The insanity of sequestration

[carsinamerica]

The Tora Bora region, when we knew OBL & Co. were trapped there. Instead we let our "allies" deal with it by letting them slip through. If, instead, we had knocked down a few mountains and turned them into Biblical/Koranical lakes of fire... that's one hell of a message. The point: "you mess with the Holy Land of the USA, God His Own Self will come and turn your vicinity into a suburb of Hell."

*WE* are. And that's the point: someone wants to play terrorist, they'd have to realize there's someone far, far more terrifying out there.

Yeah, yeah, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Tokyo. Boo fricken hoo.

If the US had demonstrated that it was ready, able and *willing* to use overwhelming force to crush our enemies into subatomic particles, where do you think we'd be with, say, Syria today? Instead of the whole world laughing at the paper tiger the US has become, making threats about "red lines" and not backing them up thus proving ourselves weak and opening the door for more and more and worse and worse atrocities, the world would know that if the US said "I'm'a gonna smack you," they'd mean it and it would *hurt.* Iran would know that any use of nukes on their part would mean instant ruination of theior entire nation. Even North Korea might get the point.

If the USA had demonstrated that it was willing to kill indiscriminately and wipe out cities worth of defenseless people in a grossly disproportionate act, terrorism would have increased, not decreased. It wouldn't just be al-Qaeda. That single act would radicalize millions of people who would otherwise be ambivalent toward us. It would radicalize people within the United States. There's no way to secure everything, everywhere, and we'd get hit again and again and again. It would be a recruiting poster for al-Qaeda (what pieces of it survived): "Come fight America, the country that killed millions of defenseless Muslim women and children." We would have no allies left in the world. This isn't 1945. The enemy's different, the war's different, the whole world's different.

And listen to yourself: you speak of "more and more and worse and worse atrocities," as if you think what Syria's government is doing is bad or something. You fret about the bad things that Iran might do if it were nuclear-armed. You are talking about a war crime that would make Assad seem like a saint by comparison. If we'd nuked Afghanistan, we would never be able to complain about any other state's actions again. Slaughtering defenseless people en masse who have nothing to do with your fight is wrong if Assad does it. It's not somehow right just because the USA does it. I'd like to think that there's something that makes us better people than Osama bin Laden, not worse.

 

[Orionblamblam]

If the USA had demonstrated that it was willing to kill indiscriminately and wipe out cities worth of defenseless people...

The Tora Bora region is not exactly high population density, so both of your claims there are a bit hyperbolic.

in a grossly disproportionate act,

Ah. But... is it? Consider the relative value of lives, American vs. "them." It's hard to get a real read on that, but the closest measure might be the relative value of Israeli vs. "Palesitinian." And how do you get that measure? Look at things like prisoner exchanges. A few years back the Israelies traded *hundreds* of Arab terrorist prisoners to get back one or two captured Israeli soldiers. This is a tacit admision on the part of the Palestinians that individual Israelies are worth hundreds of them. And I say that Americans are the equal of Israelis. So it should be reasonable that the proper "proportion" is at least a hundred "them" per American. So kill 3,000 of us, a proportionate response is to kill 300,000 of them.

terrorism would have increased, not decreased.

And what do you base that on? Pick an urban hell-hole in the US, one with high gang crime. Now assume that the cops decide one year that they have had enough of that, and in response to gang crime, the cops go bugnuts and kill every gang member they can find *and* their families. What gang crime going to be like next year?

It wouldn't just be al-Qaeda. That single act would radicalize millions of people who would otherwise be ambivalent toward us. It would radicalize people within the United States. There's no way to secure everything, everywhere, and we'd get hit again and again and again

Please. The type that gets radicalized has gotten radicalized. What's stopped them?

We would have no allies left in the world.

Any nation that would turn its back on the US for nuking the Tora Bora region is not our ally. Let them suck up to Al Queda all they want, and let them draw the consequences.

If we'd nuked Afghanistan, we would never be able to complain about any other state's actions again.

Yeah, yeah, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, blah, blah, blah.

. I'd like to think that there's something that makes us better people than Osama bin Laden, not worse.

Better aim.

 

[sferrin]

I only wish we'd have still had some 25 Mt B41s. We could have retired the lot of them through live fire.

 

[carsinamerica]

I only wish we'd have still had some 25 Mt B41s. We could have retired the lot of them through live fire.

Whatever, cowboys. I'm glad the people running the country at the time had at least a modicum of sense.

 

[Orionblamblam]

Whatever, cowboys.

