Slashing defense: tying his successors’ hands
This exactly coincides with my own opinion about the main motive behind Obama’s desire to drastically slash the military:
Limiting the power his successors can wield is, for Obama, not just an unalloyed good idea but an imperative. Call it the “stop America before my successors sin again” imperative.
Obama has always played the long game. That’s part of what Obamacare is all about, and it’s not over yet; there are more twistings and turnings in that story, including the single payer goal.
True, also, of these changes in our military capability. Obama is not content to draw down our capacity to wage war while he’s president. His goal is to extend his reach into the future and make it very difficult for whoever follows him—if that person be so inclined—to reverse the trend. He also wishes to signal his stance unequivocally to the world at large: the withdrawal of the US as the main military enforcer of order in the world.
I’ve written before (don’t have time to find the link at the moment) that Obama’s foreign policy has already caused other countries to see the US as less steadfast, and this holds true even if the next president is a conservative foreign policy hawk. American foreign policy has always been relatively stable and reliable. No matter who was president, there has been a general tendency to stand by allies and go against enemies, although the degree to which these things have been done varied.
Obama has already changed that game. The world knows that if there could be one president who reverses those rules there can be more, and America no longer can be relied upon.
So this proposed reduction in arms is part of that big picture. A future president who would want to reverse this would need the support of Congress, and time. That was part of England’s difficulty during the Chamberlain years—the Prime Minister was, among other things, playing for time because England was unready to fight the Nazi menace, even had it been willing.
Sometimes I wonder how much Obama knows about history. But mostly I think he knows the history he needs to know all too well.
[NOTE: This proposal would not fly if it didn’t tap into a generalized unwillingness on the part of the American public to understand that waging war is not necessarily bloodthirsty warmongering. Most people hate war—I include myself in that group—and many people seem to think it now unnecessary. This feeling has been building since the Vietnam War, and if it continues it will make it nearly impossible for us to defend ourselves or others. Its parallel in private life has to do with the desire to ban guns, as though that would solve the problem of guns in the hands of criminals rather than just give those criminals more and more power.
By the way, a personal note: some of my Communist and pro-Communist relatives were in the forefront of the nuclear disarmament (unilateral, of course!) movement while I was growing up. So I am well aware of the historic influence of the left on these movements, from personal experience.]
That’s pretty much my take on Obama too. The public is going to have to learn once again that while they can escape reality for a while, sooner or later they will learn that reality’s consequences cannot be escaped.
Obama has always played the long game.
why does the indivual not undestand the colelctivist?
because the individual attributes qualities of the collective that pulls the string as the persons qualities. but since that person is no more than a puppet, a prop, a place where the collective can be seen embodied in one, any game he plays is not his.
so right from the first sentence you fail to understand what this is all about. after 10 years, you still have not grasped the difference between ‘collective action’ and individual action…
from the meetings in the late 50s when the plans were established… thats all they been following… since you think that its that mans plan, you think that this changes when that changes.
it doesnt..
Golitsyn laid out a plan that started with lenin, and proceeded on through being refined over and over.
the USA did not win the cold war, the USA was duped into believing a reorganization was a win…
as long as they removed the organizing groups and disbanded them, the americans would think that collective action was individual action.
their ways and existencve were predicated on resistancve of this large thing that was swallowing up countries, starting wars, and on and on.
but what if they did a judo move? what if, instead of getting bigger, they instead stepped back and removed themselves?
it opened up the gates to the countries, allowing state operatives to move about freely and not need the UN and all that.
it opened up to increased espionage, control, and even disinformation campaigns protected by the first amendment (clue, thats why they wont let it happen now, and they are stopping it. what they use to make it h appen, will have to be removed so it cant unhappen)
Obama has always played the long game. That’s part of what Obamacare is all about, and it’s not over yet; there are more twistings and turnings in that story, including the single payer goal.
too funny..
none of that is obama…
go ahead.. other than being the man in power at the time, what did he do to design it and write it? NOTHING. in fact, can yhou tell me who wrote it and had it all ready for that opportun time?
you can even look up the thing!!
