Two wars too many?
January 5th, 2012
04:00 AM ET

Two wars too many?

By Charley Keyes

In Pentagon speak the policy is "2MTW": two major-theater wars. Depending where they line up, observers of the U.S. policy of being ready to fight two major conflicts simultaneously see it as either a myth or a solid-gold guarantee of world peace and U.S. military dominance.

(Read also Battleland blog's take: Mythical Canard?)

When Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta unveils his vision for U.S. military posture on Thursday, the expected decision to end the two-war posture, part of the effort to deal with the billions of dollars in defense cuts, could be one of the most controversial aspects.

Two big reasons: Iran and China.

Supporters of the present policy say any retreat from the two-war policy spells danger.

"It's a ticket to World War III," warns James Carafano of the Heritage Foundation. "It is the worst idea ever."

On the flip side, experts say times and enemies have changed and scoff at the gloom-and-doom warnings.

"No way," says Larry Korb of the Center for American Progress. "We already spend more than the next 17 other countries combined. We've got to put this in perspective: Who are we going to fight? What are their forces?"

For some, when it comes to the U.S. military, the policy has been right up there with Mom, the flag and apple pie.

At Heritage, Carafano points to what he calls the unprecedented economic growth of the post-World War II era and the decline in worldwide political violence, saying they were directly linked to the U.S. security posture. Take it away, he says, and "you've essentially taken off the table the U.S. guarantor of global stability."

But people on both sides of the argument admit that the-two war strategy already is a bit of a myth, pointing to the strain on the U.S. military of the 10 years of war in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Carafano says the change is an effort by the Obama administration to camouflage reductions. "It is an excuse to cut defense," he says. "If the president of the United States wants to run defense off a cliff, there is no one who stop him."

The argument over two wars is part of the larger national debate over how the United States will act internationally.

Former Defense Secretary Robert Gates liked to joke about how cloudy the crystal ball actually is.

"I must tell you, when it comes to predicting the nature and location of our next military engagements, since Vietnam, our record has been perfect," he said on numerous occasions. "We have never once gotten it right."

And Gates also said that the days of full-scale mobilization of land forces are gone. "Any future defense secretary who advises the president to again send a big American land army into Asia or into the Middle East or Africa should 'have his head examined,' as General MacArthur so delicately put it," Gates said.

His successor as defense secretary already has warned of dire consequences if Congress doesn't manage to avoid automatic budget cuts. Panetta dramatically said the result of such cuts would be a hollow force.

"It's a ship without sailors. It's a brigade without bullets. It's an air wing without enough trained pilots. It's a paper tiger," Panetta said in November. "It's a force that suffers low morale, poor readiness and is unable to keep up with potential adversaries. In effect, it invites aggression."

But Winslow Wheeler, an outspoken critic of present levels of defense spending and of Panetta, says it is an exaggeration to say that the United States has a two-war capability, pointing to the strain on the U.S. military in fighting Saddam Hussein's forces in 2003 and a poorly equipped Taliban in Afghanistan, which of course had no armor, air force, air defenses or navy.

Wheeler, director of the Straus Military Reform Project at the Center for Defense Information, blasts both Panetta's critics and Panetta himself.

"Unless he deconstructs the two-war baloney, he will simply be engaging in more sausage-stuffing for prevailing conventional wisdom in Washington and its hapless efforts to avoid the inevitable," Wheeler says. He portrays a Pentagon that is hooked on mega projects and lacks the proper managerial oversight and the agility to meet future threats.

"We decayed our forces with more money; now we're going to do more of the same thing with less," he says.

Korb at the Center for American Progress says the new defense calculus needs to look at how U.S. forces are meshed with allied forces. For instance, it isn't just U.S. forces based in South Korea that will deter, everyone hopes, any North Korean attack. There are South Korean forces. And over the horizon, the U.S. aircraft carrier George Washington, the U.S. Marines in Okinawa, long-range U.S. bombers in Guam and more and more layers of defense.

But conservatives on Capitol Hill and in the think tanks around Washington hammer the point that strength, and the commitment to fighting two wars, is the only proper path.

"Anybody can be a strategist if you don't want to solve the problems you confront," Carafano says. A change from two war policy, he says, "is strategy by wishful thinking."

He likens it to people choosing health insurance. On one hand is the consumer selecting the best health plan available, whatever the cost. On the other side is the person trying to see into an uncertain future while saving a buck.

"It is like people buying insurance for the diseases they think they are going to get," he says.

Yet one lesson of recent years is that large ground armies may be a part of the United States' history, but not its future. An American president will turn to air and naval power when confronting another major power - for instance China or Iran or Russia - and will rely on small Special Operations Forces or counter-insurgency forces for combating non-state actors or rogue regimes.

"I can't imagine another ground engagement with 160,000 American troops," says Caroline Wadhams, an analyst at the Center for American Progress who studies Afghanistan and Pakistan. "That is not the way we will fight from now on."

"We still have the ability to target and punish an enemy in ways that don't require major ground forces," Wadhams says. "This new thinking has caught up to the realities of our enemies and how we would fight them."

Post by:
Filed under: Budget • China • Defense Spending • Iran • Middle East • Military • North Korea • Security Brief
soundoff (372 Responses)
  1. All In One Computers Reviews

    Thank you for the auspicious writeup. It in fact was once a entertainment account it. Look complicated to far delivered agreeable from you! By the way, how could we be in contact?

    April 11, 2012 at 12:03 pm | Reply
  2. Dagorath

    "...Winslow Wheeler, an outspoken critic of present levels of defense spending and of Panetta, says it is an exaggeration to say that the United States has a two-war capability, pointing to the strain on the U.S. military in fighting Saddam Hussein's forces in 2003 and a poorly equipped Taliban in Afghanistan, which of course had no armor, air force, air defenses or navy"

    You can hardly call fighting a guerilla based conflict against "civilians" with weapons, a war. The U.S. is caught up in political correctness. If it were China invading Iraq and Afghanistan, they would have killed anyone who looked at them funny, and their losses would have been considerably less. Our losses are from the humanitarianism of our relatively uncensored media system.

    January 9, 2012 at 1:19 pm | Reply
  3. rightospeak

    Well over 50 years ago I got my draft card as 1A and we have been in endless wars since. Now we are bankrupt . The end of Cold War was an opportunity to spend the savings from huge military on useful projects at home. Unfortunately, we continued wars and spending till we have to borrow money from China, a Communist Country. Our corrupt politicians instead of being tried for treason are being promoted by our unDemocratic media-a disaster for our country. Social unrest is about to unfold-OWS is only the beginning.

    January 8, 2012 at 10:25 am | Reply
  4. ron

    WE cannot be the worlds police force. And if we are expected to be, then they should pay us accordingly. We can NOT afford it. Our economy is in ruins, at least in part, because of it. And as for Panetta, or any other military leader. WHAT DO YOU EXPECT THEM TO SAY??? It is their bread & butter. You expect them to WANT close bases, stop buying multimillion dollar planes/tanks/ships/bombs etc..., & drop troop levels, WILLINGLY? Ha!

    January 6, 2012 at 8:22 am | Reply
    • Peacemaker

      Nobody wants you to police them. You waged those wars because you wanted to show off your military power and also gain control of oil and other natural resources. Stop being greedy and show off, stay in USA, stop waging and imposing wars on other nations, stop killing their people and your own too and mind your own problems. Your economy will be good in few decades.

      January 6, 2012 at 8:47 am | Reply
      • clintann

        Thanks for your marvelous posting! I quite enjoyed reading it, you are a great author.I will be sure to bookmark your blog and definitely will come back from now on. I want to encourage that you continue your great job, have a nice day.

        September 25, 2013 at 7:49 am |
    • Frangible

      The rebels in Libya did request NATO's help. Should we have ignored them?

      January 6, 2012 at 4:51 pm | Reply
      • jackinbox

        The media painted good guys and bad guys as if the world is a bed time story book. They know there is no fool like a free and (self-)righteous fool. That is how the country is led into ruin by the elite who places their core interest above that of their country.

        January 8, 2012 at 11:24 am |
  5. m.s.mohamed ansari


    M.S.Mohamed Ansari 13 April 2009

    All press and Media Arabs leader and G20 leader at. Headquarters of All association
    By. A TO Z + 8. QUEEN + 8
    Royal wedding. And royal security force 10 generation total cost $ 57 trillion
    Each every politician rolling 8 years only just like chess board Game
    But queen family enjoying 10 generation y

    GLOBAL ECONOMIC COLLAPSE REASON WAR. Improve Economy only 6 points. Peace, prayer
    Liberty, Unity, friendly And simplicity.

    I am also Happy to kill osma bin laden
    Turing point of global Economy. Islam not allowed to be Terrorist and Terrorist people are not a Muslim
    1. Please avoid war. Day by Day war cost increase $ 3.5 trillion
    2. Global economy and food price every Day increase
    3. International job less Y. All businessmen effected business.
    4. Global financial crisis every CNC manufacture. New technology energy product Effected FDI investors.
    5. Every Day OPEC Oil Price Increase
    6. World poverty problem. Bankrupt 170 Bank overalls 87000 Branch
    7. Each every single man Effected
    8. Ignore future Death million of already Death
    9. Million of People Wounded
    10. Global environment climate will be change this will lead Global Agriculture problem

    A. International criminal court. B. white house. global human right association .C.IMF
    D. euro union. E. united nation F.ALL international famous press and media


    From. Mr.M.S.Mohamed Ansari,
    154, Angappa Naicken Street,
    Chennai – 600 001.
    Tamil Nadu,
    To , The Hon’ble Chief Justice,
    The Supreme Court,
    United States of America,
    Washington, D.C.
    Fax no: 213.547.8080
    Dear Sir,
    Sub: Prosecution of previous President Mr. George W.Bush, for violation of International Code of Conduct.
    Mr. George W.Bush, the previous President of United States of America, initiated a war against IRAQ, without obtaining the previous sanction of United Nations Organization (UNO) on the pretext of having nuclear weapons, even though the then IRAQ government openly exhibited to the whole world that it has no nuclear weapons.
    According to the CNN WORLD report, in the war 6, 75,000 civilians killed, 7500 troops of USA and its allied forces killed 3 25 000 people wounded and $ 3.5 Trillion Dollar spent for the war. This spending of $ 3.5 Trillion Dollar is the main cause of action for the present economic crises prevailing all over the world.
    After winning the war against IRAQ, the United States of America’s President Mr. George W.Bush, also admitted the same fact, and he openly stated that the Intelligence agency misguided him.
    Later on, even the United Nations Organization (UNO) also certified that the IRAQ has no nuclear weapons.
    Then it is the bounded duty of the United States of America and its allied forces to withdraw from IRAQ.
    But instead of withdrawing from IRAQ, the United States of America and its allied forces formed a government in IRAQ, under their control and administered the entire IRAQ, and its peoples.
    This indicates a clear violation of duty by the President of United States of America Mr. George W.Bush and also a clear case of violation of the International Code of Conduct for UNO members.
    Thus Mr. George W.Bush attracts prosecution for the above said offence.
    Thus I hereby pray this Hon’ble Court initiate criminal proceedings against Mr. George W. Bush, and give him maximum punishment for
    a) initiating the war against the IRAQ
    b) killing its innocent IRAQI peoples civilian 6, 75 000
    c) Killing troops of USA and allied forces and 7 500
    d) The present economic crises.
    e) 3 25 000 civilian and coalition 39 000 wounded
    Dated on this day of 13th day of April, 2009.
    Yours truly, (M.S.MOHAMED ANSARI)
    The Chief Justice, the International Court of Justice, The Hague, Netherlands.
    The Secretary General United Nations Organization
    The Chief Justice, the Supreme Court, IRAQ.
    His Excellency Mr.Barack Obama, the President of United States of America, White House, Washington D.C.

    January 6, 2012 at 6:28 am | Reply
    • Peacemaker

      I hope someday someone could file a case against Bush for his actions in Afghanistan. I hope someday both these suits are won, Bush and his team is convicted for their crimes and locked in jails for ever.

      January 6, 2012 at 8:51 am | Reply
      • James Webster

        China building carriers, carrier killer missiles sounds like a real threat and they also have WMD`s. We are too broke, manufacturing gone to rebuild. The middle east despise us, Europe doesn't trust us for the disgusting things we did from the gulags to torture and setup jails in Cuba. America stood for something and Bush Cheney destroyed it while they made their buddies rich. China can storm the beaches in California, afghanastan and Iraq combined couldn't muster a canoe.Yes I am angry because I thought another Vietnam could would never happen again. Tax payers were lied to and lives wasted on both sides to make a few rich. That is not Democracy.

        January 8, 2012 at 12:15 pm |
  6. JedioftheSun

    Remember people, this is all about control. There is wool being pulled over our eyes. Divide and conquer is what's going on. The only side we should take is the people's side. Defend our Constitution, not politicians.

    January 6, 2012 at 5:43 am | Reply
  7. USminority

    AmericansRpussies anyway. Lost to nations you attacked don't even have running water in a third of the house holds. You have a HUGE technological advantage, but your generals use archaic run and gun methods. Don't even mention War with China, you've got nothing against them and you owe them money. You want to man up, why don't you 'help' the nations within your own sphere of influence e.g. Cuba, Haiti, or the against the dozens of drug cartels? Oh right, cause then War will be real and not something you just watch on tv.

    January 6, 2012 at 4:44 am | Reply
    • Frangible

      The US contributed more to Haitian aid than any other nation in the world. And the largest relief organization there was the US Navy. The US does the very things you suggest already, and has always done them. Who are you that you have forgotten your own history?

      January 6, 2012 at 4:53 pm | Reply
  8. Bentley76

    The way we lost the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan shows that the US has lost its hegemony over the world- a status we had enjoyed immediately following WWII. What made the US so great at the time was its proximity- the US was far removed from the major, more traditional conflicts in both Europe and Asia. No nation or group before had the logistics or manpower to pull off a major attack against the US- that was, until 9/11. The attacks on the Pentagon and the World Trade Center demonstrated that the US is no longer immune to its arrogant foreign policy (having lived abroad for over 10 years, I say the way the US government portrayed itself and how it exercised its power abroad). The advantage in proximity and then, projection, was sorely weaken, not by the lack of military technology, but by the constraints of fighting wars that the US put on other nations, who ultimately demanded the US do itself. As signatory to the Hague and Geneva conventions, we are bound to abide by the laws of war that indigenous insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan didn't have to abide by and exploited. We demanded our conventional force to fight and expected them to win asymmetrical wars that they were not trained for at the beginning of the current conflicts.
    The "two war" strategy was born from the victories in both Asia and Europe in WWII. Back then we had the resources, manpower and national motivation and morale to fight a two-front conflict against enemies that supposedly threatened our way of life. We are faced with the same threat, but the motivation and morale to fight these wars are simply not there. During WWII, every member of American society was expected to do their part, even if it meant sacrificing certain luxuries so our troops had enough to keep them going on the front lines. Now, our government expects only the poorest segments of the population to shoulder the burden these costly wars by raising taxes on them while the rich and privileged continue to become rich by profiting off the miseries of the people we are inflicting these wars on, both at home as well as abroad. The distribution of sacrifice and responsibility for defending our freedoms is imbalanced and unfair. At the same time, our economy continues to deteriorate, further hampering our ability to not only project our influence over the world, but weaken our political system at home. The Soviet Union had the same crisis of faith in its political system in the aftermath of its failed excursion into Afghanistan more than 20 years ago- a crisis that caused its mighty government to collapse and is now replaced by an autocratic government that uses thuggery to keep its people in line. It is highly unlikely the US will follow the same path toward destruction, but we simply can't continue to be the "policeman of the world", especially since we are not even able to produce the equipment our military uses to fight- Kevlar helmets and uniforms that are 'made in China'.
    As we slowly and gradually slink back toward our borders, we need to reflect on the enormous mistakes we made militarily, not only in Iraq and Afghanistan, but also in Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos and Korea- all conflicts that were also fought asymmetrically, but whose fighters were supported by other, more covert players like the former Soviet Union and China. Except now, the nations propping up the groups fighting and killing our service members are nations that we call our so-called allies, like Saudi Arabia, where many fighters and much of the funding for the insurgency there originated from, and Pakistan, who not only provides logistics and training to the mujaheddin, but also sanctuary and protection from US ground forces. But all this would not be possible if not for the overwhelming, yet covert support from China and Russia, both of whom provide weapons to the nations who support these groups- similar to the way we did when the mujaheddin were fighting the Soviets.
    We, as a nation, has lost all credibility and our standing, both economically and militarily, has been damaged probably to the point of no return. We are not the same nation we were when we entered this millennium. We are much more weaker in international politics.
    However, this is now a good time to start taking care of our internal problems, unemployment, improving infrastructure and rebuilding our manufacturing capacity. We need to start looking inward and providing more for the people who live in this country, instead of squandering billions propping people who hate us and fighting wars that don't have a direct bearing on our lives. Instead of sending troops abroad, we should spend the money improving internal security so large-scale terror attacks don't happen again. Also, create a fiscal system where all are responsible for the upkeep of our country and finance programs that build confidence in the government through fiscal redistribution through a fairly equated tax system.
    We, as a nation, are at a crossroads and it is time for our political leaders to decide if they want to contribute to the strengthening of our country by re-instituting American Realism; the policy of non-interference in foreign affairs and equal treatment among member states of the international community. When WWI broke out, the US had friendly relations with both Britain, France as well as Germany and Austria. We had the same policy of equal foreign diplomatic recognition at the start of WWII until the attack on Pearl Harbor- which forced the US to take sides.
    We are better off taking care of ourselves instead or worrying about what happens with the rest of the world. Instead of causing wars and fighting them, we need to use our clout (or whats left of it) to end them, we need to project an image of mediation, not project an image of aggression.