Thank you! Too many people these days are idiots and think that "cowboy" is a pejorative, when in fact it's a compliment.

I'm glad the people running the country at the time had at least a modicum of sense.

Sadly only a modicum. The "War on Terror" has been fought as if this was a conventional war of 20th century civilized powers, not a long war of western enlightened culture vs. a barbaric culture that actually worships death. In order to *win,* you need to understand your enemy and deal accordingly. Nazis and Communists were downright gentlemanly, urban, cultured and civilized compared to jihadis. You make a valid threat against their lives and their families lives, your average Nazi or Commie would back down, because they were really all that crazy. But people who are obsessed with ideas of martyrdom and holy missions? The only way to beat them is to beat them down.

 

[circle-5]

Ah. But... is it? Consider the relative value of lives, American vs. "them." It's hard to get a real read on that, but the closest measure might be the relative value of Israeli vs. "Palestinian." And how do you get that measure? Look at things like prisoner exchanges. A few years back the Israelis traded *hundreds* of Arab terrorist prisoners to get back one or two captured Israeli soldiers. This is a tacit admission on the part of the Palestinians that individual Israelis are worth hundreds of them. And I say that Americans are the equal of Israelis. So it should be reasonable that the proper "proportion" is at least a hundred "them" per American. So kill 3,000 of us, a proportionate response is to kill 300,000 of them.

And that ratio will rightfully increase over time. They already consider themselves expendable, so it's hard to give them any value at all.

 

[sferrin]

I only wish we'd have still had some 25 Mt B41s. We could have retired the lot of them through live fire.

Whatever, cowboys. I'm glad the people running the country at the time had at least a modicum of sense.

Yeah? How's that strategy working out? The only thing respected in the Middle East is strength. Period.

 

[Orionblamblam]

The only thing respected in the Middle East is strength. Period.

Well, to be a bit more accurate, what's respected is strength AND the willingness to use it. Everybody on Earth knew the US was strong during the "Black Hawk Down" fiasco, but unwillingness to use that strength at that time was a specific moment that caused OBL to decide to take on the US. In an interview prior to 9/11, he made it clear that he realized the US was a "paper tiger." This was an instance of what Americans saw as "restraint" being seen by our enemies as "weakness," thus inviting attack and the deaths of thousands of our own.

Too many people these days are unable or unwilling to realize that the whole world doesn't think the way they do.

 

[bobbymike]

The only thing respected in the Middle East is strength. Period.

Well, to be a bit more accurate, what's respected is strength AND the willingness to use it. Everybody on Earth knew the US was strong during the "Black Hawk Down" fiasco, but unwillingness to use that strength at that time was a specific moment that caused OBL to decide to take on the US. In an interview prior to 9/11, he made it clear that he realized the US was a "paper tiger." This was an instance of what Americans saw as "restraint" being seen by our enemies as "weakness," thus inviting attack and the deaths of thousands of our own.

Too many people these days are unable or unwilling to realize that the whole world doesn't think the way they do.

And to add to sferrin's and OBB brilliant analysis there has never been a superpower/empire with such dominate military power being so reluctant to use it. At only 3% of GDP! I always laugh at the comments to the effect 'War for Oil' I wish it were true and the US said yup its ours what are you going to do? Here is a demonstration of what a single Trident D-5 can do. ;D

Yes I can hear the screams of Vietnam, Iraq, wars of choice but that is tiddlelywinks compared to former global superpower/empires. Carthage was the norm none of this hearts and minds BS.

 

[Rickshaw]

Perhaps it isn't but perhaps the point is you have a large country therefore you need a large government to run it properly?

And if you cut the US FedGuv expendatures *in* *half,* wouldn't that still be a "large government?"

Which was only doing half as much.

The function of Government is to not just govern but by governing, do things for the people they govern. That means services and functions which private industry is ill prepared and usually unwilling to undertake because they are unprofitable or unpopular. Citizens deserve to be serviced by their government.

What is needed is of course is a mix of government and private enterprise, not just one or the other. Private industry is not the panacea that many on the Naive Right believe. One only has to look at the performance of the nuclear industry to see that. Profit out bids safety everytime and so safety gets cut, unless government intervenes (witness Fukashima) and regulates (and enforces the regulations).

I don't doubt I'll hear the usual claims that government is inefficient and incapable. Yet that appears to be primarily a problem with US Government, not necessarily the concept of Government itself, per se. I've worked in both public and private enterprises and it's amazing the waste that occurs in private enterprise whereas government departments I've worked for have been run efficiently and of course, economically.