Invidividual Action vs Collective Action
you never did read the chatechism with a mind on understanding it and its IMPLICATIONS
here is what you are doing in mythological form:
what would hercules second labor been like if he had not konwn of the collecvtive nature of the hydra and attacked its polycentral heads as individuals?
listening to you guys talk, is like listening to someone who has named each head of the hydra and thinks if they remove it, thats the end of it, or it changes.
has it?
each person under the bus was replaced by one or more people…
the nicer you are the less likely you will prevail
kind of like watching a team up of rainbow bright and ted kucklinsky (the iceman)…
rainbow bright always talks positive and all that, but has no real reasons she will win. she cant even meet ted on a level anything… but she beleives without regard to realty or measure, that ted is evil and cant win (for whatver reason ranging from fantasy to incomprehensible future prevents comprehending what will be)
if you read the chatechism, you should have realized that as soon as one is negated, the next one waiting in line picks up the charge and continues onward in the fight till theyfall, then like sharks teeth, another comes out
part II tears apart the analysis that this is about the next leader…
Sometimes I wonder how much Obama knows about history. But mostly I think he knows the history he needs to know all too well.
i said this long ago about economics, why learn how capitalism works, you only need to know a little to destroy it. better you know how the new system works, not the old one..
remember?
True, also, of these changes in our military capability. Obama is not content to draw down our capacity to wage war while he’s president. His goal is to extend his reach into the future and make it very difficult for whoever follows him–if that person be so inclined–to reverse the trend.
your analysis is wrong..
completely wrong
and it ignores what i have said to pay attention to over and over and over and over…
so i am guessing there is a mental block…
he is just following the list of goals laid out long ago you ignore… the methods that are detailed also ignored, and the goals ignored.
ie. it is obvious from what your saying that you cant comprehend anything beyond whats in front of you.
your analysis makes absolutely no sense!!!
and its predicated on things that are not known or may be wrong.
ie. why do you think that the left could only capture one side of the aisle? why are you blind to the fact that the bad cop of the good cop bad cop play, is upset that a good cop (tea party) is in their mix blowing their collusive plans against the common focus of their good and bad game efforts?
nope… what you see is what it is. ignore the plans, ignore the papers, ignore the evidence, ignore it all… and especially dont read, as that would blow away the ideas and you would have to start all over again rebuilding your view of things from the start!!!
what if, he is preparing for failure
what if, he is planning on giving up in a conflict claiming that we cant defend ourselbves?
what i he is to play the role of hirahito to russias USA winning?
his cut down of the military is to help his side. who is his side? the soviets… the people he would be more fexible with … the people who have a LONG RANGE PLAN that like a cathedral, will take 100 years to finish…
they have been following war ideas and you have been ignoring that in favor of pacifism… (irrational peace in which the person adopting it loses everything to the others – unless there is a third party protector)
i have over and over been listing out what has been changing, and what has been done.
[edited for length by n-n]
The Left isn’t the political org people like to disagree with. It’s something a bit different than that.
I have had discussions with some leftists, they seem to say that we should be respected by those who may be our adversaries and if we were so weak as not to pose a threat, that would be OK.. I don’t think that most will ever respect us, and I don’t care. I want them to fear us, knowing that we will strike them if our interests are challenged.
I was in the Navy and we used to joke, we don’t want a fair fight. We wanted to use overwhelming force to smash our opponents quickly. Of course, Obama doesn’t think that’s nice.
WWI started for a lot less in the same region!!
New Ukraine flashpoint: Pro-Russia gunmen seize Crimean parliament
The gunmen raised Russian flags and banners at several government buildings in the capital of predominantly ethnic-Russian Crimea.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Stalin made sure that every sattelite country had people in it so that he could pull the hitler sudentland shstic and rescue them… worked for hitler, worked for stalin, worked for putin in georgia… now in crimea..
hows that for long term?