    January 6, 2012 at 1:40 am | Reply
    • Bob Ramos

      I am so jealous because you put the case into context much better than I could. My question to the hawks is this. We are now spending about 9 times what our closest possible enemy – China – is spending. Are we really that inefficient?
      Also, we have over 800 military installations overseas with 2 major USAF bases in England and at least two major army bases in Germany. Why? Cannot these countries defend themselves?

      January 6, 2012 at 4:48 am | Reply
      • Swami

        Yes, we are that inefficient. We choose a gold-plated military for three reasons: first, it is very sparing with lives, on both sides. Second, it allows us to pursue social as well as military objectives. Third, it allows us to hire and retain a high quality all-volunteer force, even in times of relative prosperity. (and compared to our likely foes, that's "always")
        Take a look at the forces other nations are getting for the money they spend. Imagine, for a moment, if we built our military with Russian priorities instead of American. After all, they spend 11% of what we spend. And no one threatens them! (externally, at least).
        Yet, they field a strategic nuclear forces as lethal as ours and maybe moreso, and an army that is larger than ours. China spends about a seventh of what we do, and also has a bigger army.
        And how would a "Russian Style" US Military have dealt with Iraq, then? Well, for starters, higher casualties on both sides. Based on Russian casualty rates elsewhere, 10-20,000 dead would not be unexpected. And places like Falujah would no longer exist, because Russian doctrine for enemy "strong points" is to reduce them with concentrated artillery bombardments.
        There are reasons we spend the way we do. There are certain capabilities we chose. Bear in mind, the more desperate a soldier is, the less likely he is to be concerned with such things as "mercy" and "justice". We don't want our soldiers desperate.

        January 8, 2012 at 2:02 pm |
    • choco monsters

      Too long, did not read. If you doubt the US's capabilities, then let's see what your first handme down aircraft carrier can do.

      January 6, 2012 at 4:51 am | Reply
      • Seriously

        Seriously you really missed the point didn't you?

        January 6, 2012 at 5:26 am |
    • Peacemaker

      Bnetley 76 wrote a long post but still did not get it right. You are suffering from self righteousness. Let me tell you the reality. USA waged illegitimate wars against nations, killed their civilian population, violated Hague and Geneva conventions, committed serious and numerous war crimes, bombed these nations to pre historic times with their own WMDs. created hate and polarization in the world, created terrorists and extremists in all parts and religions of the world. USA created Al-Qaeda, USA created Taliban. First you need to accept your mistakes. You were a self proclaimed military power and you thought you could conquer any nation you want. You lost the Vietnam war but you did not learn your lesson. Now you lost the Iraq war and Afghan war, but still you do not accept your mistakes. You are arrogant. This is the point you missed.

      January 6, 2012 at 9:20 am | Reply
      • Frangible

        I surprisingly agree. And we could have won any of those conflicts easily and cheaply with nuclear weapons.

        Now, you'll probably say "that's a terrible idea, using nuclear weapons in those situations is in no way justified!" That's exactly right. It is a terrible idea, and they are not justified.

        Why? Because we are not really threatened or in danger. We are not fighting for our basic survival. So when the going gets tough, then suddenly it starts to become a threat, a danger, something that can hurt us. For it to be worth it, fighting the war has to contribute more to survival than not fighting the war. And so, we decide the best thing to do is not be involved in that war.

        Conventional war– even more crazy than nuclear war. Because it is so easily used. And when war is easily used to achieve a political goal, it is misused. And it fails.

        January 6, 2012 at 5:29 pm |
    • Frangible

      Actually BDUs and ACHs/k-helms are made in the US.

      The ACH is made by Mine Safety Appliances Co in Vermont and Pennsylvania, using kevlar made by DuPont in South Carolina.

      Vermont, Pennsylvania, and South Carolina are not, in fact, in China. Shocking, I know.

      Pretty much all military procurement is done from domestic sources, which is usually written into bills. They also will do NATO sourcing on some things. China? No. They did let Russia bid on a cargo transport aircraft contract a while back, though.

      We may have a lot of problems, but Russia and China are most certainly *not* fighting proxy wars against us. The fact people still scapegoat things on Russia in 2012 is both humorous and a little sad. China and the US can't confront each other, militarily or otherwise, without mutually assured economic destruction. Our economies are too interconnected.

      Yeah, Iraq and Afghanistan were giant mistakes, but, the reason we're in the suck now is the subprime housing bubble and stupid, greedy bankers. That's the banker's fault, not Osama Bin Laden's.

      January 6, 2012 at 5:13 pm | Reply
    • Sveta Westerwelle

      I want to explain some aspects of U.S. foreign policy. Looking at Hillary Clinton, do you believe that she can plan the strategic plans in Iran. It seems to me that because of its arrogance, its entry into the Islamic world is closed. Further, no longer a secret that our civilization came into contact with vneze GOVERNMENTAL worlds. So I think that not only would be no war, and America will disappear from the face of the earth. That's how guys are such things! Disperse to our homes and read books on physics. You get no choice. Or are we really in a canoe or fly obey the rules of another community. So what if America does not want to live it her problem. Everyone else wants very much so. Ische questions EUROPRO. Yes, let them build what they want. All the same, but this sense that, you understand that the missile can intercept balesticheskuyu it explodes in the lesion. All this is useless. That soars brains NATO and Mr. Rasmussen about the impending threat as if it is only now begun. So you can build a 10-year EURO PRO only Mr. Rasmussen who is already interested. Age. But his sins still did not repent. Tell us about the fate of his first wife. And I'll tell you. You killed her. And got the money and title. The current wife of course knows about it. It is not good. I think it's time you retire. And I am announcing a divorce from you. You may not believe me, but I do not want to deal with the murderers of their zheny.Piton.

      January 8, 2012 at 11:45 am | Reply
  9. qularknoo

    Rumsfeld argued we would never have large scale wars again too! and he did so before the first Gulf war and the Iraq war. So much for the belief that nations like Iran, North Korea, China will never pursue action that would necessitate us once again entering a large scale war. Furthermore, shrewd leaders in China, Iran, etc would have no problem waiting for the US to become entangled in another place in the world in order to launch their own ambitiious plots. Carter gutted the military ... Clinton weakened the military too ... and now Obama and Pelosi and Reid ....

    January 6, 2012 at 12:30 am | Reply
    • ddblah

      GOP will hammer Obama for this.

      The matter of truth is, Clinton's draw down never affected our ability to conduct two wars. We did invade and won decisively. The only problem was that Rumsfeld didn't believe that maintaining peace takes a lot more men than invading a country. Now we know. If we decide to invade another country, we can hire people like you to do the job. I am sure you will be happy to.

      January 6, 2012 at 12:49 am | Reply
    • brown

      Rumsfeld is an idiot!

      January 6, 2012 at 1:37 am | Reply
  10. Henkv

    The only war that currently is worth fighting (to stop it) is the class warfare that Obama has started.

    January 6, 2012 at 12:18 am | Reply
    • LionofNarnia

      There is only 1 war to prepare against, and that's a war with China. Anything else either isn't a big deal or isn't likely to happen. And that's that!

      January 6, 2012 at 12:38 am | Reply
      • Mike Wiggins

        I don't know if the source of this is correct, but the mathematics is correct no matter how much you try to spin it.

        It was once said that a Russian was once asked why the Soviet Union was so afraid of the Chinese. The response was that if the two countries ever were to fight a war, the population of China was such that we could kill a million Chinese a day for over three years, and STILL not put a dent in the population.

        Please.....please...let's THINK before entertaining any form of conflict with China. We may have bombs, aircraft, drones, etc. But we do NOT have the ground forces needed to maintain a ground offensive against BILLIONS of people. We can probably take them on in a naval conflict, but certainly not a ground war.

        And before we think that we can invade Iran, look at the size of the country (MUCH larger than Iraq) and the fact that we will probably have no allies within its borders. That would make a land war there equivalent to Napoleon trying to invade Russia......with equivalent results.

        January 6, 2012 at 3:20 am |
      • Peacemaker

        Wars are not video games or Hollywood films. Wars are ugly things and they kill people on both sides. They never solve the problems. If you want to beat China, all you have to do is grow your economy. Create jobs for the middle class people. When they have buying power, they will buy homes and cars and other things. Business will proliferate. If you want to defeat China, stop using your tax money on wars. The only people who benefit from wars are huge oil corporations. There is no development in education and welfare sectors. Stop pushing wars on other nations. You will be good in few decades. OK?

        January 6, 2012 at 9:28 am |
  11. augustghost

    Are two wars too much? Why not ask the two idiots that started them under false pretenses and flat out lies to the American public...Bush and Cheney........the brainless chimp and satan

    January 6, 2012 at 12:03 am | Reply
  12. Bman

    F the military, F the cops, the military is a giant distortion to our politics and our economy. The only thing they do is make people hate us. If we had an economy, we wouldn't need to send our youths overseas.

    January 5, 2012 at 11:40 pm | Reply
  13. Zoglet

    The US could fight two wars simultaneously, but why would it want too?
    1 in 4 Americans on food stamps and the USG are playing cowboys around the world? Shameful priorities. Shameful.

    January 5, 2012 at 11:35 pm | Reply
  14. Alfred H

    Besides if the Iranian government dares to launch an attack on a U.S. aircraft carrier, the U.S. is just gonna hand a job over the Chinese let them do it since the U.S. is still in recovery towards getting the country's economy running and they can't risk another war. Chinese would love to do the job they have all of they'll high tech military equipment already and everything might as well put them to the test against Iran since the Chinese couldn't find a place in their country to test out they're high tech weapons. President Hu Jintao pissed off at president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad already he's gonna wanna wipe Mahmoud out.

    January 5, 2012 at 11:27 pm | Reply
  15. Brian

    Let's inject a few facts into the discussion. Everyone loves to talk about total US military expenditures, while forgetting that we also have the largest GDP in the world. In other words, we MAKE a lot more money than every other country, so it makes sense for us to SPEND a lot more.
    Below are the 5 countries with the highest military spending as a percentage of GDP:

    1. Saudi Arabia – 10.4%
    2. Israel – 6.5%
    3. Iraq – 6.0%
    4. UAE – 5.4%
    5. Jordan – 5.2%
    Source: SIPRI

    To understand this list, you also have to consider that countries like North Korea and China do not disclose their actual spending. Both would likely be at the top.

    The US falls at #6, with 4.8% of GDP spent on Defense. Russia is #10 with 4%.

    Now, here's another interesting statistic, since we're talking about % of GDP.


    That's the percentage of GDP the US spends on publicly funded entitlement programs like Social Security and Medicare.

    January 5, 2012 at 10:55 pm | Reply
    • Peacemaker

      Would you please shed some light on the number of people who lost jobs, businesses, homes and entire life's savings in recent years? You think the Occupy wall Street movement is a joke. We only have a huge economy to benefit our 1 5, our politicians and huge corporation and lots of money to squander on warmongering but little for the 99% of US population.

      January 5, 2012 at 11:23 pm | Reply
      • Brian

        Would you please shed some light on the number of people who lost jobs, businesses, homes and entire life's savings in recent years? You think the Occupy wall Street movement is a joke. We only have a huge economy to benefit our 1 5, our politicians and huge corporation and lots of money to squander on warmongering but little for the 99% of US population.

        I don't recall saying anything about Occupy Wall Street. I guess, since the only thing I wrote that is marginally related was the 21% entitlement fact, you equate the goals of Occupy Wall Street with increasing spending on entitlement? I don't really think most people involved in the movement would agree with that notion.
        In any event, you want to talk about 1%? Here's a fact about 1%. The top 1% of the world makes less than $40K per person per year. Guess what, that means a majority of America is actually "the 1%" of the world.
        And what crazy world do you come from where you don't think the US economy benefits the "99%" of Americans?
        I understand and appreciate the plight of the middle class and the goals of the Occupy movement, but try to understand the facts and the real situation before you start posting.

        January 5, 2012 at 11:29 pm |
      • Frangible

        You are right, the economy sucks. And too many have no jobs. Greed from the banking section caused significant harm to not only America but the rest of the world. And yet there have been no arrests.

        But military cuts cannot change that. The effect military cuts will have is you will see soldiers, airmen, marines, lose their jobs. And in turn cause losses in defense contractor plant workers, managers, engineers, scientists, service companies, steel manufacturers, etc.

        So now all those people are also without jobs. And they cannot pay taxes, because they have no income. So as a result, the loss in tax revenue actually exceeds the cost of what the government was spending to keep them all employed in the first place.

        Meanwhile, your friends in the banking industry foreclose on their homes, their businesses, their vehicles. You will see divorces, suicides. The bankers profit from the misfortune of others, which ironically they caused in the first place.

        Yeah, maybe there's a lot of stuff the government and military do wrong. But there's a lot of things they do right, and giving a lot of people jobs in a time where there aren't many others to get and funding research and technology to make sure we can have jobs in the future is not something we should give up so easily.

        January 6, 2012 at 4:46 pm |
    • ddblah

      You should add Palestine to make it sound even better.

      Which one of the five is a major economy? Shall I say "none"?

      January 5, 2012 at 11:41 pm | Reply
      • Brian

        Top 3 countries by GDP:
        1. USA
        2. China
        3. Japan

        China doesn't report its military spending. Japan is largely forbidden to equip a real military beyond a small "self-defense" force.

        January 5, 2012 at 11:49 pm |
    • Peacemaker

      What I am trying to say is that wise nations (and biggest growing economies ) like China and India do not waste money on senseless and endless wars that can't be won. Their economies are growing because they spend their money on education. All the investors are outsourcing to these two countries. Our people are losing jobs, and small businesses and this goes all the way up. Compare USA with these countries instead of UAE.

      January 6, 2012 at 9:39 am | Reply
  16. dfugff

    I just don't get why the actions of our government has to risk the lives of our citizens if something does ever happen; we didn't ask for the wars, so why let it effect us? Our government alone is what's going to bring the whole country downhill

    January 5, 2012 at 10:35 pm | Reply
    • Brian

      That's a good policy. I'm pretty sure that's what the French said to each other right before Hitler came knocking.

      January 5, 2012 at 10:57 pm | Reply
      • ddblah

        Brain, I think a sensible policy is to maintain a decent size military, that is agile and flexible. The old cold war has gone for a while and, IMHO, it does not look like that we are heading towards one any time soon (thank goodness).
        Are there any risks? Absolutely! But, don't we have risk by just living, I mean, hit by cars, etc.
        The question are always, 1) can we manage the risk and 2) can we build up quickly?
        To the first, major military powers in the world are not looking for a fight. Rather, their focus has been their economy. However, I totally agree that we still need a superior military power for deterrence. With our allies that are also strong military powers, whereas our (potential) adversaries (Russia and China) are trying to catch up, the balance is rather clear.
        To the second, it is vital to invest in research and development of advanced weapon systems. That is the key to the whole draw down. In other words, while we should draw done the size of military, we should make our military more lethal. If we have the advanced weapon system (drones, stealth planes, anti-missile system, etc.), we can build up rather quickly.

        January 6, 2012 at 12:03 am |
  17. devilish

    To all posters. The U.S. runs on a war economy just as the Romans. We are just gearing up for another fight and it does not matter who. So live with it as long as you are allowed to.

    January 5, 2012 at 9:25 pm | Reply
    • Frangible

      If we're like Rome, why don't I have any slaves, orgies, or see any real gladiator matches? And why are there no crucifixions lining the road? I don't know what Rome you're thinking of, but it's clearly missing all the awesome parts.

      January 5, 2012 at 10:30 pm | Reply
    • ddblah

      That's because you probably have no idea that our military budget is about 5% of our GDP.

      January 6, 2012 at 12:06 am | Reply
  18. Blah

    I can't believe some of the antagonistic ignorance you disrespectful clowns seem to be perfectly okay with expressing to complete strangers on here. And people wonder why other countries hate the United States... Gee, I wonder why?

    First, we have idiot 1 stating that we are some sort of "wave your balls at everyone else" nation that can topple anyone and everything with a push of some magical button that launches some secret cache of missiles capable of destroying our solar system... Then we have idiot 2 blabbing on and on about how the world is about to fall into another World War just because a single individual (a president, for example) said a single word or removed something from some piece of legalizing paperwork. Next, we have idiot 3 constantly going on and on ad nauseum about how cutting our military budget will somehow fix everything and that we shouldn't be slapping other nations' hands despite the fact that every country we've been occupying for the past 8 to 10 years was guilty for things ranging from forced child prostitution to torture, and yes, on a daily basis.

    To start with, nobody on this stupid website has any clue about the number of nuclear missiles we (or any other country) has at their beck and call. Stop embarrassing yourselves by making fantastical claims about how "if China does this, then we'll do that" when probably all of you get your intelligence from Wikipedia. It really makes you look stupid.