 

[Rickshaw]

You really believe Washington DC could run localities across a massive nation with huge demographic differences from DC or would the federal government just be replacing local bureaucrats? Then what's the difference? I believe there are many, many economic studies that show local governments provide much more bang for the tax payer dollar. You should really read de Tocqueville.

I have and no, that is not what I mean. The US appears to me to be a patchwork quilt of competing and inefficient tiny governments which invariably are too small to be efficient. I am not arguing for a single centralised government but rather for bigger, more efficient governments. Get rid of the tiny local governments, amalgamate them into bigger regional governments. Get rid of the small inefficient state governments and amalgamate them into bigger more efficient state governments. Expect that the central, Federal government will be large - it has to be to govern your large (geographically and population wise) nation. Get rid of the duplication of effort and taxation.

The history of the world has been filled with utopian dreams of government, huge all encompassing governments that have the power to provide everything to the masses, including hauling tens of millions of them away to death camps when the 'state' no longer needed them or believed them to be 'trouble'.

You don't think the dream of smaller government is as equally utopian and naive? No system is perfect but the US system appears much further than most from the ideal of perfection IMHO. Taxation is handled at so many different levels and collected inefficiently and yes, often squandered through inefficient local levels of government.

 

[Rickshaw]

Perhaps the point is that those lower levels of government are inefficient and wasteful because of over duplication of effort?

You have it backwards. For obvious reasons the state governments know what their states need rather than a massive government sometimes thousands of miles away.

That is a massive assumption there. Why do you assume that a central government utilising modern communications and a representative democratic system would not be able to understand the needs and wishes of local populations?

The Federal government does not have the infrastructure and ability to directly control 50 states. Its why armies are not composed of just lowly privates, and high ranking generals. There are captains and sgts and corporals and colonels. Delegation is critical in any system. its too much for one person.

True but you're assuming that the States do something useful and don't merely duplicate what the Federal Government already does. If the States were merely distributors of goods and services which the central government effectively "owns" (or controls) they may have a useful function but then you'd have to ask, why have the duplication? Wouldn't be more efficient to merely have the local government(s) do that and be funded directly by the central government?

However, that aside for the moment, what I am not proposing is a single centralised government nor necessarily the dissolution of the States or even Local Governments. Rather what I'm pointing out is that the utopian and naive dream of small government is a fallacy. It cannot work in a large, populated nation like the USA. It is a dream that is peddled by those who prefer anarchy over order IMHO.

I have made the point that perhaps the problem is the size of the governments at local and state level rather than necessarily the need for a single central government to control everything. More government(s) leads to greater inefficiencies, greater wastage of public monies and of course, more sand in the wheels of nationhood.

Why have 50 governments doing the job that one government can do? That one government through economies of scale can offer greater efficiencies.

because one government can't do it?

because the 50 governments are doing the job for 50 states. to each their own in fact. Hawaii isn't managing Maine, for example. So its not 50 governments doing the job of one federal government in the first place. if you think of a state government as a "person", and the sate is their "job", we have 50 different people doing their own job, but for the same "boss" (boss being the federal government) your proposal would be either eliminating those people and having the boss do things one at a time, or simply making them all "bosses" that then go off and try to do whatever job that pops up that they don't, if ever understand.

That's no way to run anything. plus its not democratic.

I would suggest that 50 states is too many in a nation the size of the USA. Australia, which is comparable size has 7 states and territories. It seems to have done a great deal better in most social and economic measures than the USA over the last 5 years. Obviously we must be doing something right.

I would also question your statement that it is "not democratic". Democracy isn't about the number of elections nor even the number of and levels of government. I am unsure why you assume that it is.

And the federal government has almost never been capable of greater efficiency, even with state govs running their own states.

Yes, this appears to be rather an American problem, doesn't it? You seem to believe it is a universal constant for some reason. :

 

[sublight_]

......
Use the actual budget for R&D on advanced strategic weapons and global-range strike capabilities. Someone decides to screw with us, space-based system light 'em up.

The problem with having a lot of space based systems is that the slightest conflict could trigger the Kessler effect.

 

[Orionblamblam]

The problem with having a lot of space based systems is that the slightest conflict could trigger the Kessler effect.

Only relevant if your space infrastructure is not armored.

 

[Orionblamblam]

The function of Government is to not just govern but by governing, do things for the people they govern. That means services and functions which private industry is ill prepared and usually unwilling to undertake because they are unprofitable or unpopular. Citizens deserve to be serviced by their government.

