouldn't want to leave the body. And bringing it back to the U.S. could have had many grisly consesequences, plus you'd have millitant Muslims howling over fears that proper Islamic burial rites were possible not observed. Best choice, I suppose, out of a lot of bad choices. Our wackos are, on average, much less deadly than their wackos.
From the article: While the U.S. indulges in its fit of euphoria over the killing Osama Bin Laden, attention is rightly falling on how the death of the world's most wanted terrorist will play out in countries where he once enjoyed a modicum of sympathy, if not outright support. His alleged "burial" at sea seems a rather desperate, blatant attempt to ensure that the Bin Laden legend finds no real resting place, no potential martyr's shrine for wannabe jihadis to rally around and venerate.
I'll start with some words on the whole Rumsfeld "You go to war.." deal that I posted in response to another blog.
I totally agree that it is a crime that the soldiers feel that the government is not doing all that they can to protect them in the war. And I do believe that a large number of them feel that way... My proof, none. Just my gut. But I haven't seen numbers on either side of this issue.
However, it turns out that the soldier who asked the question about armor that is getting all of this attention was there guarding a reporter who prompted him to ask this question.
Is it still a valid question? Of course.
Were the audience's enthusiastic cheers when the question was asked legitimate? Sounded like it to me.
But I am afraid that the conservative elements in the media will use this as an excuse to invalidate the question itself. And that is sad. If there is no issue, then prove it. If there is, then something needs to be done. I am tired of everyone avoiding the debate of real issues because they do not like who asked the question, etc.
So, that is out of the way...
Next... There are two issues I've decided just to stay the hell away from... The Ukraine and the Terror Bill. These are very complicated things that are potentially world changing in their long term effects and I just don't feel that any brief babble I would post about them would be worth anything.
Then... The Bush Cabinet, V 2.0
Okay, this is an issue that I want to get into. I want to make snarky comments about Condi. I want to run through the old faces and the new names and turn in my two cents. But every time I am about to get started, another turnover occurs.
I read somewhere that the turnover in this cabinet was about par for the second term, but this is starting to seem a little weak to me. I haven't seen the current count, but I know that there was another this morning and it has reached the point where I have lost track.
Anyway, everyone needs to take a look at these people and if you don't like them, scream at your reps in Congress about it. Just because the President wants to give these people jobs doesn't mean that Congress has to give them jobs.
But, more on that later...
I have a list of issues I want to discuss. Unfortunately, it is not with me at the moment, so there is my excuse to move on for the moment.