    China, despite being the only real competitor worth worrying about in today's world, wants about as much to do with a war with us as we do with them. We're the real leaders of today's world (well, us and Russia, too.) So be at least a little realistic about all this and understand that our entire economy now is not just involved with these other nations... It's DEPENDENT on them. Nobody can afford a war of that scale. The fallout alone would bankrupt probably anyone stupid enough to get involved in such a debacle.

    Oh, and as a favor to a fellow American who actually has *some* good intentions toward others as well as handful of pride left to his name, could you PLEASE stop making yourselves appear to be the very ass clown tools other nations label us as being? The very last thing I want in my life is more violence. I hardly have a stable career in this horrible world, and that's with a college degree and a 4.0 GPA... So when you post retarded comments that do nothing but antagonize other countries' people and military channels, well, it increases the likelihood that I'll be pushed into even more dire experiences. So grow the hell up already and act like what a real American should act like. Promote peace, stop with the website idiocy, and more than anything, show some fucking respect for other people outside the United States.

    We have to start remembering that Americans are not the only people looking at these websites. It's okay to have confidence for the home team but try to re-factor your mindsets and conventions to express good and well-rounded ideas. This will help foreign relations and increase the likelihood that we'll all come out on top. Sounds pretty good, right?

    We no longer have the luxury to go half-cocked into some foreign land whereby we then expect everything to turn out okay after a bunch of bombs destroy everything. After all, it's not just another country's military we'll be hurting. Also, who's to say that one day we might not be attacked? Nobody wants any of this. This isn't some Hollywood movie. This is real life.

    Drastic situations have arrived. We all must learn to coexist, be helpful instead of vengeful. Love thy brother and stop this bullshit insanity. If "common sense" doesn't convince you of this (assuming that even exists or if it ever did), surely the atrocities you can see on the internet will. Be my guest to go Google them. If you search right, you'll come across crap nobody should see...

    This is why we need to stop this crap. It's getting out of control.

    January 5, 2012 at 9:21 pm | Reply
    • wavejump1100

      blah i love your comment. i am often embarrassed to be an american because of the idiotic comments posted here. what you say is so true

      January 5, 2012 at 10:23 pm | Reply
    • Frangible

      Maybe you should put down your Dubya protest sign and stop being a whiny liberal, and realize that in fact, other countries do not hate America, and are filled with individuals with their own opinions who are more alike us than they are different. You are merely projecting your own opinions onto others, and devaluing them as individuals. Don't believe me? Go check it yourself. Google some polls, America is not especially reviled. And even Americans themselves are having more favorable opinions of France. Aww, how cute.

      January 5, 2012 at 10:26 pm | Reply
      • AugustusCaesar

        Frangible, your comment is exactly what Blah is talking about. Firstly, where on earth did you get the impression that anything Blah said was anti-Bush? And why should it matter what political ideology he has? People like you are the reason everything is so effed up in Washington right now. Stop thinking along strict, narrow-minded party lines and start expanding your views to suit YOUR beliefs, not the beliefs of others. And if you reply to this saying you do not, read the first sentence of your origional reply to Blah. People have different viewpoints than you do, so stop labeling them for it. It does not make them bad if they have different opinions. Secondly, Our country in fact IS hated by much of the world. Not all of it, obviously, but a good chunk of it. We have (unfortunatley) stuck out noses in almost everyones buisness at some point or another. I will not go into detail now because if I do this post will be too long to read. Please, for the sake of others, sit back and think a bit about what you said to Blah. It should come across as uncalled for and hipocritical as well as the exact opposite of what he was preaching. Good day.

        January 5, 2012 at 10:57 pm |
      • Rob Hannigan

        You are the wrench that screws progress up from moving on stop being a coward and start being an American.

        January 6, 2012 at 2:01 pm |
      • Frangible

        Go Google world opinion polls about the US.

        You are wrong. Period.

        You have delusions, hate-filled beliefs not backed by science or objective fact. You have invented a fantasy, a delusion, and even when confronted with facts refuse to see. Maybe instead of believing in something that doesn't exist and getting angry when someone calls you on it, you could go gather facts, objective data, and base your conclusions off of what the scientific method supports.

        I have plenty of non-American friends. None of them "hate America" or "hate Americans." It is a paranoid delusion to think everyone in another country hates you. Especially when they get asked in a poll and SAY THEY DON'T. But who cares what they think, huh? Only your opinion matters?

        January 6, 2012 at 4:34 pm |

      AMEN!!! Thanks God there are people like you!!!

      January 5, 2012 at 10:45 pm | Reply
    • Ed

      For years the USA has had a bad reputation for being an arrogant, aggressive nation that most of the world hated until President Obama was elected. When he was elected, the WORLD embraced him as the leader of the USA. Because of the Republican opposition at every turn, he hasn't been able to accomplish what he wanted to do. It's way time that we started to change our emphasis from trying to impose our philosophy of government, which won't work in some parts of the world, to trying to understand their cultures and governments. ALSO remember that what our former President G. W. Bush got us (8 years of Republican rule) into this mess economically with irresponsible banking practices and globally by attacking Iraq with false information of their having weapons of mass destruction. After 3 years of the Obama administration we are finally seeing an economic and job growth recovery. I'm sure while the interest rates remain low the housing markets will recover as well. What took 8 years of Bush destruction will take a little more than 3 years of Obama recovery. Don't forget what the Republicans got us into!

      January 5, 2012 at 11:01 pm | Reply
    • ddblah

      Very well said. USA is hopeful because of clear minds like you!

      January 6, 2012 at 12:15 am | Reply
  19. Rob Hannigan

    Hold on wait one second. Sense when has being able to wage 2 wars become more important than winning a war? America needs to rope herself in before what happened to Rome happens to the US. Right now America is like jam spread over to much bread Bilbo quote from fellowship of the ring. An that's what we have become. The world is the bread the US the jam.
    What America needs to do is make this country strong defensively. Put troops coming home down to and up to our nations borders. Don't forget Canada things get smuggled from them just as much from Mexico.
    America for the next few years should wait for something to actually happen before acting. That's what happened in ww1and ww2.

    January 5, 2012 at 9:14 pm | Reply
  20. Isabel

    One war is too much.

    January 5, 2012 at 9:00 pm | Reply
  21. Jonathan Pollard the traitor zionist spy

    This story isn't so bad.

    Yep. I'm going to keep my mouth shut and stay bull simple stupid.

    The zionists like us stupid.

    Yep, we do the fighting and dying and the zioinists lounge around and spend our money (tax dollars).


    January 5, 2012 at 8:07 pm | Reply
  22. Bill

    Two wars, along with troops in Germany, Bosnia, Korea, Afghanistan and who knows where else. No wonder this country is going broke.

    January 5, 2012 at 7:56 pm | Reply
  23. Jack Mehov

    While I believe in a strong military, one only has to drive through MacDill Air Force base to see that substantial cuts can occur to bloated bureaucracy that would not have an effect on the actual soldiers fighting the war. Look at the obnoxious growth in the Government civilian work force within the DOD structure. The Defense Intelligence Agency is probably the biggest culprit. Some will tell you that that growth is 'needed' to protect the soldiers overseas, when I argue the majority of the soldiers overseas rightfully ignore DIA provided assessments from Central Command and Washington DC. The structure itself is comic, at least at MacDill. How many General Officer level civilians are needed to run the analytic effort? Currently there are at least 3 if not 4...In 2006, there was one. When DIA deploys, the amount of pay their analysts make is almostly comicly high. Even though they have no more responsibility, and often less ability, than their military and even contractor counterparts, they make considerably more money than even their contractor counterparts. They bill to the hour, get danger pay on top of it, and then bonus upon return. How much of this worthless garbage can be either completely cut or at least cutback? What savings would there be? Even if these organizations were cutback, I bet there would be no impact on troops...

    January 5, 2012 at 7:15 pm | Reply
    • psychologist

      Are you from Mars, telling some Martian news?

      January 5, 2012 at 7:34 pm | Reply
    • Jonathan Pollard the traitor zionist spy

      This story isn't so bad.

      Heck, I'm going to give all my money to the banks and I am going to stay stupid so the dirty evil zionists will like me. I won't complain when the evil zionist spy agency, AIPAC, bribes Congress into declaring war right after the zionists launch another 9-11 event (navy ship sinking) to sic my children in the U.S. Armed Forces to wage war on Iran.

      Yep! No worries . . . even if I am out of work, like the rest of the people in my town. And getting roughed up by the cops when they're looking for drugs (failed war on drugs), and more and more people I know don't trust the government.

      Yep. Just going to keep my mouth shut and stay bull simple stupid.

      The zionists like us stupid.

      Yep, we do the fighting and dying and the zioinists lounge around and spend our money (tax dollars).


      Jonathan Pollard the traitor zionist spy

      January 5, 2012 at 8:05 pm | Reply
    • Frangible

      Technical and analytical skills are valuable. The going rate for iPhone app development is $150 / hour. Those analysts work cheap. They could be making

      January 5, 2012 at 10:15 pm | Reply
  24. Stephen

    To me if Americans want to bankrupt themselves like the Soviet union did by overextending themselves, then the result will be the same which is not good. BECAUSE for sure then China will be in the drivers seat economically, which is how the US won the cold war.

    January 5, 2012 at 6:49 pm | Reply
    • Jim

      One war should be to much for the United States

      January 5, 2012 at 7:10 pm | Reply
    • huynhminhtri

      It's not about guns & bombs , my friend .
      It's not about bankcruptcy story for America , also .
      Look at the big picture for economy , society , military , life style ......etc
      Russia didn't have Knox gold vault & Dollars as America , so they die naturally .
      America superpower is still dominate the world for the next century , don't worry , be happy .... trust me,please !

      January 5, 2012 at 7:15 pm | Reply
      • Frangible

        Gold? How quaint.

        Russia has tremendous production reactor capability and produces a very large number of commercial isotopes.

        When Nobel laureate Marie Curie visited America in 1927, she was given a gift of a single gram of pure radium.

        In today's dollars, that gift was worth $1,300,000. Gold is today worth $50/gram. That's 26,000 times more valuable. Even tritium is worth $20,000/gram.

        I don't think Russia has much to worry about with regards to precious metals.

        January 5, 2012 at 10:09 pm |
    • psychologist

      Would your enemy lend to you? What is the logic of labeling China as a prime enemy when it is US's major lender and major supplier of affordable goods, and a major growth market for US-based multinational?

      January 5, 2012 at 7:37 pm | Reply
      • Frangible

        Yes, your enemy would lend to you. Also see: banking deregulation, recession, collapse of housing market, subprime mortgages, illegal foreclosure, lender scandal, Wall Street, economic collapse.

        Such nice, friendly guys.

        January 5, 2012 at 10:12 pm |
  25. jim

    sad to think how much $ and loss of life was spent in Iraq for a completely unjustifed war. Bush should be tried as war criminals,

    Justification – weapons of mass destruction Result – a completely destabilized country

    January 5, 2012 at 6:41 pm | Reply
    • Jack Mehov

      Jim – Don't forget an axis from Tehran to Damascus as the new Iraq is clearly a friend to Iran...

      January 5, 2012 at 7:16 pm | Reply
  26. AC Press

    Even if fought with wrong premise, all mistakes would be forgotten if we had won the wars without so much sufferings and casualties and with economic-geopolitical advantage. Too many of our men died and wounded. The wars have bankrupted the Western Civilization and created China as our economic Master. In Iraq we replaced a Sunni anti-Iran government with a Shia, pro-Iran regime. We netted nothing from these wars except wounds. It will take at least a decade for us to recover and that is assuming that the rest of the world would just stay put.

    January 5, 2012 at 6:22 pm | Reply
  27. pmc123

    Listen folks..and be real. We have enough nuclear weapons already to end life as we know it on this planet. In any future conventional war if we were losing we'd likely use them and they'd use theirs. Problem solved/world ended. It's called MAD – Mutually Assured Destruction. Making it unthinkable for an enemy to conceive of taking over another country.. the losses would be catastrophic.

    It worked in the 80's...and it will still work now.

    January 5, 2012 at 5:39 pm | Reply
    • Andy

      MAD works in a sense certainly and the US still has the abilty to blow up the world should say China give it a bloody nose in a war....... shame about all the other countries around the globe that would also suffer the consequences of MAD even though they themselves might not have taken part in the initial engagement.

      January 5, 2012 at 5:52 pm | Reply
    • Frangible

      Unfortunately, we no longer can nuke the entire world. We can't even take out most of China. We no longer have MIRVs and our largest nukes are 330kt max yields, less than 1% of the power of Russia's Tsar Bomba. Deterrent against one country at most, maybe. Most of our launch capability is silo-based and immobile meaning they would all be destroyed in a first strike, leaving us with only pew-pew SLBMs for not quite-so-mutually-assured anything. We certainly can't afford any more "disarmament treaties."

      Our Minuteman missiles also have 40-year old computers that have been sucking neutron radiation in a hole in the ground and are basically giant spinning floppy disks. What percent of them would actually work still? We can't even make new tritium to maintain existing inventories. Or medical isotopes. Or anything else we could make when we were actually ahead of France in nuclear research back in the day. All of the great atomic scientists we had are dead.

      January 5, 2012 at 6:20 pm | Reply
      • jimmer

        and our subs carry............?

        January 5, 2012 at 8:12 pm |
      • Frangible

        Our subs carry the previously mention SLBMs, Trident IIs to be exact, which we also gave away to the UK in exchange for them humorously paying 5% of the R&D costs. They used to be MIRVs but have since been converted to a single warhead, as a certain president got a little dismantle happy in 2005 even though not bound to do so in a treaty.

        In fact, we actually have a more recently treaty with Russia specifically based around them keeping MIRVs because they are more economical to maintain the same level of force with.

        Russia has about double our nuclear capability, with ~3x larger warheads and MIRVs, and an active ballistic missile defense system protecting good ol' Mockba. Lasers? Particle beams from space? No, the Russians stick to reliable basics, as nothing beats a nuclear missile for destroying a nuclear missile.

        Ironically, the Soyuz rocket our manned space program is now based upon getting rides in was originally designed as an ICBM and pointed at us. In the end, we are actually dependent upon the very rockets we wanted them to stop making. Bet no one saw that coming in 1960.

        January 5, 2012 at 9:37 pm |
    • AC Press

      No one wants to take over America but we would not be able to use them or their resources for cheap as we have been doing for decades. How many cardiologists do you have in your family?

      January 5, 2012 at 6:27 pm | Reply
  28. william

    How did we ever allow this to happen? Maybe we should just raise the tax rate to 90% so we can have all the wars our poor little leaders want.

    January 5, 2012 at 5:12 pm | Reply
  29. John

    Is this our President's way of saying that the US will no longer assume the role of Wold Policeman? In the current economy, we can't really afford it. If US companies choose to move their work force off-shore, they shouldn't count on the US Government to spend billions keeping those countries stable. Maybe it's time that we focus on our own needs, rebuild our own infrastructure, and make this country great again. Maybe it's time for us to start using our own resources and stop importing what we already have here in abundance. Or better yet, put the millions of acres of farm land in this country producing renewable fuels from corn and wheat. And If the key is a smaller military, then put that military to use here in the USA protecting our borders rather than be off defending other nations most of us have never heard of. This self-imposed, World Policeman role has few returns and giant price tags to the US tax payers.

    January 5, 2012 at 5:05 pm | Reply
    • leradron

      i'm going to go out on a limb and say that most of us have heard of iraq and afghanistan...

      January 5, 2012 at 6:02 pm | Reply
    • Bobbym007

      JOHN you just scored BINGO in my book you are exactly correct by saying, the US taxpayer is footing the bill for all the protection that our govt GLADLY gives BIG BUSINESS in the form of world policeman,and we ask nothing in return ARE WE A NATION of humanitarians.OH and in NY state our GOV Cuomo decides that NY does not care to protect the taxpayers money by allowing the welfare cheats to go UNFINGERPRINTED.what am I working for we have all these wonderful tools like DNA and Fingerprinting and they pick and choose WHO and what race they use it on can you imagine we pay taxes and they allow my tax dollars to be stolen and its OK cause the people that steal from welfare don't have money of there own so allow them to steal from those who pay taxes.??????" That put me over the hump I'M Officially SICK of NY and the welfare mentality theres no work here anyway and the construction jobs are miserible there are more people being paid to watch you work then actually work and guess whos watching all the minorities.thats who all under the disguize of safety what bull. another WASTE of MONEY and the main reason I retired.just too much bull and klingons.

      January 5, 2012 at 6:23 pm | Reply
  30. Duklips

    Two wars? Why not three? Hell, get rid of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, spend it all on the military, draft everyone from 17 to 40 and send 'em out to die, allegedly to "defendi our freedom".

    January 5, 2012 at 4:54 pm | Reply
    • markishere

      That's more believable for the war machine known as the US.