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Obama has made it clear that he wishes to pull troops by 2015
right… because if we have that, we have a station to fight things in ukraine, and other nearby places…
without that, where would we put our plains, material, people and such so they could jump and repond? turkey wont let us… the soviets wont either. border countries will be afraid that by doing so, they up their place on the list of who gets eaten next.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Ukraine crisis deepens as Russia scrambles jets
Russia scrambled fighter jets to patrol its border and reportedly gave shelter to Ukraine’s fugitive president as gunmen stormed government buildings in the strategic Crimea region and raised a Russian flag over the regional parliament Thursday, deepening the crisis for the new Ukrainian government even as it was being formed.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
do notice the idea of russians always being russians.
ie. 250 years ago, muslim kahns took over the area, then later hitler did, and pulled out stalin took over… then kruschev gave it away, and so on… gorbachev allowing the ones that left to go back.
now… its like mexicans claimig the US for mexico… they do not intergrate and become ukrainian…
multiculturalism is the norm for russian states whose people are racist (love their old cuture) as trotsky made up the word, and due to this, are always a reserve excuse for war and taking another property when weak
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Ukraine Treasury ‘Stripped’ By Ousted Regime
The deposed head of state, who is reportedly staying in a five-star hotel outside Moscow, is facing claims of theft.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
and neos worship of obama is trumped by the worship of putin
Ukraine draws Obama into Putin’s long game
how about he is part of the game, and the idea they are not and there is a tug of war is all for consumption… like liberated women kill their children is a social good..
The fall of Yanukovich – and Putin’s potential response to it – has reignited a debate in Washington on how to respond to the assertive Russian leader
the do nothing president will…
obama state department:
“This is a world where we need to work with the Russians,” a senior State Department official said on Tuesday. “This not about the United States versus Russia.”
Romney:
For Republicans, Mitt Romney’s 2012 campaign declaration that Moscow was Washington’s “number one geopolitical foe” is being proven correct. Now is the time, they say, to confront Putin.
“Romney’s analysis of the Russian threat was actually spot on,” said Nile Gardiner, a senior fellow at the Heritage Foundation and former Romney adviser. “That has been demonstrated amply over Ukraine, Syria and Russia as well.”
but obama is friends with all socialists who are all about peace, flowers, love, understanding, and so on… sacchrine…
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
even sadder is that the analysts this side of the planet STILL get all of it wrongt
“Putin’s vision is not to restore the Soviet Union but to restore Russian greatness,” said Kathryn Stoner, a Stanford University professor and expert on Russia. “It’s the Russian empire, which is a very clear political and economic system.”
really? like stalins vison was one of world peace till he decided to let us know about war sociualism?
Putin, the KGB man, has given up marxism, world domination, and will settle for a small place at the table?
seems the aemrican left who control the minds of the people cant comprhend, even to this day, the FACTUAL nature of what they are apt to comment on in such ways.
you can find over 100 years of such quotes.. while the most horrific things were going on..
you can read more of the (traditional) wrong headed analysis here
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/02/26/us-ukraine-putin-obama-analysis-idUSBREA1P1ZL20140226
The senior State Department officials said there was no “point in making hollow threats” toward Moscow. ……. the American public has no interest in getting into a direct – or indirect – military confrontation with Russia in the Ukraine, Syria or virtually any other nation. The better option is to quietly work with Putin where possible behind the scenes.
so we are in the same placve we were just after wwii
where we just let them take country after country
ie.. which is what obama and others are setting up!!!
they are creating the conditions for the excuse of not rising to the challenge and so, like FDR At yalta, are abandoning the people who are our firends to their fates with a neo soviet system.
Yep. It’s been a while now since it became obvious that Obama wanted to “fundamentally transform” the US in ways that would be difficult to repair.
On the bright side, this could be viewed as an opportunity: Inertia often carries systems past their useful end-dates. If we have to build from scratch, we can make systems for the 21st century.
-The pentagon/military-industrial complex was staid and bloated. It needed to be overhauled.
-The Federal Reserve has caused more mischief than it has prevented (in conjunction with Big Finance). It needs an audit/overhaul.
-The healthcare system wasn’t without faults, but there was little in the way of reform. Now, we will have no choice but to reform it.
