Gerardo Sandoval, a San Francisco Supervisor dropped a bomb the other day on Hannity & Colmes.



The conversation goes on to where Sandoval states the Police and Coast Guard should be able to defend the United States if we are attacked.

Questions for debate:

1. Would our country be better off without a military?

2. Would the Coast Guard(which is a division of the military) and police force be able to thwart an attack on the United States?

1. Would our country be better off without a military?
A country without a military can be summed up in one word: history.

The function of a government is to protect its citizens from internal and external aggressors. Its function is not to educate people (at least its basic function is not that).


2. Would the Coast Guard(which is a division of the military) and police force be able to thwart an attack on the United States?

I'd like to see the Coast Guard fend off Iranian MiGs or Russian T-90S's. How long would it take for everyone we've ever slighted (real or imagined) to get some payback?

The US spends a tiny fraction (3.2%) of its GDP on the military. That ranks us in 47th place in military spending as a percent of GDP. link

This guy probably thinks that the presence of police creates crime as well.

1. Would our country be better off without a military?
How about if we split the difference. We should have a defense and retaliatory ability when it comes to our borders, including our coastal waters. Beyond that the only additional military deployment would be for operations conducted based on broad agreements with other nations say under NATO or the United Nations. Anything else probably falls under the nebulous category of "defending our strategic interests" which generally means defending an overseas investment environment. That to a major degree is what has gotten us into Iraq and previously motivated our ill advised Vietnam incursion (Yes Vietnam too. Read Eisenhower on the topic). For a long time I have felt we ought to develop our own resources within our own national sphere and let others do the same. What we need from others we would simply purchase. That would obviate the necessity for most of our bases around the world.

2. Would the Coast Guard(which is a division of the military) and police force be able to thwart an attack on the United States?
No, by itself obviously that would insufficient. Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD), for instance, will have to be part of our military policy until such time as WMDs, particularly nuclear, are eliminated by general agreement.

I would imagine that the latter question has merit, except that we'd also require some method of missle defense and coastal protection, as there are enough well armed Americans to dissuade and invasion of the continental United States. I believe that if we could dissuade attack via a well armed Navy and airforce, that a regular Army is only necessary for protecting interests abroad. A well regulated national guard might be sufficient I suppose if we were arguing defense of our shores.

However, our industrial and natural resources could quickly become a viable target. It only makes sense to assume that a nation (such as China) with the capacity to launch such an invasion would consider the action. This also should be considered with the fact that economically we are interested in the protection of numerous nations across the globe.

Our military has not only assured the freedom of the continental US, but has also become a major deterrent to attack on Latin American and Caribbean nations by marxist/communist regimes. Consider the fact that Cuba is was the only Soviet Presence in the Western Hemisphere.

Do we need a military? Yes.. Undoubtedly.

1. Would our country be better off without a military?

No.

2. Would the Coast Guard(which is a division of the military) and police force be able to thwart an attack on the United States?

Nope.

And how would the NYPD protect American interests in the Philipines or evacuate US citizens from Beirut?

What would happen to the US defence industry (the largest and most profitable business sector on the planet)? Would the citizens of the USA appreciate the loss of jobs, influence and security as these companies relocated to other markets.

I suppose the argument is that if the USA were completely isolated then it would be safer since only its constant meddling in other nations affairs is what powers so much anger and hatred towards the USA...?

Yeah, that makes some sense... if your sitting in an ivory tower over looking utopian gardens through rose tinted spectacles.

The truth is simple. The USA is very wealthy. Wealth attracts interest. Interest means politics and politics means control.

Cutting out the military would be cutting America's throat. The wealth would be quickly stripped away by those powers who were able to fill the power vacuum... namely China, Russia, India and possibly the EU... or possibly just France.

1. Would our country be better off without a military?

No, of course we wouldn't. However, part of Sandoval's point is that we would be better off without some of the things that the commander of our armed forces has commanded our armed forces to do in the last five years. But to say we shouldn't have a military is insipid.

I'm glad you posted this transcript. I think is a superb example of Fox News Channel trotting out an extremely irrational strawman lefty.

2. Would the Coast Guard(which is a division of the military) and police force be able to thwart an attack on the United States?

Our current Coast Guard and our current police force? No. But it depends on what nation were attacking.

Maybe Sandoval wishes America were a true Christian nation. A true Christian nation would not have a military.

So, some how Fox News is to blame for this idiot making the statement he did? He even said that most of his constituents feel the same way. Amazing!! Want to place blame on a rape victim because she chose to park her car too far away as well?

I guess it brings into question why you felt this was newsworthy enough to create a debate topic about. Do you really feel that the question of whether or not we should have a military is a pressing national issue worthy of debate here or did you just want to score points against "the left"? Only you can answer that I suppose but I think I know what the answer is.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that I doubt you'll find anyone at that will answer yes to these questions and state that we should not have a military. That suggestion is completely absurd. Furthermore it is one of the few things enumerated in the Constitution as an absolute responsibility of our government and the reason it exists.

However, niftydrifty also does have a point. Because this is part of that "balance" FoxNews claims to have by having liberal guests on their show. In reality this guy is in the minority even in San Francisco (and a very small minority at that) and the most complicated thing he has to decide as a supervisor is how the city should spend money on services like public transit and garbage collection. Regardless of what this guy said I can assure you that is not how any significant portion of his constituents feel. He is certainly not qualified to weigh in as an expert on issues of great public importance and this is little more than his own personal opinion. Yet somehow he is elevated to a level where people think he speaks for all liberals and the Democratic party and that is the problem. Yet another example to illustrate the many points made in that thread in the media forum.