      January 5, 2012 at 5:15 pm | Reply
  31. cedaly1968

    At the end of WWII the European Community was formed as a means to prevent a future war on the European continent. The theory was to bind together the economies of Germany and France to such a degree that for one to attack the other would be equivalent to attacking yourself. Can someone please explain to me in very clear terms, what benefit would China receive for EVER attacking the United States of America? We imported $365 billion from China last year out of a total GDP of $5.8 trillion. That's a pretty big knock to their economy. So now China attacks the US and another $300+ billion that is exported to our allies is cut off. The only remaining question is will the $250 billion in exports to Hong Kong continue (meaning we would have to shut off HK access to global markets). In all – you're talking about a $1 trillion gamble, not to mention that if you don't nuke us, we're going to kick your rear end. On top of all of that, most Chinese like the US. I really, really, really don't see China as a threat. The two war front model is no longer necessary.

    January 5, 2012 at 4:40 pm | Reply
    • freedom over all

      Well put. I agree with you 100%. However, politics in the U.S. will always dictate that our military be strong enough to take out the next strongest military - handily. Even though China is not a logical threat (except to the old timers still stuck in the Cold War), it's the closest thing we got and therefore its the bar by which our forces are measured.

      January 5, 2012 at 4:55 pm | Reply
  32. Ryan

    "'It's a ticket to World War III,' warns James Carafano of the Heritage Foundation. 'It is the worst idea ever.'"


    I'll take "Fear Mongering" for $100 Alex!

    January 5, 2012 at 4:35 pm | Reply
  33. ..a laurel and hardy handshake..............

    Stan, let me tell them, please:
    BUT DUBYA BLUNDERED and now the gop says THAT HE DID NOT !
    Thanks for claifying the BLUNDER part, Stan.

    January 5, 2012 at 4:29 pm | Reply
    • cp in pa

      well in the case of the Germans who didnt have the resources I agree except in the case of the US in WW2 who did fight a war on 2 fronts and prevailed. Problem is its no longer the same thing. No longer large armies being fielded against each other. Tactics have to change.

      January 5, 2012 at 4:39 pm | Reply
  34. Rick Keller

    What 17 countries exactly?

    All it will do is create a situation where Americans will have to be drafted. and that will further weaken our internal defenses.

    January 5, 2012 at 4:28 pm | Reply
    • freedom over all

      The 17 countries referred to are the #2 through #18 ranked countries in the world in military spending (i.e. China, U.K., Russia, etc.). Yeah our defense budget is bigger than the 17 biggest military powers in the world put together. A major point in this article is that new wars don't need so many troops, they use air and missile attacks - the chances of a draft won't increase much if we accept how warfare has changed. One out of every $4-5 dollars spent by our government is on the military. Even a small cut there can quickly slash the deficit, and/or lower taxes while allowing our country to continue investing on education and the quality research resulting from it (including the research that keeps our military so technologically advanced).

      January 5, 2012 at 4:48 pm | Reply
  35. Frangible

    Obama's right. The only thing we really need for defense anyway against Kremlin Joe and his ChiCom buddies are GIANT NUCLEAR MISSILES. Infantry is no longer relevant. Chemical explosives are a pathetic waste of money. Obviously nuclear weapons don't cause permanent contamination as Hiroshima and Nagasaki are fine now, and global warming almost makes you wish for a nuclear winter anyway.

    The problem is we have delusions about what war is not– we think it can be pretty, fun, clean, or heroic. Wrong.

    War is a last-ditch fight for survival, when all other efforts have failed, with the goal of killing as many people as possible. Men, women, children, soldiers, civilians. And even their little dog, too. The total annihilation of your enemy. If the situation is anything less than that, you should not be at war. Because in the end, you will give up and retreat when the reality of war confronts you. Vietnam. Korea. Iraq. Afghanistan. We withdrew in all these and failed to win because it was not a fight for our survival.

    But Obama is also wrong. Defense spending is one of the most effective forms of economic stimulus there is. This will collapse the economy, not strengthen it. It is one of the few domestic industries we have left; one that has not been sold out to China as all others have by those who would trade America's future for short-term profit. Where are these soldiers supposed to get jobs with high unemployment? The defense contractors, engineers, plant workers? This is a mistake.

    January 5, 2012 at 4:16 pm | Reply
    • Patriot

      pockets chinas economy has been second largest since the 1800s and they got smoked by japan your opinion is just that an opinion china will always be just a cheap immitation of the us god bless america

      January 5, 2012 at 4:36 pm | Reply
  36. Steve Powell

    Folks seem to believe that forces on the ground are not important. In my opinion only ground troops can hold space. You cannot win with firepower superiority alone. There may be conflicts in the future where American soliders may have to occupy a piece of ground. Stating that large land conflicts are a thing of the past is about as silly as stating there will never be another depression or bank crisis.

    Here is a case study. Lets say Yemen falls apart and is taken over by radicals. Radical terrorist groups have safe haven and pull off a 9/11 equivalent attack against the United States. We want to punish them but Yemen says byte me. I am sure dropping bombs can put most of the population into the stone age. Then what? The bad guys are still there until you go in and get them. We were fortunate in Bosnia(Muslim and Croat miilia), Afganistan(Northern Alliance) and even Libya that there was a proxy force that could occupy space while we just supplied the firepower. We might not be so lucky next time. If there is a conflict with Iran and we feel we have to go into Iran to get someone there is no seperatist force to do our dirty work.

    January 5, 2012 at 4:11 pm | Reply
    • Jason K

      You are correct, except that there was no need for US soldiers to be in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Bosnia, Libya, Afghanistan, Pakistan, etc. Unless there is a pre-emptive attack or planned attack against the US, there is ONE solitary place for our soldiers, US territories. We are doing what Great Britain once did. They said the sun never set on the British Empire. Well, this too has come to pass. The US Empire is drawing to an end. I can come gracefully, or to a screeching halt. Your decision this November. And those of you that don't vote at all have no right to complain.

      January 5, 2012 at 4:53 pm | Reply
  37. Jason K

    "For some, when it comes to the U.S. military, the policy has been right up there with Mom, the flag and apple pie"

    My mother is a paranoid schizophrenic
    The flag has changed its look many times over the history of our country
    Not everyone likes apple pie.

    Conclusion, changing this policy is not the end of the world. Land and troop military bases are not needed like they once were with Naval and Air Supremecy. Wars are fought with the push of a button. We can cut TONs of money and not damage our defensive posture at all. Carriers and subs are all over the world right now and can strike anywhere within 30 minutes of the order. We can cut a few hundred off the 700+ foreign military bases we have. I don't think we need to worry about an uprising in Ecuador. We could stop any missile attack on us from the air or even orbit with defense satillites. However, if we keep spending like we are, we won't be able to afford to defend ourselves.

    January 5, 2012 at 4:07 pm | Reply
    • Wade

      If you truly want to save money, instead of cutting back our military how about we stop paying to rebuild the countries that we go to war with.. To me that is insane.. We should not go in and blow something up just to pay them to rebuild it better than it was.. We would save billions on that alone..

      January 5, 2012 at 5:22 pm | Reply
      • Andy

        Of course the other alternative is to not go into other countries and blow them to hell and back for dubious reasons as well.....don't do that and there is no need to spend money and effort in rebuilding.

        January 5, 2012 at 5:56 pm |
  38. Angel

    prettty funny how the words "war" and "world peace" are used in the same sentence... got oxymoron?

    January 5, 2012 at 4:03 pm | Reply
  39. rick santorumtwit... America's favorite frothy one

    Rick Santorum would have us in another war quicker than you can say "bung hole foam".

    January 5, 2012 at 3:56 pm | Reply
    • Jason K it foamy?

      I kinda figured it would be semi-translucent brown and slimy. Kinda like a really nasty lugie when you're sick.

      January 5, 2012 at 4:08 pm | Reply
  40. Michael

    Britain once had a doctrine of having the Royal Navy atleast twice the size of the next two Naval powers combined. Once the UK declined to a point where it could not afford this (or more correctly other nations caught up with Britain) other nations felt confident enough to threaten British leadership. The consequences of British relative decline was 2 world wars and global upheaval with the USA emerging dominant.

    Ultimately the world could be heading for a similar time with China in particular challenging US dominance. The relative decline of US military spending in comparison to China will only serve to make them bolder. The United States is in the last chance saloon and time to turn this all around both economically and militarily is running out. The loss of US dominance will lead not to a world war (nuclear weapons are scary for all peoples and leaders), but wars by proxy around the globe ( in Africa, Middle East and maybe South America) for world rescources. Uncertain times are ahead.

    January 5, 2012 at 3:53 pm | Reply
    • ddblah

      Yes, this was a hard lesson.
      However, you should also realize how much the world has changed since then. More importantly, how much the world has benefited from the prolonged peace after WWII.
      You can also see clear contrasts. Those involved in wars, India, Pakistan, Iraq, Iran, Vietnam, are in much worse shape than everybody else. if this is not clear enough, we still have the strongest military and will remain so for the foreseeable future.

      January 6, 2012 at 12:21 am | Reply
  41. What


    January 5, 2012 at 3:47 pm | Reply
  42. Fug Xu

    Beware the Red Chinese Commie propagandist at work here.

    January 5, 2012 at 3:35 pm | Reply
    • ddblah

      You mean Ron Paul?

      January 6, 2012 at 12:22 am | Reply
    • choco monsters

      Yup,lots of Tom, Rick, and Harry's who are really Ching, CHang and Chongs.

      January 6, 2012 at 4:53 am | Reply
  43. fred

    I have always felt the REAL plan was to have America take over Iraq AND Afghanistan (which we did) and squeeze IRAN in the middle of a two-front war they coulod never win. We'd blow Iran to HeLL where they belong. Bush screwed up the plan by moving the wars along MUCH too slowly adn trying to "build democracies" in countries that don't even get democracy and don't want it, and now Obama KILLED the plan by pulling out altogether. The Great Kill-Iran Plan is now dead and can never be tried again. What a waste of money, lives and American economic power over the last 10 years.

    January 5, 2012 at 3:30 pm | Reply
    • Mrs.Fizzy

      Riiiigghht...because "killing Iran" would have been a breeze..? No more loss of American life, money, etc.?

      January 5, 2012 at 3:37 pm | Reply
      • Jason K

        It would if we still bombed like we did back in Nam. Instead we spend 30x more on a single missile piloted by a drone that makes sure all the falls fall inward to minimize collateral damage. A day later, we realize we bombed Ahmed and his family out on a sunday drive.

        We spend unnecessary money trying to fight clean. Thinking that if we kill the "terrorists" (read: freedom fighters in what ever country they came from) they will somehow like us more than if we carpet bombed a few thousand acres with cheap effective napalm for the same price.

        January 5, 2012 at 4:13 pm |
    • Hodge

      You dare/care to explain just why they "belong" in hell??? I think you've failed to wrap your head around the contributions Iranian-Americans have made in our OWN society! Od course, you strike me as the type so set in your ways as is, you'd most likely just quickly deny and dismiss them anyway!

      January 5, 2012 at 3:42 pm | Reply
  44. woodofpine

    Has anyone picked up on the fact that huge armies are not how war is conducted in th 21st century and hasn't been for about 50 years.

    January 5, 2012 at 3:27 pm | Reply
  45. What_the_hellZ!!

    cut back on the military = save money= less debt... 13 trillion annually is pretty amazing if you have no debt

    January 5, 2012 at 3:23 pm | Reply
  46. JOE


    The former Soviet Union dare not mess with our nuclear might yet you thing NK is a threat to us? You're joking right?Let's face it, America out numbers Russis, NK and China combined in nuclear warheads, conventional and nuclear submarines, bombers, fighter jets, air craft carriers and artilery. They may out number us in terms of the size of their arm forces. But they're no match for us. Not even close! Furthermore, one nuclear warhead on any of our 30 plus nuclear Trident submarines can destroy the world one thousand times over. That is whay we don't have to fear reducing the size of our miliraty. We are second to none!

    January 5, 2012 at 3:23 pm | Reply
    • ken

      Must be a pretty big nuke to destroy the world that many times over. Regardless the nuclear option is not a option in the brush wars we are involved in. If they want to cut back on military spending they need to remove contractors from the DOD. They are bleeding us dry. And you can't report it to the IG or you will loose your job. We have contractors in controll of US government funds paying themselves and other contractors off where I'm at in the UK. They even make more work for themselves to get more money.

      January 5, 2012 at 4:01 pm | Reply
    • Jason K

      1 warhead huh? Did we replace nukes with some sort of transphasic-quantum-hyper-nova-photon torpedo? I'm pretty sure the high yield ICBMs can level a small country like say England in one shot, but not the entire world.

      January 5, 2012 at 4:18 pm | Reply
      • Darth Vader

        No, he refers to the Death Star. You lack of faith is disturing.

        January 5, 2012 at 4:33 pm |
      • Michael

        A high yield ICBM could only level a large city like New York.

        January 5, 2012 at 4:35 pm |
      • Jason K

        @ Michael

        My bad, even I thought they were a bigger payload than they actually are.

        As for the death star comment, with our military spending at what it is we should have one. A fleet of star destroyers at the very least.

        January 5, 2012 at 4:56 pm |
    • Tony

      while we might be able to turn North Korea into a radioactive crater, the issue is that in the five minutes it took for the president to finish shaking his junk and go to his desk to approve the use of nukes, North Korea could use its sizable (understatement) arty to level Seoul. When thats all said and done, South Korea loses its capital and the world loses a Majore population center and we'll have 1 million dead north korean soldiers and several times that number of dead men, women, and children the comprise the poor commonor-class of North Korea. Not exactly a pat-on-the-back situation.

      January 5, 2012 at 10:11 pm | Reply
      • ddblah

        I see. Your main concern is South Korea. I wouldn't say it's their responsibility, but I will say this. If NK levels Seoul, they would expect a few goodies to fall from sky that calls for, likely, annihilation.
        The Kim's are crazy. But I don't think they are so dumb.

        January 6, 2012 at 12:29 am |
  47. aurelius1947

    Iraq and Afghanistan were just warm up sessions for US forces. The real test will come when we invade Iran.

    January 5, 2012 at 3:17 pm | Reply
    • woodofpine

      Invade Iran – with a huge population and difficult terrain! Huge mistake – it would be like the Balkans were for Hitler. We may get into a shoot up and reactor bomb down with them but invasion – nope.

      January 5, 2012 at 3:22 pm | Reply
      • Muffler

        We will be welcomed as heros in Iran and treated to ice cream sundaes.

        January 5, 2012 at 3:44 pm |
    • woodofpine

      If the 'real test' is Iran, how well would you say the US has done on its quizzes in Iraq and Afghanistan??

      January 5, 2012 at 3:24 pm | Reply
      • Stephen

        When has Iran in this or the last century been an expansionist power. It fought agaist Saddam who the US supported. The American Military Industral Complex needs boggie men to create the fear necessary to fund the war machine. My friends went off to Vietnam, some did not return in one piece, why because if Vietnam fell all of SE Asia would fall. War is big business and conflicts whether proxy or direct are needed to fund the war machine. Only through fear can you get people to pay for the unneccessary excesses.

        January 5, 2012 at 6:36 pm |
    • SNAKE

      ISRAEL NEEDS TO FIGHT THIS ONE THEIRSELF! no war with iran for the sake of israel.

      January 5, 2012 at 3:30 pm | Reply
      • Jason K

        Israel would rather we butt out of their affairs anyway. Netanyahu and Barak have said as much in addresses to the US. They have air superiority over the ENTIRE continent. No one in a few thousand miles could challenge their airforce. Leave Israel to themselves. Its what they want, and its better for us.

        January 5, 2012 at 4:59 pm |
  48. John Kantor

    It doesn't matter how big your military is if you don't have the will to use it – or the will to finish what you start. People listen to Russia more than the US under Obama because they know the Russians will do whatever it takes. And if you want US jobs and investment in technology – military spending is the most effective way.

    January 5, 2012 at 3:10 pm | Reply
    • woodofpine

      How socialistic (national or otherwise) military as national employer! The Russians... can't control Chechnya; under Obama, we've 'resolved' Bin Laden and Ghadafy.

      January 5, 2012 at 3:13 pm | Reply
    • Richard

      I admire the Russians, they kickass un-apologetically.

      January 5, 2012 at 3:23 pm | Reply
    • JCT

      The same Russians who backed out of Afghanistan, backed out of Georgia, can't control Chechnya, and had their entire country break up into a dozen? Yeh, there's an admirable country/military right there.

      January 5, 2012 at 3:34 pm | Reply
    • JCT

      The same Russians who backed out of Afghanistan, backed out of Georgia, can't control Chechnya, and had their entire country break up into a dozen? Yeah, there's an admirable country/military right there.

      January 5, 2012 at 3:35 pm | Reply
  49. BOB

    Just wanna point out the Comparison between decline of the British empire and this. Decline started when Britain gave up its next two navy doctrine and disarmed after world war one. When the next threat arose and Germany, Japan and Italy threatened the empire instead of having a massive lead in arms over (them like up until WW1), was although against one country strong, against three spread out. Therefore when rearmament began didn't have the time or money to regain their lead, resulting in having to rely on US resulting in end of empire.

    January 5, 2012 at 3:10 pm | Reply
    • woodofpine

      Actually, the British lost their empire when they could no longer afford it... sort of like... Colonial enterprises, domination of resources, rarely pay off in the long run due to expense.