Citizens require that their government do for them *only* those things that the citizens cannot do for themselves. When governments start doing things for citizens that the citizens not only can do for themselves but should do for themselves, the government gains power and the citizens become subjects.

 

[bobbymike]

You really believe Washington DC could run localities across a massive nation with huge demographic differences from DC or would the federal government just be replacing local bureaucrats? Then what's the difference? I believe there are many, many economic studies that show local governments provide much more bang for the tax payer dollar. You should really read de Tocqueville.

I have and no, that is not what I mean. The US appears to me to be a patchwork quilt of competing and inefficient tiny governments which invariably are too small to be efficient. I am not arguing for a single centralised government but rather for bigger, more efficient governments. Get rid of the tiny local governments, amalgamate them into bigger regional governments. Get rid of the small inefficient state governments and amalgamate them into bigger more efficient state governments. Expect that the central, Federal government will be large - it has to be to govern your large (geographically and population wise) nation. Get rid of the duplication of effort and taxation.

The history of the world has been filled with utopian dreams of government, huge all encompassing governments that have the power to provide everything to the masses, including hauling tens of millions of them away to death camps when the 'state' no longer needed them or believed them to be 'trouble'.

You don't think the dream of smaller government is as equally utopian and naive? No system is perfect but the US system appears much further than most from the ideal of perfection IMHO. Taxation is handled at so many different levels and collected inefficiently and yes, often squandered through inefficient local levels of government.

No my point was more those dreams have not led to about 100 to 150 million dead bodies directly as a result of 'big government' dreamers.

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

I don't think you are from the US so I will try to be gentle:

Which was only doing half as much.

Its absolutely foolish to equate money spent with work produced in any endeavor. By this logic If I pay double the price for my car's value it will be twice as good, and if only pay half that (its actual value) it will only be capable of "doing half as much" There are limits to what governments can do, not just legally but financially as well.

Paying more than what something is worth is wasteful, not productive. Doubling what I pay my employees doesn't suddenly make them "twice as productive"

The function of Government is to not just govern but by governing, do things for the people they govern. That means services and functions which private industry is ill prepared and usually unwilling to undertake because they are unprofitable or unpopular. Citizens deserve to be serviced by their government.

They are serviced by local government already, redundancy is wasteful.

What is needed is of course is a mix of government and private enterprise, not just one or the other. Private industry is not the panacea that many on the Naive Right believe. One only has to look at the performance of the nuclear industry to see that. Profit out bids safety everytime and so safety gets cut, unless government intervenes (witness Fukashima) and regulates (and enforces the regulations).

You are confusing the "need of government" with the "amount of government needed" If you send to people to clean a broom closet, that is prudent. Sending six people? You don't six people to clean a broom closet. You are twisting this.

Profit outbidding safety is completely false too.

I don't doubt I'll hear the usual claims that government is inefficient and incapable. Yet that appears to be primarily a problem with US Government, not necessarily the concept of Government itself, per se. I've worked in both public and private enterprises and it's amazing the waste that occurs in private enterprise whereas government departments I've worked for have been run efficiently and of course, economically.

The US is different. Its pretty simple. I don't if you missed the part where I talked about homogeneous populations, functioning better with a more centralized government.

I have and no, that is not what I mean. The US appears to me to be a patchwork quilt of competing and inefficient tiny governments which invariably are too small to be efficient.

Don't confuse size and efficiency.

I am not arguing for a single centralised government but rather for bigger, more efficient governments. Get rid of the tiny local governments, amalgamate them into bigger regional governments. Get rid of the small inefficient state governments and amalgamate them into bigger more efficient state governments. Expect that the central, Federal government will be large - it has to be to govern your large (geographically and population wise) nation. Get rid of the duplication of effort and taxation.

You need to do more research into the United States. And why states are states and not regions.

You don't think the dream of smaller government is as equally utopian and naive?

No not at all. Bigger does not inherently stronger by any stretch. The idea of having a local government that fixes local problems is actually quiet simple. State governments fixing state problems. and federal governments fixing national problems.

The problem with "big government." in the way most people use it, is the federal government stepping in where problems could be handled by state and local governments just fine. Education is a perfect example of this. Most cities have their own education department and at the highest level it is run by the state. IE "State board of education" The Federal government is a large and heavy handed organization and everytime it has tried to manage or run education, or stick its nose into it, everyone involved has suffered.

No system is perfect but the US system appears much further than most from the ideal of perfection IMHO. Taxation is handled at so many different levels and collected inefficiently and yes, often squandered through inefficient local levels of government.

