European army?

[shmee]

Most of the "conservatives" out here are poor and hardcore bible beaters and marines for Texas. After all people from Texas make up 50% of the military. I do have to agree about the wino yuppie thing as long as you’re talking about northern California. Down here a lot closer to the border the only stereotypes we have are pothead surfers, strawberry picking Mexicans*, and ignorant marines.

I use generalizing terms for the sake of simplicity I mean if I wrote “all those people to the right of center” every time I meant “conservatives” it would be ridiculous. Most "liberals" tend to want change with its what the left is. As you said Liberalism's meaning changing this can and is applied to all of Comparative Politics after all there are no rules set in stone, so everything changes but I use the terms as they are applied today, in the country we live in.

I never said all conservatives are pro-bush, they tend to be right of center, and people who like the status quo, that does in no way means pro-bush.

*not to be racist but we do have huge strawberry fields and there no white people out there.

 

[welsh]

@Bradylama-

You do realize that this-

The former, of course. Then again, it's hard to encourage alternative fuels when your consumers see no alternative for decades at a time. We honestly don't have many people to blame for the current state of our foreign policy and the military industrial complex than ourselves.

It's gotten to the point where we can't even afford to cut defense. Defense industries employ hundreds of thousands. The loss of all those contracts would unemploy thousands at a time, and create a humongous hole in the country. Of course, the companies like Boeing that don't make all of their money in Defense contracts are better able to re-tool, but Lockheed Martin would be SOL.

Can't say Eisenhower didn't warn us.

Is almost the same rationale that the Chinese use to justify sustaining economically inefficient SOEs (State Owned Enterprises) which sustain significant employment but produce little.

But it is possible that by the creation of new industries you will also create new employment. Consider the need for individuals trained in technology and engineering, new construction, new consumer products, etc. It may be more productive in the long run.

That said, I am not suggesting reducing the military, but does seem that the use of our military has become problematic. In fact, if used correctly the US military is very useful for international trade and investment. If used unwisely, it is dangerous.

Historically the US military was seen as a means to sustain regional peace- the navy patrols the sealanes, and the army acted as a conventional deterrent to Soviet agression against free market economies- allowing those economies to invest in social services and industrialization and avoid miliarization.

While the US assumed a posture to fight 2 1/2 wars- One in Europe, one in Asia and a small war elsewhere- required a sizeable military that came as a fraction of the US GNP. The US can afford the military because military spending is only about 4.6% of GNP. In return for that, the US gets fairly stable markets and commerce, making long-term investments and contracts possible, making investors happy. So that's good for the US.

But that's also good for Europe. Even if the Europeans pay a lot in taxes, they also get a lot of social services and benefits and their industries were able to develop and share the fruits of unity without diverting costs to creating expensive militaries that would compete. Besides, they had enough force to intervene in client states (as France and Britian have shown in Africa) and can rely on NATO for their "Big War" issues.

But as long as the US is a security provider (generally speaking a public good for other capitalist economies) that's fine. Security allows investors to be secure in the long term.

But what if the US becomes an invading force, and a destabilizer? For example, one might argue that by invading Iraq, W might (because we really don't know what synapsis burn in his mind) was seeking longer term stability by securing oil and pursuing democracy.

But what if W is rattling his sabres in the middle east to create fears in consumers, driving up the price of oil futures and making oil companies happier? Then the military becomes a destabilizing force.

What if instead of protecting Taiwan's independence, it was invading Mexico for it's petroleum?

This goes back to the "offensive" vs "defensive" issues on the use of military.

 

[Bradylama]

Is almost the same rationale that the Chinese use to justify sustaining economically inefficient SOEs (State Owned Enterprises) which sustain significant employment but produce little.

Indeed. However, how sure are we that they produce little? (sup Israel?)

But it is possible that by the creation of new industries you will also create new employment. Consider the need for individuals trained in technology and engineering, new construction, new consumer products, etc. It may be more productive in the long run.

New industries always create new employment. The problem is that the creation of a new industry depends in a large part on the consumer demand for its end product.

If Boeing wasn't committing as much resources as it is to military production could it maybe jumpstart the space industry? Sure, why not? However, like I said, companies like Lockheed Martin don't have that much flexibility. Perhaps, then the key is to end contracts with diverse companies and focus on those that are purely dedicated to defense. Then again, that reduces competition for weapons development.

It's not a simple issue, but then what is?

As for the US military being used as a destabilizing force, I couldn't agree more. The very nature of a small, highly coordinated military has little to do with peacekeeping and stabilization. It's a military arm designed purely around conventional engagement, and killing dudes. However, as the Iraq invasion proved, killing dudes isn't enough when there's a significant chance of having to fight an insurgency.

Afghanistan, however, was very different. With Afghanistan we invaded with small recon teams that could call in air strikes on any target anywhere in the country, and we absolutely destroyed the military capabilities of the Taliban. Since Afghanistan was such a disjointed country, however, we were able to stabilize the sans-Taliban political scene by buying off the warlords and coordinating with the Northern Alliance.

The same couldn't be accomplished in Iraq where the nation was homogenized in terms of competing factions, and all open resistance was immediately crushed.

 

[welsh]

Except that most folks seem to say that outside of Kabul the US forces seem to control very little. That the Taliban is still in strength. Meanwhile there is a bumper crop in Opium this year..... You are not suggesting Afghanistan is a success are you? If anything it's half finished and still uncertain, while Iraq is looking increasingly worse.

I am not so sure what is the answer with the military. To be sure we need some industries to sustain our defense capacity- General Dynamics, etc. But how much of the industry has become very small due to mergers and acquisitions. It might be a global trend- the arms industry goes global requiring increased merger between transnational firms.

Wouldn't that be interesting- a international system of sovereign states dependent on a transnational industry for its security. I would be very worried about when that industry needs to improve its profit margins.