      January 5, 2012 at 3:16 pm | Reply
  50. BAILS

    It is terrifying to realize how big the military forces are in China, Korea, and probably Russia, versus the U.S. We cut back our military at an excuse, and one day, it's going to be our demise. If Korea ever decides to drop a bomb on us, there's not much we can do. We are sorely outnumbered!!!

    January 5, 2012 at 3:08 pm | Reply
    • woodofpine

      Check the number – we send about 3 times more on our military than China, Russia, and Korea combined... More than five times more than China alone. Stop being paranoid.

      January 5, 2012 at 3:19 pm | Reply
    • SNAKE

      WRONG! we still can balance the power and be protected by attack because of mutual annilitation thru nuclear missles.

      January 5, 2012 at 3:20 pm | Reply
    • ddblah

      Yeah, we are doomed. Quick, find a safe place and hide! The world is ending in a second!

      January 6, 2012 at 12:31 am | Reply
  51. JOE

    @ Earl

    Maybe you and your family should volunter to put your lives on the line to wage war at those countries your leader called axels of evil. Let's face it, American lives ain't cheap and if cutting back on military spending is going to limit how many wars we fight, then that is good simply because less lives would be lost in senseless wars. And I think you and your family not enlisting for military action but wishing for some other person's kid should make the sacrifice is GARBAGE.

    January 5, 2012 at 2:59 pm | Reply
  52. REG in AZ

    "Lean & Mean" and technologically superior is all we can realistically afford, to not see that is completely naive. The Republican response is again obvious in its political focus without any responsible conscience; to not see it one would have to be totally biased and irresponsibly blind. They aggressively jumped at fighting the wars, including when falsely justified, they then fault government spending and strongly advocate cutting back to reduce the deficit they fully contributed to creating, and now they contradict themselves again and fault conscientiously cutting the military budget – with their actions always just totally focused on their political ambitions without regard for anything else. Anyone not admitting their completely apparent irresponsible self-serving concentration and worse, then supporting them is just as irresponsible and guilty as they are. It really is past time to drop the loyalties, biases, prejudices, hyped up fears and manipulated deceptions to "call it as it is" and deny the Republicans / Tea Party any support for their continuing self-serving and irresponsible actions. Obama and the Democrats are really not perfect and need to be pressured to do better but the Republicans / Tea Party are a total con that serves only "the few" and their own political ambitions, which we can't afford more of.

    January 5, 2012 at 2:56 pm | Reply
  53. von

    Come on now let's all forget about the bank bailouts, nasty wars . . here this will get your mind off of that .. maybe

    January 5, 2012 at 2:51 pm | Reply
  54. JimmyJam

    Good recollection Realist, Congress absolutely authorized both actions. Granted no WMD were found but try telling the thousands of Kurds that were massacred in Northern Iraq with MWD, that Hussein didnt have them!
    Why is it that Obama waited as long as he did to withdraw troops from Iraq? The campaign promise was within one year, there was a democratic majority in the house and senate for TWO years after taking office. And before you go taking too much credit for the CinC's recent decision, be advised that the only reason we pulled the troops back was because of failure to re-establish the status of forces agreement. Everytime I hear the same lame "It was for oil argument" I wonder why gas is so expensive? If this was about oil wouldnt we be paying $1 per gallon? I mean we've been there for a decade+ certainly thats enough time to extract all the oil we needed and make it dirt cheap.
    I have deployed my share and then some, I have seen all of these places that get referenced by people who know little more than what the magic electronic box or some newspaper has told them. I have been sent to war by Democrats and Republicans alike (yes Im getting old) so the party doesnt really dictate who are "war mongers" or not. Sometimes I think its a convenient deception people use to try and align themselves with their chosen party, news flash, the party doesnt matter although I will say the tools with which we go to war seem much nicer under military friendly administrations.

    January 5, 2012 at 2:47 pm | Reply
    • ddblah

      Which war did you go to in Clinton years?

      January 5, 2012 at 2:53 pm | Reply
    • SNAKE

      exon, mobile, etc gets the oil cheap but why would they give us gasoline for $1 a gallon? they are bringing in huge profits but obama refuses to impose "WINDFALL PROFITS TAXES" like jimmy carter did. why? because the people who run and own our country only become more and more BLATANT because of our INACTION against their agenda. it's not only big oil, it's also wall street and the central banks.

      January 5, 2012 at 2:59 pm | Reply
    • Jerry Ku

      Oil is a major factor in all foreign policy decisions regarding the Middle East. There's no denying that. Japan gets 90% of its oil from the Middle East, and Middle Eastern oil plays a vital role in South Africa and in some European countries. The first Gulf War was 90% paid for by Kuwait, Saudia Arabia, Japan and Germany (Google it, this info is from the US govt itself).

      Israel is also a major factor. Huge portions of America's Christians believe Israel must belong to the Jews, and that this is mandated by the Bible.

      In the late 1990s we saw 3-6 million people die in Central African war fighting, the largest conflict since WW2. The US was basically absent. Why? No oil, no rich nations with the ability to pay for military action, and no nearby religious incentive to help out, either.

      January 5, 2012 at 3:00 pm | Reply
      • SNAKE

        if our wars are being paid for by other countries, why do we have such a huge national debt?

        January 5, 2012 at 3:04 pm |
    • Mike B

      Remember the Gulf War Jimmy? As terms of the cease-fire, Iraq was forced to dispose of all WMDs. There was no credible evidence that Saddam Hussein had re-established WMDs.

      January 5, 2012 at 6:17 pm | Reply
  55. Earl

    Having a one ware planning doctrine is garbage. It ignores the current and future country threats (North Korea, China, Iran) and does not even account for the hundreds of hot spots that flare up over a decade or global force projection. It's like only having a checking account. Sure you pay the bills now, IF you have the funds in the checking account, but you have nothing at all in a savings account for emergencies. You also have to have war reserves in place to account for the lag time it takes to produce items within the industrial base and re-set stocks for after the conflict. You just can't go down to the local Wal-Mart and pick up a tank round or to the local labor pool to pick up a fully trained Marine. The one war doctrine is an effort to save money on military spending. I get the saving money part. I don't get the "at the expense of our national security part".

    January 5, 2012 at 2:44 pm | Reply
    • ddblah

      You can add Russia, India, Brazil, Pakistan, Egypt, etc. Man, you actually need to prepare to fight 10 simultaneous wars. Why stop there? There are 100 more countries. Let's get ready to fight 100 simultaneous wars.

      I'd also argue, we need to prepare for the invasion of aliens, Martians, for instance.

      January 5, 2012 at 2:48 pm | Reply
      • SNAKE

        our bigest threat is the nwo. wall street and the central banks.

        January 5, 2012 at 3:01 pm |
      • ddblah

        No, SNAKE, our biggest threats are nutty politicians!

        January 5, 2012 at 3:16 pm |
      • SNAKE

        money and p[ower is the root of al evil. our polititions are not nutty, they are only filling their pockets with money from our enemies, wall street, central banks, nwo etc. maybe we need to build a gallows in washington dc big enough to hold 636.

        January 5, 2012 at 3:27 pm |
    • Bob

      We do fight two wars: (1) The initial "Desert Storm" type war and then (2) The long drawn out insurgency that follows.

      This is the second war that we should be preparing for.

      January 5, 2012 at 2:59 pm | Reply
    • Bob

      We do fight two wars: (1) The initial "Desert Storm" type war and then (2) The long drawn out insurgency that follows.

      This is the second war that we should be preparing for. We are sorely lacking in the latter.

      January 5, 2012 at 3:00 pm | Reply
  56. mike

    "I can't imagine another ground engagement with 160,000 American troops," Me either. That was the problem. Not to many troops but not nearly enough. Sure the shock and Awe of our Air and Sea power can defeat any opponent but the occupation force to keep order is to small. If anything we should invest in man power.

    January 5, 2012 at 2:39 pm | Reply
    • ddblah

      Do you want to occupy?
      Occupation force, land force, is rather easy to build up. It is the technical part, drones, fighter jets, bombers, etc., that is difficult.

      January 5, 2012 at 2:43 pm | Reply
    • pockets

      If China had gone into Iraq, that so called war would have been over in 6 months at the latest. They are an incredible, very well trained, army. Make no mistake about it, look at videos of them on Youtube. That will get you thinking, real quick. The Chinese are the real super power of the world. Do not piss these people off. Not only that they own the United States, with money the US borrowed to send to Israel and other destitute countries.

      January 5, 2012 at 2:45 pm | Reply
      • Chris

        You're right. The Chinese would've won the war in less than 6 months. But not because they are more disciplined or better than our troops. No, they would win faster b/c they could care less about collateral damage. And if they "occupied" Iraq afterwards to try and establish a govt, they wouldn't be trying to establish any sort of democracy (which is impossible if the people themselves do not want it), but would instead totally dominate the people of that country, in essence making it a "colony."

        January 5, 2012 at 3:00 pm |
      • Fug Xu

        Beware Pockets, a Red Chinese Commie propagandist at work.

        January 5, 2012 at 3:33 pm |
      • Genghis Khan

        What do you call a Chinese brigade under a cluster bomb? Stir Fry.

        January 5, 2012 at 4:45 pm |
    • Joe Rioux

      Get real "pockets". China's a boogeyman. In a real war we would wipe the the floor with them. They look scary, but so did Japan in WWII and we creamed them.

      January 5, 2012 at 3:10 pm | Reply
      • Mrs.Fizzy

        Well, if only pockets was lying when he said "Not only that they own the United States, with money the US borrowed to send to Israel and other destitute countries." Even if China is not a threat to the US our national debt to China is not a Good Thing!

        January 5, 2012 at 3:44 pm |
    • Andy

      Unfortunately in trying to reduce spending you have to reduce manpower as it is the most expensive component, it takes money to house, feed, arm and train so many people.

      January 5, 2012 at 6:03 pm | Reply
  57. Jerry Ku

    Carafano's statements are ironic (he is the Heritage Foundation commenter). He compares the US military to health insurance and basically says that all Americans must purchase THIS kind of "health insurance", even if they don't see a threat, even if they are willing to accept the risks. But the Heritage Foundation is the same conservative think tank that completely opposes the mandatory purchasing of health insurance. It makes no sense. On one hand, you have conservative Heritage Foundation people saying that all Americans should pay for the safety of Americans, Israelis, and Europeans (but not Africans, let's be honest there). And that they must do this regardless if they want to do so as individuals or not. On the other, these same Heritage Foundation members are saying that all Americans should NOT be responsible for the health care needs of fellow Americans, Israelis or Europeans.

    January 5, 2012 at 2:30 pm | Reply
    • Cliff

      I'm generally not what one would call liberal, but you just made an awesome point

      January 5, 2012 at 2:33 pm | Reply
    • ddblah

      I guess his point is the failure of a nation is always catastrophic but the failure of health insurance of any individual is just an inconvenience. After all, tax payers will pay if you don't have insurance.

      January 5, 2012 at 2:36 pm | Reply
      • SNAKE

        absolutely, just ask our invaders from the south.

        January 5, 2012 at 2:41 pm |
      • Jerry Ku

        If you read Carafano's statements closely, he says that he thinks the US military's massive size was a "guarantor" of world security. That the mere existence of it prevented violence across the world. He doesn't just think the US military should defend America. He thinks it should be so big that it effectively polices the world. Asia, Africa, Latin America, Europe. Everything. All this despite the fact that no one is funding the US military but Americans themselves. If we follow market principles that Heritage usually subscribes to, these societies should only be protected by America's military if they pay for the protection upfront. But here Carafano sees the military almost like a charity. It should defend everyone regardless of their ability to pay.

        January 5, 2012 at 2:49 pm |
      • ddblah

        Jerry, you are right. Heritage foundation treats the military as a charity to the world.
        Even in WWII, we won by working with allies, Russia and China included.
        Now, to secure peace, we also need to build and work with allies.

        January 5, 2012 at 2:56 pm |
    • pockets

      The killing machine has got to STOP. Its gone on and on and on and on. Look at China, posed to take over the world and no doubt in anyone's mind they could. They have amassed a military like no other on earth. Stand back, and keep your mouths shut.

      January 5, 2012 at 2:41 pm | Reply
      • ddblah

        You have no idea what you are talking about.

        January 5, 2012 at 2:45 pm |
      • Bob

        China has a smart foreign / military policy. Make peace...not enemies.

        January 5, 2012 at 3:05 pm |
      • Genghis Khan

        I've heard that story before. Your navy is headed by a recycled Soviet not-ready-for-prime-time rustbucket carrier, your most famous pilot was named Rong Ray (he ran into a slow-moving EC-135 a decade ago), and you army is stuck on 3rd-generation warfare. IF you're that great, then why haven't you taken back Taiwan yet, or simply taken over the Spratly Islands already?

        January 5, 2012 at 4:50 pm |
    • Andy

      More juicy photo ops or headline grabbers talking about big bad weapons systems than someone getting a life saving liver transplant and not having to sell both kidneys in order to get it I suspect.

      January 5, 2012 at 6:06 pm | Reply
  58. ReelAmurikanMann

    Thers never nuff war for thu USA, man. Line em up and wheel shoot em down friggin'-A man! Now pardon me while I go back ta talkin bout how great God blessed awzum W Bush was while drivin' my SUV on my huntin' trip with Jesus as my copilot RUMSFELD RULES you hippy, lazy, unemployed idgits. Git a jorb quit murderin' babies and smaoking pot through yer gayholes! 'Merica, dammit! 'MERICA!!! GO PACKERS!! Now wers my beer?

    January 5, 2012 at 2:27 pm | Reply
  59. Andy

    This makes sense since war is the only growth industry in America

    January 5, 2012 at 2:26 pm | Reply
    • ReelAmurikanMann

      NE1 who sez yoo kant put a price on a human life has never spent $.23 on a single round of beeyootiful .45 cal hollowpoint ammo for a blessed 'Merican made God blssed Colt 1911. I gots a box of lifes in thu gluv box of my truck!

      January 5, 2012 at 2:34 pm | Reply
      • SNAKE

        you might need them after our government declares martial law.

        January 5, 2012 at 2:42 pm |
      • ReelAmurikanMann

        Hell snake. Ill be right ther with em shootin hippies and takin me boot some libral panzies jaws. Git oout of tha cuntry if ya dont liek jesus or my christain nation. This is fer us and real Emericans. N take yur sissy protestors to.

        January 5, 2012 at 3:56 pm |
  60. BJJCA

    The 2MTW doctrine was established following a bottom-up review of American military strategy, capabilities, and the threats which faced them at that time. The policies surrounding the doctrine have been revised and realigned numerous times already. Under the Clinton administration, this was revised to mean that the U.S. armed forces must be capable of fighting two NEARLY simultaneously major regional conflicts decisively.

    As the article and others have suggested, that this capability ever really existed except perhaps in WWII is an open, highly debatable question. The strain placed upon U.S. armed forces by being in both Iraq and in Afghanistan for a decade are readily apparent. However, some would argue that this is more reflective of strategic shortcomings. That is to say, a failure to ensure swift and decisive victory and hold the peace won in those conflicts rather than the unpredictable, chaotic progression of events we've seen there.

    Wherever one comes down on these questions, it seems undeniable that the age of fielding large ground forces in Europe, Asia, and elsewhere has decidedly passed. Even during the Bush administration, which staunchly advocated military intervention and comprehensive war waging in the aforementioned theaters, the transformation of our armed forces from a Cold War style land force to a more nimble, modern, light, force multiplier-dependent instrument was a priority. That it continues to be so under the Obama administration should not come as a surprise. Nor should it be as politicized as it’s being in my view.

    What major conflicts do we forsee in the future that would require the Cold War era disposition and distribution of forces? China? Russia? Multiple simultaneous land engagements in the Middle East? Do we really think we're going to find ourselves in a scenario where we need to wage a land war against China and/or Russia, while also engaged with Iran or other ME states?

    If we did, it would be World War. If World War comes, there will be a draft, unquestionably. There will be industrial revitalization and rapid exploitation thereof, unquestionably. If World War comes, our respective nuclear deterrents will cease to be deterrents. So I would argue that perhaps it is almost a moot point. If we come to that point, the size of our land forces will be the least of our concerns.

    And besides, for all our disagreements, and cultural and strategic interests being at odds, China, Russia, and America share ultimately the desire for economic stability above all else. Furthermore, even considering China, what is needed more than anything is a broader, deeper naval and air capability to combat their expanding capacity to project power beyond their borders. Not a larger, broader land force. If we ever end up having to roll tank brigades into China or Russia (unlikely in my estimation due to the aforementioned premium on stability above all else,) by that time all bets will be off anyway, and then heaven help us all.

    January 5, 2012 at 2:20 pm | Reply
    • ddblah

      Eloquently said!

      I'd also add that, in the case of Iraq, we did have a decisive war. It was the ability to maintain the stability and local politics that got us in trouble. In Afghan, the mistake was to shift the focus prematurely before the job was done.

      January 5, 2012 at 2:31 pm | Reply
  61. JOE

    Today it was reported that 60 people were killed in Iraq as a result of sectarian violence. Unfortunately that's the democracy and freedom the Bush administration planned for Iraq after they did not uncover any WMD's. A few days ago, and a few days before that more Iraqis were once again the victims of our war that has destabilized that country and sadly, the is no foreseable end to the bloodshed. Therefore, we should not start wars or sponsor wars just because we have the means and capability. What is uncertain about war is how it is going to turn out but what is certain about wars is that senseless lives are going to be lost.