On the contrary taxation is something government always makes sure it gets right, what happens after that varies.

 

[RanulfC]

Because Isolationism and inability to project power has always worked so well for us in the past?

In fact, yes. Look at WWII: While the US sat back, European powers pounded themselves into the stone age. When we finally came rolling in, we wound up masters of the world. I'd call that a win for us. Isolationism gave us time for everybody else to beat the tar out of each other.

Yep so that when we came out swinging everyone else was prepared, experianced, and better equipped so that we lost millions of men to even get "footholds" before we finally manged to outnumber and overwhelm the enemy. Lesson learned it is always better to fight from a prepared position on foreign soil than to have to take and hold a "foot-hold" and then fight some more. We "re-learned" that lesson the hard way again 5 years after the end of WWII in Korea.

Meanwhile while we "prepared" and deployed to our foothold in Inchon, China had lots of time to prepare for our arrivial and little reason to believe we'd actually "stop" once we started over-running North Korea. The result was we got rolled back using the exact same tactics WE used in WWII.

No the only thing isolationism has EVER done for the United State is make us complacent and out of touch. It makes us more capable of ignoring or underestimating threats which do not directly effect the continential United States and reduces our influance on the World Stage to little more than a bystander. You "crow" that after WWII we "ruled" the world, in truth we only did so after Korea and after we commited to the strategy of forward deployment and active involvment in world affairs. What you advocating is to return the United States being at best a second world nation with little involvment or interest in world affairs and throw away everything that we have managed to achieve since Korea.

If that is what you wish for that's fine as it IS a "free country" and you are allowed your opinion. I happen to side with the majority of Americans who have no wish to see US influance and prestige reduced to such levels for no obvious gain or reason. That means keeping out hands in international affairs and keeping our troops stationed around the world as "preperation" because we have just not invented the capability yet to deploy troops instantly from the CONUS to anywhere they are needed in the world at a moments notice. Now if we HAD that kind of capability you might have a leg to stand on with your argument...

Instead of running wars like the Persian Gulf War or the Iraq War, run them like the Iran-Iraq War: make money by selling arms (preferably to both sides), and use one country we don't like to slaughter another country we don't like.

Ah, yes that was such a success wasn't it?

Pretty much, yeah. Millions of Iranians died in revenge for their act of war against the US embassy, at extremely little cost to the US. Woo!

Indeed, as did thousands of Iraqis, and hundreds of "side-casualties" drawn in by both sides, the fact that only a small minority of Iranians were involved with or approved of the US embassy situation or resolution and those that were involved did NOT die in the conflict but those that were "innocent" did seems to please you to no end. As a proud, and supposedly "responsible" gun owner perhaps you should pay more attention to actually hitting your "target" rather than just randomly spraying bullets down range and calling it a win.

You are also wrong in that it was NOT a "success" as defined by your original supposition:

Instead of, say, military actions against regimes we don't like, sell tactical weapons to their opponents. Instead of running wars like the Persian Gulf War or the Iraq War, run them like the Iran-Iraq War: make money by selling arms (preferably to both sides), and use one country we don't like to slaughter another country we don't like.

Which didn't happen. After the "war" Iran was hurt but still capable of rebuilding its power and influance and Iraq was broke and needed a quick and "easy" source of income to recovery from the war they started and then lost. So they set their sites on Kuwait who was nominally a US allied/freindly nation and invaded. Setting the US on a course for direct involvment in order to save Kuwait from a nation we had assisted against Iran. (Despite that fact Iraq STILL tried to sink one of our warships) In the end Iran became a local power because WE had to destroy the only credible "opposition" force in the area.

End result? The United States lost credibility and "Iraq" ended up becoming a hostage to Iranian "good-will" while Iran rose to local power. Net loss for the United States and therefore it was NOT sucessful under any of the terms YOU set down.

Move the goal posts as much as you need to feel good but be aware that is usually a tactic of people who neither the will or knowledge to make and stand by their principles.

And of course meaning that in our own self interest of course we have to put money and resources into stirring up and keeping going wars all over the world so we can sell our weapons to them. Hey it worked for the Soviets didn't it?

They're still making buckets of money in the arms market. Their big problem was they tried to match the US defense budget.