-Etc.
I’m not trying to be pollyanna-ish here. Countries grow when the will and opportunity is there. IMO, with the right mindset, even Detroit could be turned around in 10 years.
I think of countries devastated by natural disasters, only to come back stronger because they weren’t hamstrung by legacy infrastructure.
That Obama doesn’t see this isn’t surprising. Leftists tend to have a static view of the world.
The more fool them.
I have had discussions with some leftists, they seem to say that we should be respected by those who may be our adversaries and if we were so weak as not to pose a threat, that would be OK..
i will let another clue your leftists… [its in pieces as i am making it shorter)
if you read the papers and what they are saying about the administation, we are going to do the same thing… we hve yet to grasp this process and negate it.
the point is that they all say if we push on them, they wil lfight and we will have war
detent is the war, and they take advantage of this loathsomhess to stand up and fight.
but is it true? do we get more wars and conflict if we stand up
or do we get more if we hurry up and sign
right now, we are going to end up signing the ukraine back into the soviet fold
and even if its the crimiea, the russian state gets to maintain troops in countries in which it can then say, move on them, and take them.. and all without any notice as the troops are already there, and not moving from one place to another (like the border with crimea like the border with georgia)
so.. do we get war when we push back?
power without conciliation leads to conflict
and conflict is so bad, better to give up and give it away if they are willintg to fight over it, right? so we gave up our country, culture, ways, and so on… right?
so this is another part of history repeating.
i even gave everyhone the answer sheet…
and
silence…
[edited for length by n-n]
Malcom X made a good point about the language his enemies understood vs the language regular humans use.
The Left uses the language of violence and force, slavery and coercion. Trying to argue their religious dogma with facts or logick, won’t even convince the lowest Leftist cult member.
Only when you speak in the language that they understand, do they get what’s really going on. But so far, American patriots might as well be using Russian to talk to the French.
If 2014 goes well, the day after the elections I’m planning on going on HuffPo and saying, “You just got Teabagged!”
You think they’ll get that?
1. Doesn’t the House of Representatives have something to say about federal expenditures?
2. The man sees no limit to government borrowing and spending–except for this!?! Knave.
artfldgr:
I could keep reiterating that you are misunderstanding what I’m saying here, what I think is happening, and what I may know and or not know. But since I’ve said much of that before and you don’t seem to hear me, I don’t think it makes much sense to keep repeating myself at great length to try to get you to see what I’m saying or thinking.
I will just say that I think what keeps happening is some sort of disconnect, some misinterpretation on your part, where it seems to me that you assume that if a thing is left unsaid in a post or comment, that means it is not understood, not heard, not accepted. I don’t write everything about the background of my thinking in every single post or comment; there is much that is left unsaid. You often assume that I (and others here) don’t understand and/or acknowledge what we actually do understand and/or acknowledge.
That does not mean I am in complete agreement with you on every subject. Of course not. Nor does it mean I’m aware of every historical detail that you might offer. But I am aware of the influence of the Communist world in much that is going on, and so are most people who comment on this blog. So I’m not sure why you continue to be so certain that people are unaware.
I think we can finally end the whole “fool or knave?” discussion after this move, eh?
Liberal professor Jonathan Turley testifies to Congress: “Jonathan Turley is a professor and constitutional lawyer who happens to support most of the policies President Obama supports. But during a congressional hearing yesterday, he issued a grave warning. He is ‘alarmed’ by President Obama’s rapid centralization of power and says the Constitution is at a ‘tipping point.'”
http://preview.tinyurl.com/mx5ntl8
The video there is a must-see: Turley doesn’t pull any punches and says the Congress has been alarmingly “inert” (his term) in the face of Obama’s usurpation of power and concentration of it in the Executive Branch; he also excoriates the Judicial Branch for not doing their job and preserving the balance of power.
This, by the way, is an excellent video to send to liberal friends, because Turley makes a point of saying he supports most of Comrade Zero’s policies. BUT….
The readership ought to be much more informed about Baldwin — Chamberlain’s predecessor.
