Azazello1313 Posted May 13, 2011 Share Posted May 13, 2011 ross douthat The most dangerous continuity between the Bush and Obama presidencies, perhaps, is their shared unwillingness to level with the country about what our current foreign policy posture costs, and how it fits into our broader fiscal liabilities. Instead, big government conservatism has given way to big government liberalism, America’s overseas footprint keeps expanding, and nobody has been willing to explain to the public that the global war on terror isn’t a free lunch. The next president won’t have that luxury. In one form or another, the war on terror is likely to continue long after Osama bin Laden’s bones have turned to coral. But we’ll know that the Bush-Obama era is officially over when somebody presents us with the bill. I'm becoming more sympathetic to this view the darker our fiscal situation gets. also, this reply: These last eight days, as well as the last 10 years, suggest to me that there is only one American foreign policy; this default foreign policy is interventionist, moralistic, and militarily robust. Everything else is commentary. and it's been that way since we got into WWII, for better or worse. don't get me wrong, I think that "one american foreign policy" is defendable on several fronts. it has, on balance, further our own national interest, and it has done far more good in the world than evil. but as we start to run out of money, it looks more and more like an extravagance we just can't afford. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wiegie Posted May 13, 2011 Share Posted May 13, 2011 So now the argument is that Obama's decision to kill bin Laden was a bad idea because it cost too much? ok Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted May 13, 2011 Author Share Posted May 13, 2011 So now the argument is that Obama's decision to kill bin Laden was a bad idea because it cost too much? ok for someone who teaches people for a living, you sure do like to drag an argument down to the stupidest level possible. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted May 13, 2011 Share Posted May 13, 2011 but as we start to run out of money, it looks more and more like an extravagance we just can't afford. Some of us have been saying that for years. Some of us have been advocating putting resources into intelligence and a surgical strike capability for years. Some of us have been saying that Rumsfeld was right in his assessment that the military needed to become much more nimble (even though his execution was sadly lacking). Some of us think spending more on defense than the entire rest of the planet is grotesque overkill. Some of us are very glad to welcome you aboard. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwacked Posted May 13, 2011 Share Posted May 13, 2011 you sure do like to drag an argument down to the stupidest level possible. This is quote worthy coming from semantical Az. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clubfoothead Posted May 13, 2011 Share Posted May 13, 2011 Some of us have been saying that for years. Some of us have been advocating putting resources into intelligence and a surgical strike capability for years. Some of us have been saying that Rumsfeld was right in his assessment that the military needed to become much more nimble (even though his execution was sadly lacking). Some of us think spending more on defense than the entire rest of the planet is grotesque overkill. Some of us are very glad to welcome you aboard. No f*cking $hit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted May 13, 2011 Author Share Posted May 13, 2011 Some of us are very glad to welcome you aboard. which also happens to be what feith and wolfowitz have been saying to obama since he took office. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted May 13, 2011 Share Posted May 13, 2011 which also happens to be what feith and wolfowitz have been saying to obama since he took office. But not before, when they were advocating wasting trillions on invading Iraq with their shock and awe, I take it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chavez Posted May 13, 2011 Share Posted May 13, 2011 ....Rumsfeld was right in his assessment that the military needed to become much more nimble (even though his execution was sadly lacking). Well, I think Rumsfeld's plan was to streamline/downsize the military in peacetime. Doing what Rummy WANTED to do doesn't quite dovetail with fighting two wars overseas. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted May 13, 2011 Share Posted May 13, 2011 Well, I think Rumsfeld's plan was to streamline/downsize the military in peacetime. Doing what Rummy WANTED to do doesn't quite dovetail with fighting two wars overseas. I should have said "execution and timing" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.