Which as usual for your arguments ignores the actual point to try and "win" on an obscure reference. The USSR had to "export" Communism in the form of aid and military weapons support while at the same time maintain a spending rate on their own "defence" needs. Currently Russia does NOT have to do so because they have glut of oil/gas money to build up and maintain their military while making "extra" money by actually selling arms instead of basicly giving them away to their "allies" like the USSR. Which is after all pretty much what your are saying the US should do, so you should be happy for them.

As a consequence of this though the Russians have to use their political influance and power to ensure that "buyers" stay around to continue buying their wares. Thus the policy of blocking all action against the Syrians regime which gassed its own civilians to try and maintain control. Thus its policy of threatening to militaryily oppose anyone who even thinks about taking action against that regime.

So by your OWN logic here if Syria or any other government where to mass slaughter civilians because they MIGHT harbor rebel forces you would totally support such actions because as long as they keep buying our weapons everything is allright.

Lets again review what you SAID:

Restore American manufacturing capability by cranking out vast arsenals of cheap weapons made specifically for export... tanks, guns, planes, choppers, designed to compete with and undersell Chinese and Russian weapons. This would be a net *bonus* for the DoD financially, while reducing the need to spend.

My response was that this would REQUIRE us to use OUR power and influance to stir up and continue wars and civil wars around the world in order to keep out "market" intact. You failed to even bother addressing that point. Then again you probably can't since by the "logic" of your argument as shown above in the end America would sell these arms to anyone and everyone and then ensuring that those "customers" remain in power to continue to do so no matter what the cost or means. So I guess you actually HAVE answered the question from your view point.

(I might also point out that you might want to check into the current "status" of American manufacturing capability. It has been growing back in the last few years at a high rate because it has become "cheaper" to get better quality goods manufactured in America than depend on foreign labor which is currently demanding higher standards of living and wages while not improving actual quality of product as a whole. Paying Americans to do the job "right" the fist time has become simpler and cheaper so we have manufacturing moving back into the United States and have had for about a decade now. Just FYI)

Why waste the money when we can simply have one of our "surrogate" militaries go kill them all instead?

Because sometimes it's important to have the Hand Of God (i.e. the USAF, USMC, whatever) come in and erase a place.

Agreed in principle but on what basis do you make the assumption that the "Hand-of-God" would be capable of or even available to do so? The question remains how you see it as possilbe that the numerous reduction in forces, training, and equipment (the less you buy the more expensive each piece is remember) that would be entailed by your "solution" would not in any way necessarily carry over into "more" money being spent on the military. Point of fact but historically such reductions have always reduced military budgets rather than increased them and there is no reason to assume that poltics being what it is that same "conclusion" would be reached in this case. Polticians have never seen it as "important" to have a capable military unless they need one very badly by which time it is usually too late and the cost of "rebuilding" prohibitive.

Again your original assertion for review:

Use the actual budget for R&D on advanced strategic weapons and global-range strike capabilities. Someone decides to screw with us, space-based system light 'em up.

Nothing in the history of the United States shows that this course of action is feasible without a direct and evident threat already in existance. We have NEVER worked that way before and even in the face of an existing threat polticians move slowly if at all to recognize and counter the danger. You assume this would some how change but have nothing to support that assumption.

Hence my question still standa un-answered; If we have gone to all the trouble to "create" surrogate militaries to protect us what would be the logic of spending large sums of money on our own and why would be feel any need to get directly involved in any action?

Oh and I like the idea of privitizing the military too, after all that worked so well for the Romans didn't it?

Yeah, for around a millenium. Let me know when the US lasts that long.

Which shows a really disturbing lack of knowledge of history really. Lets again review your original statement for clarity:

Privatize the military then?

Many good arguments in favor of that.

You've yet to make one at all.

Issue letters of marque and reprisal.

As Ron Paul discovered when he suggested such, under international law (and US regulations) these are not legal from any nation with a standing military. Legally and financially the cost of "responsibilty" for issuing and maintaining these has been prohibitive which is why we stopped issuing them during the Civil War and wrote regulations against them afterwards. The quality of results and "hit-or-miss" nature of such operations is why we formed and kept the Navy in the fist place.

Hire the likes of Blackwater to achieve specific military objectives, and let them choose the forces and weapons to use. Advantages include the ability to be hands-off (any troops that get captured are like as not going to be non-US citizens), as well as being economically more efficient, while not expending any actual US troops or armament.

Blackwater would be happy to be hired I'm sure, however they don't (and would not) hire "non-US citizens" for such jobs. Nor do they advertise or accept jobs having to do with "specific military objectives" since they are NOT a military but more a mercenary force with a focus on security. Worse for your supposition is that because they are NOT a "military" force they do not qualify for any protections under the Geneva Conventions yet as the "hiring" agent the United States government is held accountable for their actions. In the end its all the head-aches of "regular" military forces with none of the controls.