It was BALDWIN who most closely maps to Barry.
It was against Baldwin that Winston was railing.
By the time Chamberlain led the government the damage had been done.
He was playing for time… and spending large.
The exact opposite of Barry.
What will people think if Urkaine turns hot? When Iran has nukes and is allied with Iraq to push Shia hegemony? When China decides to control the Straits of Malacca and the South China Sea to put Japan and S. Korea’s backs against the wall? There are so many dangerous things happening on the messiah’s watch that could turn ugly fast.
It borders on paranoia, I’m not certain that the messiah will be willing to turn over the keys to AF1. All he needs is a huge crisis to make his bid to ignore the 22nd…. never let a crisis go to waste.
I am … unsettled – that is the best word that I can use – in response to the Obama announcement about dialing the military back to pre-WWII levels. IIRC (and likely I do, because I have a weird memory for trivia and factoids) in the late 1930s, this meant an army smaller than that of Poland. Which had to drill with all sorts of makeshift weapons in the Louisiana Maneuvers. The Navy, of course – could project a pretty solid force in the Pacific … but still. The world has become suddenly dangerous, in part because of the machinations of this fool elected by a slim margin of the electorate (and yes, I’ll leave discussions of voter fraud in the last presidential to another day) and that is a bad time to announce a total military dial-back.
OTO – my daughter (a Marine from 1998-2006) is of the opinion that we are internationally tired of being everyone’s 9-11. We have problems of our own to sort out.
Food for paranoia, though – the current administration seems to be set on politicizing the military, and militarizing the local police forces (as well as certain federal departments which were never noted for possessing a law-enforcement arm before.) Where do we go from here, under the current administration?
No idea.
Years ago, Premier Nikita Khrushchev claimed that “We will bury you!” Lately I have begun to wonder if he meant, “We will Barry you!”
Barry University:
Bu:
We will
bury you.
we will
make you
say, you
are no
GOOD!
Basically the accusation of Satan.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3QDDzaY1LtU
I loved her so much. Why did they make her go away?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nEG0t-oW2NQ
There are a couple of benefits to the Left laundering the money they take off of national defense.
First, they can have more cash in the bank to distribute to their own pockets and cronyies. That can fund all kinds of lawsuits and people digging through your trash, ala Sarah Palin being targeted, ACORN child prostitution importation, and SEIU thuggery.
Secondly, the Left and their Democrat minions can then say that in the next patriotic or Republican war for oil, the casualties being sustained are a result of Republican evil, not just incompetence, because OBVIOUSLY WE DON’T HAVE ENOUGH TROOPS TO DO THE JOB.
And why do we not have enough? Well….
Thirdly, the Left can increase the chances of American soldiers dying, due to lack of maintenance parts, costs for marksmanship training and maintenance, and various other issues. Which ,in a future war, can be easily blamed on some convenient Kulaks, even though the war would be started by a Democrat minion (JFK/Johnson Vietnam).
“militarizing the local police forces (as well as certain federal departments which were never noted for possessing a law-enforcement arm before.”
Sgt Mom,
I share the same concern. Several small cities, under 250k, around the country now have armored personnel carriers with 50 cal machine guns mounted on the top, courtesy of the Pentagon. DHS is the most frightening mistake GWB made. He created the messiah’s brown shirts.
From the one’s mouth: http://tinyurl.com/cdk75l
More than a 1,000 daze to go.
How much destruction can the Democrat Party take?
parker Says:
February 27th, 2014 at 8:48 pm
What if it wasn’t a mistake?
There was so much wrong with that that I don’t even know where to begin. It was a textbook example of “never let a crisis go to waste”. Anybody who thinks that started with Obama is kidding themselves.
And it’s late and I’m tired and I’m going to bed. We definitely need to discuss this in more detail.
Not that I’m overly optimistic or anything, but are we sure that Obama can bind the hands of his successor so much?
I recall that back in the 1980s Reagan tolerated huge (for then) budget deficits on the “starve the beast” theory that his successors would have to deal with that rather than increase Federal spending any more. We all can see how that worked out.