    January 5, 2012 at 2:15 pm | Reply
    • ddblah

      IMHO, one lesson we should learn from Iraq war is that sometimes overwhelming military can be a bad thing even it is in our own hands and even if we have all the best intentions. Arrogance leads to mistakes. Overwhelming power leads to arrogance.

      You can call it a wishful thinking. It is unmistakable the world is becoming more peaceful. Clearly, we need to be ready for major wars, we no-longer need to fight against any major empires.

      January 5, 2012 at 2:24 pm | Reply
    • SNAKE

      the iraq war was strictly a war for the protection of israel. i',m not so sure saddamm did't have wmd, he had plenty of chemical/biological weapons and used them on the kurds and others. i'm sure he moved most if not all of the wmd to syria and iran before the start of gulf war2 just like he did with most of his airforce. why did saddamm launch scud missles at israel during the first gulf war? he definately proved he was an enemy of israel. israel did everything in their power to prove the war with iraq and will do the same with iran.

      January 5, 2012 at 2:52 pm | Reply
      • C

        I think it's important to point out that Saddam Hussein invaded Iran in 1980; the resulting war cost over a million lives and lasted for eight years. Iran still holds a grudge against Iraq that is impossible to overstate. Saddam was the most hated man in Iran while he was alive, and is probably still in the running after his death.

        I doubt there is a single man, woman, or child in Iran who wouldn't sooner cut off their own left arm than agree to hide chemical weapons for Saddam Hussein.

        January 5, 2012 at 5:19 pm |
    • ABCD5678

      Those attacks and this violence just recently started increasing again after it had been getting somewhat better, Because we left Iraq too early. What the f*ck was the point of the war if we weren't going to finish the job. Obama just wanted to leave as quick as possible so all the idiots in this country would think he's great and vote for him. We left Iraq before we could fully help them create a democracy and build their security forces, and now look what's happening. Without our troops and resources there to help the government is going to continue to fuck up and it's going to get infested with terrorists that have no one to stop them from gathering forces and having all the time in the world do plot more attacks against the U.S, just like they did in Afghanistan. By withdrawing too early we have made it so every live that was lost there didn't mean shit. How the f*ck does that feel?... I don't even know what to say anymore, this world is so f*cked and there are too many problems to fix. There's no hope it'll just keep getting worse.

      January 5, 2012 at 3:12 pm | Reply
  62. ddblah

    Soviet crashed under the weight of its military build up and the lack of economic development.

    I wish we have the wisdom not to repeat that mistake. US can never be able to fight two major wars alone. With the help of allies, we can fight any war and win decisively. That should be the strategy.

    January 5, 2012 at 2:15 pm | Reply
  63. m

    War at any cost. The GOP = GREEDY OPPOSITION PARTY's answer to everything along with cutting taxes. Buck McKeon, the war monger, has never met a weapons system he didn't love.

    Time to get real because of the stupid policies that George W Bush pursued. Sow what you reap, reap what you sow.

    January 5, 2012 at 1:48 pm | Reply
    • ABCD5678

      You're and imbecile. I'm not even going to prove you wrong and make you look stupid because there is too much i could say and you're not worth the time. It's people like you that ruin this country. Die slow pussy

      January 5, 2012 at 3:16 pm | Reply
      • Professor Plum

        With so many spelling and grammar errors there, who's really the imbecile?

        January 5, 2012 at 4:52 pm |
  64. Titicaca71

    Cost becomes a limiting factor more than manpower or logistics in the "new-style" wars of today. WWII doctrine allowed for heavy civilian casualties and massive human wave assaults using cheap, imprecise weapons, and people accepted that as the price of conflict. Now, US forces are required to minimize civilian deaths, and the US public would not tolerate death of US servicemen on the scale of a Normandy-style invasion unless the enemy were invading our shores. We also have to fight "armies" composed of small cells with distributed infrastructure. That requires new tactics, new weapons and a re-think of we can reasonably do. When it costs $50,000 and high tech industry to crank out a precision-guided missile to take out a cluster of 20 Taliban, the price tag will ultimately dictate how much we can do.

    January 5, 2012 at 1:38 pm | Reply
    • Sayan Majumdar

      @ Titicaca71, Freedom comes often at a high price whether mortal or financial. Thus it is distressing to find the same freedom being misused by few who all have never paid a price on their own.


      January 5, 2012 at 1:55 pm | Reply
      • Sidewinder

        Freedom? Freedom to obey? I have less freedom now than I did 10 years ago.

        January 5, 2012 at 2:05 pm |
      • Titicaca71

        @Sayan, to whom are you referring?

        January 5, 2012 at 2:06 pm |
  65. Sayan Majumdar

    I will not be surprised if United States Navy (USN) rises to predominance among Services in years to come.

    USN remain the most flexible among Services providing nuclear deterrence, missile defence, operational mobility & flexibility and equally active during peacetime exercises and diplomatic endeavours.


    January 5, 2012 at 1:32 pm | Reply
    • ddblah

      I think it already is.

      January 5, 2012 at 2:17 pm | Reply
  66. JoeT

    What war? Congress hasn't declared any wars since WWII. What are you people going on about?

    January 5, 2012 at 12:55 pm | Reply
    • SNAKE

      exactly! only congress can declare war. i guess the constitution is only a piece of paper to be ignored.

      January 5, 2012 at 1:06 pm | Reply
  67. Cliff

    You no war at any cost guys make me think of John Stuart Mill...
    "War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself."
    He was right about you cowards.

    January 5, 2012 at 12:50 pm | Reply
    • SNAKE

      american's have no problem fighting to protect our

      January 5, 2012 at 12:52 pm | Reply
      • SNAKE

        country. we gain nothing from fighting these foreign wars that only puts our security and financial stability at risk. so shut your head cliff!

        January 5, 2012 at 12:54 pm |
      • Cliff

        If you had any idea what you were talking about snake you would realize that, like it or not, our "wars" overseas have often been to protect our financial interests in those countries. So the ability to project power is what has led to a great deal of our financial stability. It was also the exact kind of idiotic isolationist pacifism many here seem to espouse that lead to WWII.

        On a final note "Shut your head" is exactly the sort of comment people resort to when they have nothing left...

        January 5, 2012 at 1:04 pm |
      • Peacemaker

        Cliff, your second comment just contradicted the first one. First you said we went there to protect our country, now you are saying we went there to gain financial stability. I think the first stability that someone needs here is a mental stability and I think you are that someone. And BTW the financial stability, do you even live in USA? or are you from Israel or India? Those are the only two countries which gained financial stability during this time of depression. So like my friend snake said, just shut your head. Some people are really unbelievable.

        January 5, 2012 at 1:14 pm |
      • JoeT

        When I substitute the world "oil" for "financial", I totally agree with Cliff's remarks. Let's not pretend that assassinating terrorists half a world away somehow increases our liberties or freedoms at home.

        January 5, 2012 at 1:31 pm |
      • Cliff

        Then you don't know enough about history JoeT. At any time in the past we have used military forces to protect investment by American corporations (IE the American shareholders money).... Pineapples, oil, alcohol, taxes on cotton, shipping lanes, telecommunications in Vietnam, ransom to enter the Mediterranean sea. All American wars have been about money. Not just the ones in the middle east. Even the motto of the founding fathers was "No taxation without representation" in otherwords no money taken from us without our say.

        January 5, 2012 at 2:10 pm |
      • JoeT

        @Cliff: And here I thought only mercenaries fought for money, whereas the armed forces of the US were supposed to be fighting for freedom. I know all about the things we did for United Fruit and in response to stamp taxes designed as part of colonial fiscal policy to pay off debt incurred during the French and Indian War. I know we needed some coaling stations at the turn of the prior century. Don't presume that knowing history somehow justifies the actions taken in its course. The US penchant for foreign military adventures does not justify its current adventurism any more than an alcoholic is justifies in continuing his inebriation. In the broadest sense, wars of aggression are morally reprehensible and outside the pale of justification, especially when the casualties include trillions of dollars, and tens if not hundreds of thousands of casualties, civilian and military.

        January 5, 2012 at 2:30 pm |
      • ABCD5678

        These wars have actually helped protect us. It is very likely that if we were not in Afghanistan than it would have continued to be a terrorist breeding ground. And they would have had plenty of time and resources to plan another attack, possibly killing more than the nearly 3,000 men women and children who lost their lives on 9/11. I guess you think that's safe...

        January 5, 2012 at 3:30 pm |
    • Peacemaker

      Wars are the ugliest things for those upon which they are waged. Ask people of Iraq, go ask their orphans, what is the cost of the war. Their whole country has been bombed to prehistoric times. Their schools are devastated. Their parents are killed, their tiny limbs are burned down. This is the true ugliness of war. An Iraqi orphan draws a painting of his mother on the floor and sleeps on her hand and cries himself to sleep. You people have no hearts. You think you are protecting your country from these tiny angels? Cliff you are a war monger. The only people our country needs protection from, are people like you.

      January 5, 2012 at 1:09 pm | Reply
      • Cliff

        That is a lovely anecdote (we aren't there to kill children and families, it happens but ask any soldier if that is what they do)... You are using your heart 100% now if you would just at 5% of your brain into that equation.

        January 5, 2012 at 1:19 pm |
      • Peacemaker

        I will not ask a soldier about what he or she did in Iraq. It is the responsibility of the leaders of this country to put him or her in that situation. Our soldiers are just like us...human beings with hearts and brains. You might want them to use brain but I am sure they end up using their hearts. Many soldiers resigned their commissions and many rose their voices against these wars. Our soldier are good people, our politicians are not.

        January 5, 2012 at 1:43 pm |
    • SNAKE

      cliff, you are probably a chickenhawk. no war since 1776 has been for the people. war is all about money, power, and control.

      January 5, 2012 at 1:10 pm | Reply
      • Cliff

        Have you ever seen a history book? Ask your average southern Black man in 1866 if the civil war was "Worth it".

        January 5, 2012 at 1:21 pm |
      • SNAKE

        you see cliff? YOU PROVE YOUR IGNORANCE AGAIN. maybe you didn't that the issue of slavery was only a minor issue and had nothing to do with the civil war. the war was about TAXATION. the south was tired of paying taxes to the north that did not benefit the south. you need to learn some history yourself! only when the south quit paying taxes and declared their independance did the civil war begin.

        January 5, 2012 at 1:37 pm |
      • Cliff

        It was even more an issue of State vs Federal Government rights, and cultural norms in different regions... And yet it doesn't change the fact that positive change can come from war (the only point that I have been trying to make). Slavery was ended in the united states (yes it took time even after that for equality) as a result of a war. To blindly claim that all war is bad is dishonest.

        January 5, 2012 at 1:51 pm |
      • whz1z1t

        Slow down cliff. Before you try to quote history, make sure you tell the WHOLE story. Lincoln didn't free slaves out of the goodness of his heart. He also did it to cut into the billions the South was making in the textile industry using free labor. There was also the millions made in the trafficking of slaves. One of the major causes of the Civil War revolved around the money being made off slave labor. That along with other things like taxation brought it all to a boiling point. Loss of a relatively free workforce would have hit every Southerner in the pocketbook. If slaves had received an honest wage, I think the US would be a very different place today.

        January 5, 2012 at 2:05 pm |
      • Cliff

        whz1z1t, I never made any claim that it was done for any reason... It also doesn't change the FACT that Slavery was legaly ended as a result (we can go on about the post war reconstruction and struggle for equality, but it still doesn't change anything). It doesn't change the fact that there are times that it is prudent to wage war. I wonder what your comment changes about that? It wasn't a "try" at quoting history it is a discussion about the facts of war. Which some people here have a hard time comming to terms with, some wars are worth it. (Iraq wasn't before anyone else decides to put those words in my mouth)

        January 5, 2012 at 2:22 pm |
    • John

      Then you go fight it buddy. Do you realize how many new terrorists were created in our war against it? How many women and children lost their husbands and fathers? People willing to run right into the fire without weighing the consequences will get burned….no doubt about it. Now there is a new generation of children that will grow up hating americans.

      I imagine that you are middle aged and are stuck in your war mongering ways. I want to thank you for all the debt, failed military actions, and extreme class marginalization you have left my generation with. I just turned 29, won't see social security but will surely pay yours, will probably pay 75% taxes by the time I'm your age so you could drive a Lexus and buy a house you really can't afford. While the whole time I have put myself through undergrad and grad school without acquiring an ounce of debt. In the end to see it all go to a government whose bonds have become useless because of the great age of FINANCE. But hey that's the american dream right.

      January 5, 2012 at 1:19 pm | Reply
      • Cliff

        Your ASSUMPTIONS about me are all completely incorrect... I would venture that you should make fewer of them in life.

        January 5, 2012 at 1:34 pm |
    • Peacemaker

      Cliff is doing exactly what our politicians did to us. We are good hearted American citizens who want to reach out to the world community and help them out. But our politicians and leaders do not think this way. They want wars because it will help them become stronger and richer. So they tell us lies like WMDs of Iraq and Talibans of Afghanistan and their oppressed women and children. And the good hearted American public goes for the war. And then it turned out after decades of fighting and killing scores of people on both sides especially civilian population and losing our strong pre-war economy....Talibans were not really the bad people....There were no WMDs in Iraq. Afghan women did not need liberation, This is their culture, women dress in those white gowns and men grow long beards....Now we are talking about financial stability and other monitory gains from the war (which aren't any though)
      Well to people like Cliff... you can fool some of the people some of the time but you cannot fool all the people all the time. Back off. We the American people do not want wars. We want financial stability..not for the 1% but for everybody. Thank you. Amen.

      January 5, 2012 at 1:26 pm | Reply
      • Cliff

        First of all, the Iraq war should never have happened, I was against it in the buildup and even signed petitions while on vacation in DC right before the invasion. So please do not assume that my comment was meant to construe that I support ALL wars, I do not. There have been several individuals that commented with things like "two more wars are two too many", my initial comment was aimed at them. The BRUTAL FACT of this world is that human beings and even a few other primates will wage war. There is no way around that fact, and frankly there are times when it is the right thing to do. For instance, the Taliban were providing comfort and safety to Bin Laden (Undisputed Fact). They forced ethnic Hindus to publicly wear a patch (a slippery slope… much like the Germans forced Jews to do right before the camps) and had one of the worst human rights records possible. To claim that "that was their culture" is morally bankrupt. Try reading a little bit about Afghanistan prior to the soviet invasion and tell me that is just their culture.

        January 5, 2012 at 1:44 pm |
      • Peacemaker

        Afghanistan did not wage war on USA. None of the 19 hijackers came from Afghanistan. . USA had no problem with Taliban's human right violation record until 9/11. And what human rights violation record? There are nations on this planet earth which have worse violation record but USA is fine with them. For example Saudi Arabia. Now USA is trying to negotiate with Taliban because it couldn't win the war. What happened to their human violation record? Did it improve in those 10 years?
        Please stop living in denial. You went there because you had your own interests in that area. China was emerging as the regional power and you wanted to establish your basis before they got to that point. India has now emerged as a new power over there. But what did you gain out of that? Nothing. You lost the war over there and your economy over here.

        January 6, 2012 at 9:56 am |
    • Chris

      Well since less than 1% of our population serves in the military, than 99% of American's are cowards. It is always the chickenhawks that want to send our young men off to war, while they rake in the big bucks. RLTW

      January 5, 2012 at 2:59 pm | Reply
      • Cliff

        I was part of that 1% and I am more than willing (for some causes, not Iraq for instance) to send adult volunteers to fight in wars. That is what a military is for. If you have a real problem with that, then one option would be to move to a nation that does not keep a standing military or project power in international affairs.

        January 5, 2012 at 3:10 pm |
      • Peacemaker

        I think Chris is OK in USA. Instead I propose that warmongers like you should leave USA and live in China and India for a few years and learn what these two great economies are doing. Or maybe you should go to Nepal and live with some monks who can help you remove hate and greed from your system and breed some compassion. You might also realize and appreciate the beauty peace can bring in our lives. War are ugly things. It is really shameful to encourage wars.

        January 6, 2012 at 10:04 am |
      • Cliff

        HAHA... Peacemaker you are cute... and fluffy. Enjoy your denial. I am done discussing when you refuse to see the world for what it really is instead of you wonderful pink tinted version.

        January 6, 2012 at 11:45 am |
  68. Carla Nelson

    For the many people who have lost sons and daughters, also husband I can tell you that no one is eager to go to war and die. If the Republican like ti go to War then I suggest that thery leave Cogress with their families and their money and go fight. It is a horse of a different color when it is you that is on the battlefield than just someone talking about not ending these wars and is your the one who is safe at home in your bed it is easy to talk.

    January 5, 2012 at 12:45 pm | Reply
    • Cheetahe

      I agree with you 100%.
      All these people who do the talking about fighting wars in Korea, Taiwan, Iraq etc, in places where the locals should handle their own defense, they very seldom do the human sacrifices resultant from their policies.
      We have no will to defend our borders but we want to defend the borders of everyone else. We have defense obligations all over the world, the elites have turned our youth into policemen of the world. After the loss of close to 60 thousand soldiers in Vietnam we are now trading with their communist government. They are mentioning China, but we are having a 250 billion yearly trade deficit with them. Go figure out the logic of our officials. These people have no credibility.