If you lay out specifics in the contract (they only get the funds when certain goals are achieved; violations of human rights cost certain dollar penalties, etc.), you should be able to get quite efficient mercenary operations with minimal collateral damage.

Assuming of course you can get anyone to actually accept such a contract. The part about getting funds when certain goals are achieved is actually pretty standard though there has to be an "up-front" payment before the mercenary groups will even begin mobilizing. Blackwater and most of the other "security" firms require a stipulated contract and limited if any ROE and oversight. Any straight Mercenary organization will insist on "half-up-front" and NO restrictions on how they get the job done. Their "job" is to kill people and break their stuff so any talk of "penalties" would have them walking out the door.

And you can't really blame them either since AS Mercenary forces they have no protections under the law so they are pretty much damned if they do or damned if they don't so it is "better" to ensure "their" safety. If you hired a mercenary group to go in and rescue a certain person in a hostage situation they would go in and kill everyone BUT the target regardless because that is the easiest and most simple way to do the job with the least overall risk to themselves.

Blackwater, et-al would insist on all sorts of "non-responsibile for collateral damge" clauses before they would take such an assignment, and though they might "try" to keep the other hotages alive they would consider the Target as primary and themselves secondary with everyone else a distant third. Nice to have it you can get it without exposing yourself, screw-em if you can't.

(It helps is you have done your research, I did for a story that was never written. I corresponded with and talked with several mercenaries and various "professionals" and found out my concepts were totally out of whack with how the "real-world" operates. A sobering lesson)

Finally lets put your argument in historic perspective: Rome used mecenary forces for most of its history as auxilaries and never as major components of a military force, and never by themselves. (They DID use their power and influance to foster conflict in and between nations they were planning on taking over as well as between "threat" nations to prevent them from amassing the strength to attack them.) It was not until the last decades of its existance that they actually "privitized" their military to the point where the mercenary man-power outnumbered the actual Roman military. This situation lasted about as long as you'd expect, once the mercenaries realized that their "pay-masters" couldn't muster the forces to stop them from doing so the mercenaries took over. And once faced with enemies of equal power they choose to take the money and run rather than fight.

Arguments have actually been made by people who are serious about trying to privitize the military as much as possible but they usually stop short of trying to replace the actual combat troops. This is for a very good reason. Effective combat troops of a national military willingly put themselve in harms way for reasons that the average person would find "stupid" and totally illogical because a large number of them do NOT do it "just" for the paycheck. Priorities are totall different and someone who is in it "for-the-money" would never accept restrictions that increase their chance of not living to collect that money.

It is a nice dream of the polticians having the foresight and will to turn the military of the US into a very elite, well equipped and high tech fighting force but the truth is they are unwilling to spend any more than they have too and more often than not they would rather "prioritize" by personal/local "interests" rather than what is best for the military or the nation. (Forcing the Army to buy tanks they don't need and can't man comes to mind) Reality is what we have to deal with though, and none of the "suggestions" above has worked in the past and it doesn't seem likely that there are any major factors that have changed to make them work today.

Randy

 

[aam641]

Citizens require that their government do for them *only* those things that the citizens cannot do for themselves. When governments start doing things for citizens that the citizens not only can do for themselves but should do for themselves, the government gains power and the citizens become subjects.

In my experience, most citizens want the government to do as much as possible for them personally, while they themselves pay as low taxes as possible. And that self-interest leads to populist politicians, who promise everything to everyone. And people advocating a "small" government are no exception. They are prepared to cut the programs they are not personally using (social security, medicare), while keeping the ones that they have interest in (military, public roads). You are welcome to prove me wrong. Is there a program that personally benefits you, which you are prepared to cut for the sake of "smaller" government?

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

That is a massive assumption there. Why do you assume that a central government utilising modern communications and a representative democratic system would not be able to understand the needs and wishes of local populations?

Because it doesn't already?

Its not just a matter of the federal government not knowing its a matter of not caring as well.

The Federal government does not have the infrastructure and ability to directly control 50 states. Its why armies are not composed of just lowly privates, and high ranking generals. There are captains and sgts and corporals and colonels. Delegation is critical in any system. its too much for one person.

True but you're assuming that the States do something useful and don't merely duplicate what the Federal Government already does. If the States were merely distributors of goods and services which the central government effectively "owns" (or controls) they may have a useful function but then you'd have to ask, why have the duplication?