And how can Obama be sure that whoever walks into the Oval Office in 2017 won’t just decide to, say, end Obamacare, or change it into something completely different? If Congress can’t stop Obama from single-handedly changing the meaning of the law, how could it hamper any of his successors? Even hand-picked successors who are bound by blackmail or ideological agreement?
How long till Obama decides that the only way to ensure success of his agenda is to stay in power himself past 2016? It’s the only way that I can see; perhaps someone can tell me something different.
“I do not think the Socialist need make any sacrifice of essentials, but certainly he will have to make a great sacrifice of externals,” Orwell wrote, explaining why the left was failing to make headway with more sensible people. “If only the sandals and the pistachio-coloured shirts could be put in a pile and burnt, and every vegetarian, teetotaler… sent home to Welwyn Garden City to do his yoga exercises quietly!”
1937
George Orwell
The Road to Wigan Pier
And how can Obama be sure that whoever walks into the Oval Office in 2017 won’t just decide to, say, end Obamacare, or change it into something completely different?
what if he pretends he is FDR and writes an executive order and does not step down?
what if, a war starts with the ukraine, and he decides to do what lincoln did, but not really like lincoln?
what if he just decides to play the card that it would be just too dangerous and all that with the conflicts over ukraine, the baltics, serbia, croatia, georgia, sunkaku, korea, and i could throw in a few more for fun…
what if he is the man in office 2017?
remember…
chaos and breaking things down and causing horror is not a problem… it does not prevent anything in terms of them…
A very typical Communist technique: To seize power without thinking of the fact that the productive forces will collapse, that the fields will not be sown, the factories will stop, that the country will decline into poverty and famine – but when poverty and hunger come, then they request the humanitarian world to help them. Aleksandr I. Solzhenitsyn
but what if the country that used to stand up, is the country in need? will the enemies stand up and help it the way we helped them?
Owebama and his henchpeople are effectice and capable combatants, particularly in combat with the shirking other two gov’t branches. Like artfldgr says, Baraq always plays the long game. He is dismantling and altering the car that is symbolically our Federal State, and the deluded, which includes some on this site, think we can take control with a new mechanic and rapidly restore that car to its NASCAR standard.
It ian’t going to happen, people. That is what our sideline sitting has and will cost us. The good guys are losing all over the globe.
We are re-entering a very long and very dark night, which was the state of humanity before the curiosity that was the Enlightenment, which led to the formation of the USA. That is a total anomaly which will not be resurrected, no matter how much it may be longed for.
Owebama will be organizing young fatherless black men as ex-Prez; this most violent demographic sector will not become less violent. Its violence will become focused: brown men in brown shirts.
No matter how much it will be longed for by the few.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1932
Look at that Democrat super majority down there. What did people use to call it?
How long did it take the South to break free from the shackles of Democrat slavery? It wasn’t one or 2 or 10 elections.
What was the percent of Jews that voted Dem? What was the percent of DC residents that voted Hussein? The percent of blacks for Democrat lords?
America cannot call itself the land of the free with such huge swathes of the population under slavery, torture, and serfdom. The counter insurgency methods researched and tested in Iraq could have broken those chains, at least the strongest ones.
Democrats weren’t about to let blacks be free or vote as they liked. Democrats weren’t about to let whites treat blacks as equals in Jim Crow. Democrats weren’t about to let the South forget that the civil war chaos was the fault of Northerners, holding 90+% of the population in tortured captivity like Patty Hearst. And even now, they won’t let you forget about homosexual pleasure cults, that say Jim Crow is the reason they are here putting the boot on your face.
Anybody who thinks that started with Obama is kidding themselves.
At the time, Bush was reluctant on the DHS and TSA concept.