      January 5, 2012 at 1:00 pm | Reply
    • Barry G.

      There was a time in Ancient Rome when serving in the military was the way people paid their dues and demonstrated that they were fit to become political leaders. If I remember correctly this eventually changed, and it became possible to buy your way into politics.

      Does this sound familiar?

      January 5, 2012 at 1:01 pm | Reply
  69. us1776

    War is obsolete.

    Now you defeat your enemy economically.


    January 5, 2012 at 12:38 pm | Reply
    • Colonel Mustard

      War *is* about economics. It's always about land and resources. Those are economic by nature.

      Economic wars are still wars, but the weapons are not guns and tanks and planes but computers, cash, and widgets.

      January 5, 2012 at 4:57 pm | Reply
  70. Erky

    The US has been fighting against the Taliban, who are armed with a few rifles, no formal training, no shoes and a budget of a couple of grand a year tops, and some insurgents in Iraq. The cost has been trillions of dollars, and has nearly bankrupted the United States. If these chicken hawks think the US can survive a conflict against China or Russia without complete economic collapse, they need to have their heads examined. If there is a conflict with China, will the Chinese continue financing our debt and continue filling the Walmart isles with their junk?

    January 5, 2012 at 12:30 pm | Reply
    • SNAKE

      I wish china would quit financing our debt and filling the isles in walmart, thank you!

      January 5, 2012 at 12:37 pm | Reply
    • Capnronman

      excellent comment. Dead on.

      January 5, 2012 at 12:42 pm | Reply
  71. tintala

    what an absurd question, Like asking is 2 drunk drivers too many on the road? America is a war mongering, oil addict that is supreme in all aspects.. And why is the publish button in freakn spanish?

    January 5, 2012 at 12:20 pm | Reply
    • Capnronman

      We need oil. For hospitals, schools, the food supply chain – you just can't get around it. There is no viable alternative to fossil fuels at the moment. You should read Physics Every President Should Know. Even if we started working on an energy alternative this very day, that was a big as the Manhattan Project, we are still At LEAST 10 years from it being used by the general public. Until then we will fight for it. It's not war mongering, it's simple self preservation. I know it's sad, and it sucks, and it's wrong. But, it's also the cold hard truth. We are fighting over oil not over ideologies – that is is just a by product or cover

      January 5, 2012 at 12:48 pm | Reply
      • SNAKE

        you are WRONG! we don't need to fight for oil. the U.S. has oil reserves that could last 20 years easy and many more places to drill. but the environmentalists and government regulations make getting that oil difficult. besides, u.s. oil corp. want cheap arab oil and our government believes as long as we can get cheap oil overseas, why deplete our reserves. if we do do something like the manhattan project to develop energy independence, we could easily convert over to hydrogen fuel in less than 5-10 years. BUT BIG OIL ISN'T GOING TO ALLOW THAT TO HAPPEN BECAUSE THEIR LOBBYISTS PAY FOR ELECTIONS.

        January 5, 2012 at 1:04 pm |
  72. SNAKE

    break ties with ISRAEL and close the federal reserve bank. wars will be a thing of the past.

    January 5, 2012 at 12:02 pm | Reply
    • Sayan Majumdar

      Without Israeli assistance the United States and British foreign policy in the Middle East will collapse within couple of days.


      January 5, 2012 at 12:06 pm | Reply
      • Erky

        The middle east policy? Do you mean the policy which is not in our national interest and is being driven by special interests groups like AIPAC?

        January 5, 2012 at 12:34 pm |
      • Cheetahe

        Please let me know what was the advise of Israel to the Bushies before the Iraqi war.
        Whatever advise given seems to have caused unnecessary grief to both US and Britain.

        January 5, 2012 at 12:47 pm |
      • Hector

        Sayan back out. You are not an American. You are an Indian. You are pro war only because you are not the one paying the cost of the war. Your military is not losing its troops. Your people are not paying the tax dollars to fund this war. On top of that you are the ones who are taking our jobs away to your land. You want us to start a war with China, your neighbors and you competitors? Go fight your own war and leave us alone, the American people out of it. We are done with wars and enemies.

        January 5, 2012 at 12:52 pm |
      • gag

        hector, this is for u, u r saying ur country soldiers are facing issue, i agree with that, but do u know how many we have lost in Kashmir and battle with pakistan, its the same pakistan and osama which ur country has supported in the past. Pakistan is the same country which is supporting and giving shelters to terrorist group and americans were supportiing them for decades,
        And also if you want us to go out from here, please take out all the ur companies from my country coca cola, colgate, mcdonald, oracle, microsoft, intel, levis, chevy, ford etc, the list goes to thousands the companies who take profit from us and send it back to US only, if you can do that, we will be more then willing to go back,
        Man understand this its a open market now, if u r taking something u have to give something back, its not always take-2

        January 5, 2012 at 2:25 pm |
      • pmc123

        "please take out all the ur companies from my country coca cola, colgate, mcdonald, oracle, microsoft, intel, levis, chevy, ford etc, the list goes to thousands the companies who take profit from us and send it back to US only"

        Yeah... ummm no they don't Sayan. They've invested millions in shipping all sorts of jobs and industries.. entire plants and operations from the U.S. to India. Starting the boom in information technology in Mumbai. You think the profit is coming back here? Think again. If companies did that they would be taxed on that money. No they are keeping the profit over there therefore causing the effect of a toilet bowl flushing on the U.S. job market.

        January 5, 2012 at 5:49 pm |
    • SNAKE

      sayan majumdar, screw middle east foreign policy. americans are tired of wars that only get us deeper into debt and does nothing but harm our national security.

      January 5, 2012 at 12:13 pm | Reply
      • Sayan Majumdar

        @SNAKE, try to convince your leadership to forsake Middle East petroleum resources any see how they respond.


        January 5, 2012 at 12:20 pm |
      • Hector

        Both Israel and India represent the same thought process. Make USA change its foreign policies to suit their interests. It is time that USA starts seeing its own interests like everybody else first.

        January 5, 2012 at 12:54 pm |
    • Mike C

      I hope you like expensive gasoline. Iran would love to sell us some $20 per gallon gasoline once we don't have a military presence there.

      January 5, 2012 at 12:24 pm | Reply
      • SNAKE

        since when does iran export gasoline? they can't even refine their own gasoline so they import most of their domestic needs. iran only exports about 5% of the worlds oil so they cannot dictate prices. get a book and do some reading.

        January 5, 2012 at 1:28 pm |
    • OLDGUY

      Sure wish world politics was as easy to solve as you imply; but it's not; and please ...... stop assuming "All Americans" agree with you're "off the cuff" and "mentally lacking" comments; discussions are to learn and share ........ comments like yours belong in the trash ......... along with everyone else that assumes they have the corner on truth; truth varies with perspective and your environment; so until you walk in the shoes of an Israeli or a Palistinian ....... and live in their "man made & man created" environments ........... pick another subject to comment on.

      January 5, 2012 at 12:25 pm | Reply
      • SNAKE

        american's don't want to walk in the shoes of of the israeli or the palestinian. we cannot solve THEIR problems. SO SHUT YOUR HEAD OLDGUY!

        January 5, 2012 at 12:50 pm |
    • SNAKE

      middle east petroleam resources are available on the global market for anyone who wants to buy it. the arabs and opec does not give the united states any special deals. we need to get the parasite called israel and the federal reserve bank off our back and bring all our troops's time to let the world deal with their own problems and for us to deal with our's. only then can america regain the respect of the world and return to our former glory as a fair and humane country. AND WHY IS THE STINKING POST BUTTON IN SPANISH?

      January 5, 2012 at 12:48 pm | Reply
  73. Laura

    I guess we need to learn how to make friends, not enemies and live in peace, not to plan new wars, while old ones still not finished yet. Maybe it sounds naïve for someone, but for some reason I am not shaking at night in fear of Iran, like our politicians would like us to do, believing that not all Iranians are suicidal to use nuclear weapons (I’m more scared of a nuclear power plant nearby); and North Korea looks so needy and hungry that you want to help them… And, I am not that brave, no, I just all had it before Soviet Union; when we studied at school how to do proper evacuations in attacks, and Americans here dug bunkers in their backyards… Looking back, you just realize no one actually planned to fight, two military powers made money on people fear. So, all this hysteria about the deadly threat from Iran or North Korea just sounds so familiar and doesn’t work anymore.

    January 5, 2012 at 11:54 am | Reply
    • Sayan Majumdar

      Do note it was the military balance between United States led NATO and Soviet Union led Warsaw Pact that prevented the Cold War to transform into a World War III.

      Give the military-industrial complex (of both belligerents) their proper due.


      January 5, 2012 at 12:03 pm | Reply
    • Sidewinder

      Very well put. Without "enemies" to be "protected" from, how can governments justify the expenses of huge militaries? When the Cold War ended, we had to find new "enemies", so in the case of Iran and N Korea, we just trotted them out and buffed up their threat level. Since we would never invade Iran, what is the point of having a massive military presence near them? If they nuke Isreal, I guarantee that Isreal will retaliate in kind, so why do we always have to be the world police? Remove our over riding dependence on oil and that whole region is of little interest to us.

      January 5, 2012 at 12:29 pm | Reply
  74. Sayan Majumdar

    Everybody look in a slightly different perspective, United States Armed Forces may be having tough time overseas, however for their valiant efforts the United States mainland remain free from sustained foreign invasion.

    The “security bubble” has been expanded considerably albeit at unfortunate cost of human lives and financial pressure.


    January 5, 2012 at 11:53 am | Reply
    • Hector

      Why is Sayan such a strong proponent of war? Where is he coming from?

      January 5, 2012 at 12:57 pm | Reply
      • SNAKE

        maybe he comes from our biggest enemy, ISRAEL.

        January 5, 2012 at 1:16 pm |
  75. woodrow

    The problem with war is it never really fixes problems. The war on terror hasn't worked. But it had a nebulous beginning and an equally nebulous ending.

    January 5, 2012 at 11:49 am | Reply
  76. SNAKE

    no more war for any reason. war only makes the central banks richer. time for them to go on a crash diet.

    January 5, 2012 at 11:47 am | Reply
  77. Bazooka Joe

    Couple of thoughts FWIW.....
    Ever take a look at who has financial interests in defense/defense related companies and subcontractors ? Bingo.... elected officials – its part of their gravy train and they are not about to wreck it.
    Also when you hear these fools talkiing about "cuts" its not really a cut but in reality is a slowing of the projected increase (generally speaking, I cannot say with any confidence that the 1.2 Trillion that may happen due to inaction by the super committee, that may be different).

    January 5, 2012 at 11:46 am | Reply
  78. coriolana

    Two wars is two wars too many at any time.

    January 5, 2012 at 11:33 am | Reply
  79. JOE

    How do we determine when the war in Afghanistan is over and when we have reached our goal in that war? We are fighting an enemy that does not wear military uniform but one that blends in with the civilian population. Moreover, the more combatants they lose on the battlefield, the more they recruit insurgents to keep this war going. So when do we know for sure that our mission has been accomplished in Afghanistan. I personally believe that if the Bush administration has consulted and negotiated with the Taliban government to go after al Qaeda instead of destabilizing the entire country, our mission would have been accomplished just months after we entered in 2001 and alot of lives would have been spared. And I believe that it is reckless to destabilize an entire country to go after a terrorist cell. Then again, the Bush administration abandoned and prolonged this war to wage their Iraqi war, leaving our troops and NATO allies susceptible to defeat. With that being said, I pray that President Obama moves up the deadline and try to bring an end to this war much sooner.

    January 5, 2012 at 11:30 am | Reply
  80. Jack

    "I can't imagine another ground engagement with 160,000 American troops ..... That is not the way we will fight from now on." LOL Just let the GOP win in Nov. and watch our troops stream into Iran. We aren't gonna learn the lesson until thoroughly bled dry of both money and people.

    January 5, 2012 at 11:11 am | Reply
  81. Mike

    Will Americans ultimately get sick of the 'former main stream media sale outs' like CNN, FOX, MSNBC, and begin to drag them out into the streets for a beating?

    January 5, 2012 at 10:42 am | Reply
    • Jennifer

      Oh yes!!!! I can't wait for that day!!! and its coming soon...

      January 5, 2012 at 11:12 am | Reply
  82. dave

    America should have a malitia not a standing army,99% of conflicts can be resolved with our navy and air force, army and marines are obsolete. on the off chance we find that 1% we can't fix with a bomb have specially trained spec ops and worse case call a malitia that would function in a similar way to our national guard.

    January 5, 2012 at 10:39 am | Reply
    • dan

      yeah thats how you spell militia. im not sure anyone wants to take advice from someone who cant even spell the terms he wants to argue about.

      January 5, 2012 at 11:16 am | Reply
    • 1SG US Army


      "America should have a malitia not a standing army,99% of conflicts can be resolved with our navy and air force, army and marines are obsolete. on the off chance we find that 1% we can't fix with a bomb have specially trained spec ops and worse case call a malitia that would function in a similar way to our national guard."

      That is the dumbest thing on here yet

      January 5, 2012 at 2:01 pm | Reply
      • SNAKE

        1sg us army, we do need a standing army, airforce, and navy. but i believe that our military should only be used to protect the american people from foriegn INVADERS. not enemies of ISRAEL, NATO, THE NWO, OR BIG OIL. every war we fought since the war of 1812 was for the wrong reason. we shouldn't have even fought ww2. it was none of our bussiness! the russians and chineese eventually would have worn down the nazi's and japaneese. the japaneese wouldn't have attacked pearl harbor if we had not cut off their oil supply and raw materials. just saying, ssgt u.s. army 1972-1976

        January 5, 2012 at 2:32 pm |
  83. JOE

    I don't have a problem with two wars just as long as the likes of the Bushes and the Cheynes and the Rumsfelds and the Rices and the Powells and the GOP put themselves and their children on the frontline.

    January 5, 2012 at 10:29 am | Reply
    • SNAKE

      AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH! good luck with that idea!

      January 5, 2012 at 2:37 pm | Reply
  84. Johnny 5

    War in any amount is too many.

    January 5, 2012 at 10:28 am | Reply
    • Miss Demeanor

      How about one that keeps foreign 'liberators' from occupying your mothers home and doing whatever they please? Didn't that happen in the past in the US, France, Poland....

      January 5, 2012 at 10:43 am | Reply
      • coriolana

        The last time the US was 'invaded' was in 1812 by the British. Failed history, too, I see.

        January 5, 2012 at 11:35 am |
  85. podunda

    One war is too many – duh !

    January 5, 2012 at 10:26 am | Reply
  86. tv22

    While I think we need to reduce our costs and perhaps come to this point where we can't plan to fight two wars, we don't need to do the intel analysis for everyone else. I'd much rather have the ability to fight two wars for far less money – which can be done by finishing the current wars, closing nearly every overseas base we have and repatriating those troops to US bases – than leave us vulnerable to attack if we are involved somewhere else.

    January 5, 2012 at 10:13 am | Reply
    • Sayan Majumdar

      @tv22, the problem with your theory is if a hostile nation gains supremacy (though unlikely) over the closely related continents of Asia, Europe and Africa, today or tomorrow it will endanger the political or business security of United States.

      I am pretty sure the Services of United States are very uncomfortable with the proposed budgetary cuts.


      January 5, 2012 at 10:28 am | Reply
      • Bob

        At Sayan Majumdar:

        Only the war machine industry is worry, the rest of us like the idea of no wars, less spending and less tax money for the Weapons industry.

        January 5, 2012 at 10:44 am |
  87. Barry G.

    Fighting two wars at the same time was too much for Ancient Greece, when it was at the height of its power; and, it led to its demise.

    If I remember correctly, during the Civil War, Canada committed an offese against the US. But President Lincoln was wise enough to tell his staff "One war at a time...", and he ordered that the offending Canadian be released and that no action be taken.

    Lincoln was a wise man.

    I wish we had leaders with such wisdom, character and ingegrity. Sadly we have leaders who are addicted to the money they take from lobbyists.

    January 5, 2012 at 10:12 am | Reply
    • mike

      How right you are! (expecially abotu the lobbyists)

      January 5, 2012 at 12:45 pm | Reply
  88. Barry G.

    Wasn't the fall of Ancient Greece partly due to their overextending themselves, by engaging in a second war (against ther region of modern day Italy), while they were already engaged in an unresolved war?

    You'd think that we'd be smart enough to know our history and wise enough to learn from it.

    January 5, 2012 at 10:04 am | Reply
  89. Jeb

    While I think it is great to reduce the standing force President Obama and reduce some of our capability to wage multiple foreign wars, let's go a bit further. How many $ each year are you cutting from the bloated defense and war budget? When are you ending the useless campaign in Afghanistan? Our armed forces should protect this country not try to impose our political will on other countries.

    January 5, 2012 at 9:52 am | Reply
    • dan

      Afghanistan was about restoring political balance in a nation that had become a safe harbor for terrorism under the Taliban. Remember 9/11 you jerk? Im pretty sure this one was well within the realm of protecting the US.