Again you have it backwards. The US is not a TOP DOWN Government. It is a BOTTOM UP Government. States decide for themselves. IF they need help they ask for money.

Again the United States was founded on limiting broad power and checks and balances.

Wouldn't be more efficient to merely have the local government(s) do that and be funded directly by the central government?

That is what is done now. Which is why many like myself consider the federal government to be redundant and wasteful. The Federal government does not tell california to build a bridge. California decides to build a bridge, and they may ask for federal money if it meets the criteria for federal help.

However, that aside for the moment, what I am not proposing is a single centralised government nor necessarily the dissolution of the States or even Local Governments. Rather what I'm pointing out is that the utopian and naive dream of small government is a fallacy.

I don't know why the idea of several smaller governments is so crazy.

It cannot work in a large, populated nation like the USA.

correct

It is a dream that is peddled by those who prefer anarchy over order IMHO.

Considering you don't quiet understand how the US runs I'm not surprised if it seems disorderly.

I have made the point that perhaps the problem is the size of the governments at local and state level rather than necessarily the need for a single central government to control everything. More government(s) leads to greater inefficiencies, greater wastage of public monies and of course, more sand in the wheels of nationhood.

Not true. You don't need a doctor to clean a bed pan. A nurse can do that. Using a doctor to do that is wasteful.

I would suggest that 50 states is too many in a nation the size of the USA. Australia, which is comparable size has 7 states and territories. It seems to have done a great deal better in most social and economic measures than the USA over the last 5 years. Obviously we must be doing something right.

The State of California alone has more people than Australia. The US has 313 million people. Australia has 32 million. So the Geographical size may be similar but nothing else is. IF we took the 7 states for 32 million people and multiplied it to US size Australia would have 70 states!

Come on man, that's just a lazy comparison there. California at a state level could run the entire country of Australia and still have 6 million fewer people to worry about. When we talk about being "big" its not just about square kilometers.

I would also question your statement that it is "not democratic". Democracy isn't about the number of elections nor even the number of and levels of government. I am unsure why you assume that it is.

It is in the US.

Yes, this appears to be rather an American problem, doesn't it? You seem to believe it is a universal constant for some reason. :

The united states does things differently. Don't know if you noticed, but its been kinda working out for us lately.



You really need to research US History going back to the Colonies in order to see the logic. I can't give it all to you here. I would be typing all day.

 

[Orionblamblam]

And people advocating a "small" government are no exception. They are prepared to cut the programs they are not personally using (social security, medicare), while keeping the ones that they have interest in (military, public roads).

Note: roads and the military are explicit roles for the government as called out in the US Constitution. Welfare and wealth redistribution programs are not.

Is there a program that personally benefits you, which you are prepared to cut for the sake of "smaller" government?

I'd happily push the plunger that fires the demolition charges on the VAB if at the same time Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid were cancelled. I've previously called for cutting the DoD budget in half.

 

[Orionblamblam]

Because Isolationism and inability to project power has always worked so well for us in the past?

In fact, yes. Look at WWII: While the US sat back, European powers pounded themselves into the stone age. When we finally came rolling in, we wound up masters of the world. I'd call that a win for us. Isolationism gave us time for everybody else to beat the tar out of each other.

Yep so that when we came out swinging everyone else was prepared, experianced, and better equipped so that we lost millions of men....

Millions? Oy.

With that as the foundational basis of your post... tl;dr.

 

[bobbymike]

Quote<blockquote>It is a dream that is peddled by those who prefer anarchy over order IMHO.</blockquote>------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Considering you don't quiet understand how the US runs I'm not surprised if it seems disorderly.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The first quote is why conversations with 'big government' advocates is so frustrating, the 'no government, anarchy' strawman. As if to question the current size of government is to want the complete elimination of government. This line of argument is lazy and puerile.

Commentator George Will said it best 'Why is it the current size of government is always the minimum needed to stave off complete societal collapse and that it only must get bigger?'

The Left always talk about the 'Golden Age' of Clinton when the US spent around $11k/person at the federal level now it is closer to $17k adjusted for inflation. How did we survive with such a relatively comparable TINY government in the 1990's? Or did I miss the massive starvations and depredations

 

[bobbymike]

More on the topic;

http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/blog/Lists/Posts/Post.aspx?List=7c996cd7-cbb4-4018-baf8-8825eada7aa2&ID=1250&RootFolder=%2Fblog%2FLists%2FPosts

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

Don't really care for political discussions.