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20101117062003AANk8Vl
Most of it now is a Leftist smoke screen used to deflect blame.
its not about his next office holder
its about not being able to fight the war they are setting up.. .(even if its only to reset the ecvonomic books!!!) as i have said from 8 years ago…
After World War II, during which the United States spent 43.6% of its annual GDP on defense in 1943 and 1944, spending declined dramatically — all the way down to 14.3% of the annual GDP in 1949.
and what happend NEXt year?
the korean invasion.. ie. the forgotten war
maybe we should remember?
showing that teh same thing is good for AFTER A war starts… but better BEFORE…
it was Reagan who upped the spending and suddenly those invasion wars stopped.
now we are cutting it
and we got georgia invaded
ukraine invaded
and china may take taiwan, senkakus and singapore
can you imagine the technological boon of corporate secrets they would get from singapore and taiwan?
and what happened?
invasion of afghanistan
SEE A PATTERN?
Sgt Mom – I like that “we will Barry you” as it rings so true now, doesn’t it?
Neo, it is worth repeating that the “peace sign” was created from semaphore for the letters N and D which stood for nuclear disarmament; and was initially used by those, as you say, who wanted to disarm unilaterally.
Ray, “we don’t want a fair fight. We wanted to use overwhelming force to smash our opponents quickly.”
So true, and it is for exactly that reason so much of the world has seen peace since World War II. American power has given the world a Pax Americana of sorts. Sure, there have been smaller wars here and there; but nothing of such great magnitude that the world has been radially changed.
Also, have Obama and others forgotten that it was the American Navy that was among the first on the scene after the Christmas Day Tsunami in the Indian ocean? Who else could have gotten there with fresh water and food in such a short notice?
Further, given the attempted rise of China in East Asia, India flexing it muscles in South Asia, and Russia (under Putin) dreaming of former glories we should NOT be diminishing our military. period.
Without American military muscle, there will also be a lot of smaller wannabe thugs.
I do fear that by the time we realize it we will, yet once again, have to enter an international conflict which will cost more lives and cause more hardship because folks like Obama didn’t see fit to consider American Exceptionalism as valid and as a way of preventing the world from going up in flames.
Lastly, I would like to add that one of the great things about your site, Neo, is not just your interesting and insightful blog postings, but, so many of your commenters have some great insight as well, despite my scroll wheel sometimes getting a hefty workout.
Pax Americana is dead. Most of the US’s allies, clients, and protectorates can no longer trust the security guarantees of the US. Although I thought it was national suicide to do so even before the Age of Obamaca, given how much the Left controls US policies.
Even for the ones that want to trust in the US, local domestic patriots are re arming and wanting to stand on their own security arrangements, without owing the US anything (like Kurdistan) or having to rely on US power. That kind of socialized welfare doesn’t produce strong patriots, just resentful and bitter sheep.
Russian patriots, Chinese patriots, South Korea patriots, Japanese patriots, and Indian patriots won’t be able to stomach the idea of working with the US, when the peace promised isn’t even real.
The United States, by pulling too much weight in the world, renders people helpless, much like welfare has done for inner city blacks. If it is easier to rely on the US to maintain human rights, then nobody else has to sacrifice anything to defend others, nor do they have to acquire the power to defend themselves.
The greater the light, the deeper the darkness. It’s inevitable. It has nothing to do with Leftist propaganda, although they took advantage of it when they needed to. But that was before the Left gained absolute supremacy in the land of Obamaca, no longer America.
I am reminded of the Beach Boys “Wouldn’t it be Nice?” Wouldn’t it be nice if the House would say, “No budget, Senator Reid? Okay, no Continuing Resolution.” “You don’t think you have to enforce the laws, Mr. Attorney General? Then, obviously, you don’t need any money for the ‘Justice Department.'” “Department of Education? Every year you’ve been in existence our education system has gotten worse. You don’t get a nickel until it gets better.” “Department of Housing and Urban Development? You guys will have to forego some of your bribe money if you want to keep working.” “Department of Energy? You want money? Go issue some oil leases.” And so on. Wouldn’t it be nice?
But, to quote another great rocker, now sorely missed, “Dream, dream, dream. . .”
Pingback:Obama | Putin | Crimea | invasion | Budapest Memorandum
Pingback:Showdown with Putin: who’s afraid of Obama?