      Iraq was the one about imposing political will. Read a book.

      January 5, 2012 at 11:20 am | Reply
      • Bob

        iraq war is about oil

        January 5, 2012 at 11:55 am |
      • SNAKE


        January 5, 2012 at 1:20 pm |
  90. N.

    Let me see.. When was the last MAJOR War that our military had a decisive victory since WWII?
    Certainly not Korea (an armistice is still in force), not in Vietnam (I don't know what we should call the result there), not Iraq I or Iraq II. Or Afghanistan, it is still going on after 11 years! I hope they do not count Nicaragua, or Somalia as a major wars! Our involvement in the Balkans was to help NATO, and there we did some impressive work.
    The problem is that our politicians, in collusion with the military-industrial complex, are always on the lookout for a good war that is profitable for them, but disastrous for our economy and our social fabric. So at least, some people in Washington are beginning to realize the limits of our military power in a rapidly changing world that is seeing new powers emerging that have their own interests to guard, and their military do not solely depend on RPGs to do their fighting.

    January 5, 2012 at 9:46 am | Reply
  91. Dude

    The US currently spends more on military than the rest of the earth combined. We are on track to raise that 23%.

    Scaling back to more than the entire rest of our planet plus a 16% increase is called a dangerous cut that will leave us vulnerable.

    How about a .0000000001% cut in military and use the money to increase diplomacy by 400%?

    For the cost of funding the Iraq war for two years, the entire US power grid could be converted to solar power. This is from a cover story on Scientific American.

    If an amount equal to all other military spending in the known universe is not enough to defend America, fire the military and hire a new one.

    January 5, 2012 at 9:41 am | Reply
    • Tayloao

      The U.S. is the largest economy in the world. Making a claim about how the US spends more on X than anyone else is rediculous no matter what X is. If you really want to look at whether or not the US spends too much on military a better gauge is what percentage of GDP is spent. The US spends about 4.06% of GDP on the military. China spends more at about 4.3%. Russia is about the same at 3.9%. The Brits and France spend less at about 2.5% each, however they are able to do so because we basically provide their national defense for them. In other words as a percentage of our spending abilities we are normal.

      January 5, 2012 at 9:59 am | Reply
      • John in NY

        Excellent point, and also let's not forget that as China owns the means of production, and their standards across the board are lower, so their "cost" for the similar items would be considerably less then US's would be.

        January 5, 2012 at 10:19 am |
      • Tayloao

        Excellent point John. Which is also why China has approx 4.6 million people in their military wheras the US has about 2.9 mil. Which is almost 2 million more. With the Dude's philosophy we should spend the same as everyone else in actual dollars. This is akin to spending the same on police for Peidmont North Dakota and New York City, NY.

        January 5, 2012 at 10:42 am |
      • Jack

        Actual and % comparisons are very different my friend. Just because the US is insanely rich doesn't mean it inexplicably needs trillions to stay safe. Particularly when we have Mexico and Canada as neighbors. What would you have done if the US were in South East Asia or the Middle East? Probably gone broke buying guns I guess. Oh wait ...

        January 5, 2012 at 11:20 am |
      • Tayloao

        @ Jack,
        The same could be said about everything. You get what you pay for. If you want better national defense and capabilities then you have to pay for it. Just because the US is rich doesn't mean we need to spend trillions on social security, medicine, roads, justice, science, etc. etc. etc.

        January 5, 2012 at 12:54 pm |
  92. V19

    Remember when Nazi Germany decided to assert it's "Military Dominance" on the world by fighting a war on two fronts, didn't work out too well. I feel we should be focusing on enhancing our intellectual dominance and on ways to resolve our $15-Trillion bill from the last war...

    January 5, 2012 at 9:40 am | Reply
    • Dude

      Well said!

      January 5, 2012 at 9:41 am | Reply
      • russ

        There will be more reliance on special ops, drones and air power in the future and best navy even if cut. It's more effective and cost effecient. Don't forget there is the reserves, national guard.

        January 5, 2012 at 11:10 am |
    • Order through strength

      If my degree serves me correctly, Germany attacked countries. The US is not attacking anyone that does not endanger global stability. Are you suggesting Poland was a rogue nation, or threatening the economies of the western world? Or were you talking about powerhouse northern Africa in the 40's? Your point is invalid, and Dude shows his ignorance simply by agreeing with your post.

      January 5, 2012 at 10:08 am | Reply
      • guysmyley

        global stability?

        January 5, 2012 at 10:18 am |
      • V19

        The effectiveness of 1940's military strategy was not my point. The point being is our true intentions; you can add the shimmering patina of "Wold Peace" but when push comes to shove we are there for oil. Let us further educate our youth in green technologies to rid ourselves of foreign oil, not Modern Warfare.

        January 5, 2012 at 12:57 pm |
    • John in NY

      Ironically the US fought on two fronts in that very same war and if worked out pretty well for us.

      January 5, 2012 at 10:21 am | Reply
      • Miss Demeanor

        You, sir, are brilliant.

        January 5, 2012 at 10:47 am |
      • Mark

        Only with the help of Great Britain and Russia........

        January 5, 2012 at 1:28 pm |
      • TieTac

        Gee, what's the diff?
        Did the rest of the world see Germany and Japan as a threat to all?
        Were we the only country fighting, dieing, and paying?
        Did Germany fight a 2-front war?
        Did Japan fight a 2-front war?
        Wasn't the Pacific War was fought as a holding action until Germany was defeated?
        Didn't we use an atomic weapon to end the Pacific War?
        Did we worry about collateral damage during WWII?
        Maybe you should rent some WWII CDs and compare to current news footage. Obviously, information passed to you in school was somewhat lacking.

        January 6, 2012 at 7:30 am |
    • Victor


      January 5, 2012 at 10:52 am | Reply
      • V19

        Well Victor, The Chinese education has undoubtedly surpassed our own; meanwhile we find ourselves in trillions of dollars in debt to the People's Republic. Enhance our minds, not our arsenals...

        January 5, 2012 at 1:22 pm |
    • whatever

      Remember when America fought a war on two fronts in that very same war and handily won both?

      January 5, 2012 at 12:33 pm | Reply
  93. sparky45

    Geographically speaking we are pretty lucky. We aren't likely to be invaded and have a war on american soil anytime soon. So I don't really have a problem with this as long as we can maintain our technological advantage.

    January 5, 2012 at 9:30 am | Reply
    • mikrik13

      As much as the US dumps on our neighbors to the south, including South America, it is amazing we have not had a war on our border. Other than a drug war.

      January 5, 2012 at 9:37 am | Reply
      • cajr

        dumps on them? this country is the only one that helps them. plus they are corrupt as hell. oh you cant find the drug cartel leaders? hey its the huge mansion in the middle of nowhere. no problem.

        January 5, 2012 at 3:18 pm |
    • V19

      Incorrect - the ideology of isolation is obsolete, it only takes a push of a button to cause a calamity.

      January 5, 2012 at 1:24 pm | Reply
  94. Tayloao

    Having served in Iraq in 05 in the infantry my biggest beef was the absurdly poor running of the war. Everything was run with a sense of politics. Troops were loaded into cities deemed politically worthy like Falujah, and entire provinces were then left dangerously undermanned. Air wing support used new armored vehicles to drive on a secure base to lunch and communicated with new com equipment whilst carrying new weapons, while the infantry was left with old beat up amphibious vehicles, no com equipment, and long rifles. The concept of winning was an impossibility because the tactics were based around the notion that we would have to make due with mass shortages of manpower, and pretty much everything else needed. Reporters were frequently attached to us and would often flat out lie about the situation because they constantly came into the theater with an agenda. The American public would be fed nonesense, "veterans" would go home talking about how awesome it was to sit on a base eating restaurant quality food and playing videogames for a year, meanwhile those very few actually fighting would be doing so massively undermanned and underequiped. When Obama took over it was more of the same political shenanigans with money being thrown out haphazardly, troops being moved for political purposes, the military not getting what it needs, and Defense in general being used as a political football with no real "Defense" being on the mind of those doing so.

    Very few countries have successfully run two wars simultaneously. The results of the GWOT will be simple and obvious. Post Vietnam the military was shrunk as America became anti war. It picked up in the Cold War but as the Cold War ended the military shrunk again by those short sighted. These wars began with too few troops and equip and will end with another massive cut to the military. When the next war that should be fought comes along we'll likely hesitate. When the one after that comes along we'll go in undermanned, and underequiped and probably continue on this downward trend until the next major power comes along.

    January 5, 2012 at 8:47 am | Reply
    • Sayan Majumdar

      @Tayloao, What you experienced occurs when nation’s military gets overstretched. And political interference (for scoring points) in military operations is a “demon” experienced by Services worldwide.


      January 5, 2012 at 8:58 am | Reply
      • Tayloao

        Political interferance is not a new thing. It just got really bad during Veitnam and never got better.

        January 5, 2012 at 9:07 am |
    • Jose

      Another apologizing defeatistdemocrat.

      Better teach you children to speak Chinese and Hindu if you want them to compete in the new world order.

      January 5, 2012 at 9:00 am | Reply
      • Tayloao

        I'm definately not a Democrat and I would really love to not be a defeatist and am certainly not apologizing. However, if you had experienced what I experienced I'm sure you would feel similarly. Less than 10% of the country has actually served in the military. Only about 10% of that is actually combat arms. And less than 20% of Congress has actually served in the military. So in other words. Only about 1% of the country actually knows what it means to fight in a war and they are being led by a majority political structure that also has no understanding of what it means to serve.

        January 5, 2012 at 9:15 am |
      • guysmyley

        better learn more about economics. there is not the same potential for growth in the US.

        January 5, 2012 at 10:19 am |
      • Jack

        "Hindu" refers to a person following the Hinduism faith. Like what Christian means. I guess you d like the Asians to learn to speak Christian. Do you also want to abolish the Dept of Education?

        January 5, 2012 at 11:25 am |
      • Alan

        Because only people carrying the rifles fight the war. Not the hundreds of thousands that support the missions in other ways (i.e Air support, naval support, supply lines, intel etc). Guess the ground pounders just get their ammunition, food, supplies, medical support from thin air.

        Although I agree that Congress should understand the militiary better by serving in it, the reason why it is not a requirement is to get a civilian perspective on the total picture, not just a military point of view. I think congress is corrupt as ever though, so the point is moot anyways.

        January 5, 2012 at 3:48 pm |
    • El Duderino (if you're not into the whole brevity thing)

      We need a draft so we can economically rebound from our $14,000,000,000,000.00 (trillion) debt, with a small military, and when war seems imminent we can draft people. It worked well in WWII. Plus with a draft there will be a shared sacrifice, and people would be more critical of war.

      January 5, 2012 at 2:07 pm | Reply
  95. rika33

    What a surprise – nothings free. You can't fight a war and not raise the loot to pay for it without severe economic effects. And let's not forget the costs at home of TSA and the like. Whatever the merits of the wars – Americans should revile the political leadership on both sides that sold the fantasy of cutting taxes would increase revenue and that the "market" was self regulating.

    January 5, 2012 at 8:43 am | Reply
  96. RodRoderick

    haa... I bet all those major companies that spent a fortune putting congressmen in office just to maintain military contracts are fuming right now.

    January 5, 2012 at 8:36 am | Reply
    • BIgmart

      Lot of sad truth to that statement

      January 5, 2012 at 9:07 am | Reply
  97. Ragu

    The military-industrial lobby is quite strong in the US. No politician is capable of facing them and making a decision to refocus the US economy towards peace and prosperity; as opposed to borrow and wage wars. The wastage is enormous in the military too, but for the suppliers of the wasted goods and services, it is a great opportunity. US complains against expenses like healthcare and social security; even NASA's budget is cut; yet when it comes to military budget it gets cut quite little. US people and politicians, need serious change of attitude in build up and use of military. Also, they have to face up to the failures of past military interventions and apply the lessons learned.

    January 5, 2012 at 7:20 am | Reply
    • ????

      Spot on, thanks.

      January 5, 2012 at 8:32 am | Reply
    • Realist

      I guess we can slip back into the hollow force model we had post Vietnam during the 1970's when we could barely field a combat ready force for one war. In my opinion this is a dangerous slid into isolationism.

      January 5, 2012 at 8:36 am | Reply
    • RodRoderick

      Personally I think isolation is the best thing for America. American making (and buying) American products.

      January 5, 2012 at 8:38 am | Reply
      • Miss Demeanor

        Yes. Isolationism worked so well just before the Great Depression. Open trade benefits everybody... selfish us-against-them thinking causes LOWER employment levels and higher consumer prices for us AND our allies (not that you'd care about them...). BTW, if you want to believe american car manufacturers propoganda and buy their inferior quality crap because you are isolationist or 'patriotic'... you are a tool.

        January 5, 2012 at 10:53 am |
    • tv22

      Of course a logical consequence of this will be massive job loss. Reducing the troop numbers means base closings and al the support businesses that exist to service the base will close too. Also, some of the best jobs in the country are high tech jobs at military contractors. I'm not saying this should be done, but we'll have to deal with a massive shock to the economy.

      January 5, 2012 at 10:15 am | Reply
  98. Sayan Majumdar

    United States need to closely ally her with at least two militarily robust and diplomatically reliable nations in almost each continent and thus remain a potent force with numerically reduced force.

    Technological superiority will remain the game changer under such circumstances and arrangements.


    January 5, 2012 at 6:49 am | Reply
    • BIgmart

      They had allies Nato and Canada supported the US in Afghanistan and 200 Canadian troops have been killed doing it.
      We did stay out of the Iraq thing because it was wrong and that thing cost the US a lot of support from her allies that will now probably take a harder look before getting involved next time

      January 5, 2012 at 9:14 am | Reply
  99. mbe5424

    I am going to start this with me apologizing to those of a higher rank than myself. Now, if your relying on those M.I. guys to tell you that 2 wars is hurting the government well don't wait to long cause their not that smart. It hurt us in ww ii just as it is now but for us to make these kind of cuts is for going to increase the suicide rate but the unemployment rate as well. Now that's not M.I. talking this is a soldier that's been deployed three times and now can't find a job because our great government is broke. Never in my life would I have thought I would say that. And for playing smart try using common sense instead of trying to use the "book" way of thinking alot more might get done and more terrorist might get caught. AND QUIT PUTTING EVERYTHING WE DO MILITARY WISE IN THE NEWS OR WE WILL BE IN TWO MORE WARS. That's the common sense thing again.

    January 5, 2012 at 5:06 am | Reply
    • Neeneko

      As any good security or military planner will tell you, common sense is worse then useless.....

      January 5, 2012 at 8:39 am | Reply
    • SNAKE

      at least when i joined the army i got into a MOS that can be used in civilian life. aircraft maintenance.

      January 5, 2012 at 3:16 pm | Reply
  100. ct

    the only ones that want wars is republicans, but when it comes to paying for the wars they want to cut programs that helps out the middle class. cut cut cut is all you hear from these rethugs, and war war war....obama 2012

    January 5, 2012 at 4:59 am | Reply
    • michaelfury

      “Never before has a populist democracy attained international supremacy. But the pursuit of power is not a goal that commands popular passion, except in conditions of a sudden threat or challenge to the public’s sense of domestic well-being. The economic self-denial (that is, defense spending) and the human sacrifice (casualties, even among professional soldiers) required in the effort are uncongenial to democratic instincts. Democracy is inimical to imperial mobilization.”

      – Zbigniew Brzezinski, The Grand Chessboard, 1997

      "I've learned an immense amount from Dr. Brzezinski."

      – Barack Obama, 2007

      January 5, 2012 at 7:55 am | Reply
    • ????

      If you care to study history, most of our wars have been started by Democrats. The Repubs and Cheney/Bush do have to accept responsibility for Iraq and Afghanistan though.

      January 5, 2012 at 8:34 am | Reply
      • Realist

        If i remember correctly Congress, comprised of both Democrats and Republicans, authorized the wars and funded them. Iraq was really bad intelligence and Afghanistan was 100 percent justified for the Talibans support of Bin Laden. you can't lay all this at the feet of Bush/Cheny – that is simply a partisan jab.

        January 5, 2012 at 8:40 am |
      • EdR

        Realist – If Iraq was just really bad intelligence it would be bad enough.. but it wasn't. Its was outright lies and the fabrication of documents to support war for the sake of profiteering. Bush/Cheney/Rice, and rest of the cohorts should be put in prison for war crimes and crimes against humanity.

        January 5, 2012 at 9:54 am |
      • pmc123

        "most of our wars have been started by Democrats. "

        Really? Which ones? Was World War II started by democrats? was started by Pearl Harbor and finished in a mere 4 years by democrats (conquering most of what was then considered the "civilizeD" world. In four years...

        January 5, 2012 at 6:39 pm |
    • Jeff

      I'm a democrat and I disagree with that.

      January 5, 2012 at 10:49 am | Reply

Post a comment


CNN welcomes a lively and courteous discussion as long as you follow the Rules of Conduct set forth in our Terms of Service. Comments are not pre-screened before they post. You agree that anything you post may be used, along with your name and profile picture, in accordance with our Privacy Policy and the license you have granted pursuant to our Terms of Service.