Ok Cube...

Please show where I said he speaks for the Democratic Party. If you can't please don't put words into my post that I did not place there.

Also he is from the same board of Supervisors who voted to NOT have the USS Iowa on display in the SF harbor.

And also one of the ones who voted to ban military recruiting at schools.

If things like this have passed I would say he is not the minority.

I think you need to read between the lines a little more. By having this guy on Hannity and Colmes that assumption is already there for a majority of their viewers.


How is that relevant to this topic? Here is the story on it.

That sounds perfectly reasonable to me, I sure don't want my tax money going to maintain some battleship (I'm a resident of SF), there are much bigger problems in the city that deserve that funding. I for one would like to see the roads continue to be improved, public transit improved, etc. In the article it also cites that the USS Hornet in Alameda loses money and currently owes Alameda $500,000. The whole "the military doesn't support homosexuals" portion of this is just icing but does play well to most of the city, the tax implications are enough for me to reject the idea. So good call by the city.


Actually that measure was called "College Not Combat" and it doesn't ban military recruiters from school, although you wouldn't know that if you get your news from FoxNews - source


I guess there are just too many words there, that'd be too complicated. It is easier to just call it a ban. Heaven forbid we encourage young people to go off to college instead of getting hooked by propaganda like the "try one" program. People should join the military because they want to, not because it is the only way they can get to college (i.e. money and scholarships).

But I'm going to ask the question again - is this something of national importance that is being seriously debated or is this simply an attempt to show up a guest on Hannity and Colmes? If this is so important where is the national support for it?

I'm sure there are plenty of guests on talk shows across the country with crackpot ideas that have no support, why is this one special?

Not to take this thread further off topic than it has been going... I just wanted to address just how far out there some elected officials in San Francisco are.. not just some random guest on a talk show.

Still, what is your point? I have already explained to you what a supervisor does and I have further explained to you that he isn't representing the city as a whole or something (although it appears that way to FoxNews viewers).

How is this guy representing a national viewpoint worthy of debate? This guy may be an elected official but he isn't in a position to act upon his opinions and he isn't billed as some sort of expert. Were this a senator or congressman or maybe even a governor it might be a bit different.

Given that he has no power to take any action here the fact that he is an elected official is irrelevant, he is no different than a random person on the street in this instance.

Wow you are acting like he isn't that important to you... You don't think City Supervisors are almost as crucial as Senators and State Reps? I definitely would not call him no different than a random person down the street, his comments hold alot more weight than that of a man on the street type interview.

When I want someone to fund the local public transit system, make sure the garbage is being picked up and keep the streets fixed sure he is important, at least for his district which I don't live in.

However, when it comes to issues of national policy like the question of whether we should have a military the fact that he is an elected official is completely irrelevant. In that instance he is just a random person expressing an opinion. You wouldn't have even known who he was before this program Sleeper and I bet you couldn't even name two other supervisors in San Francisco without looking it up.

On the national scene Sandoval carries no weight at all and is completely unknown, he is just a citizen.

1. Would our country be better off without a military?
2. Would the Coast Guard(which is a division of the military) and police force be able to thwart an attack on the United States?

Depends on whose attacking. I certainly don't think our coast guard and police are capable of defeating any standing army or navy, as they simply aren't armed with what is neccessary to fight a war with.

What might protect us is foreign support from Europe or Canada, and perhaps we could use our nukes to use MAD to deter attacks. Foreign support however takes time, and MAD is a game chicken which we probably aren't willing to follow through with.

A more difficult question to answer, would be should we drastically cut the military budget, and stop interventionist military action overseas, but you didn't ask that.

1. Would our country be better off without a military?

2. Would the Coast Guard(which is a division of the military) and police force be able to thwart an attack on the United States?

I wouldn't agree with not having a military here at home. we would still need a protection force but I do question the usefulness of troops outside our borders.
Who can actually attack us? No one! not even the chinese have the necessary logistical support to actually invade and hold America. hell we are the strongest military force ever to walk the earth and we can barely hold iraq together.
We are more than capable of producing the technology capable of defending our borders.
I also have no doubt as to the incredible numbers of Americans who would take up arms to defend their homeland if anyone was ever insane enough to try and invade us.

Because really thats what it would be. insanity.

No nation has the military capability of invading and conquering the United States.

hell I doubt several nations combined could come up with the capital or logistics/materials necessary to pull it off.

Anyone want to gues at the bse numbers necessary to even have a fair chance of success?

Hell the global economy would collapse anyways making the success of the venture a negative return.

Wanna see what a real insurgency looks like? try holding kentucky. I dare ya.

Can any of you actually picture any foreign nation holding onto Texas? or Brooklyn?
West by God Virginia? Hell with a handful of Southie's and a few Hillbillies from the west by god, there aren't many places i would be worried walking around in.

By concentrating our military into a home protection force we can accept only the top candidates--and pay them well enough to ensure they stay after they are seasoned.
effective satelite weapons systems could drop enough damage on any apporaching force to actually feel pity for them--well kind of. What's left would be a turkey shoot.

and yes the savings would very well go a long way towards strengthening our country's foundations and infrastructure.

complete isolationism--No.
Still do business with the rest of the world, vacation there, make friends, invest, buy sell.

But no more foreign entanglements, no more propping up tinpot dictators who eventually become the Saddam's and Osama's. no more.

I think it would work well.

If an overseas operation isn't necessary for defending our interests, then we shouldn't be doing it at all. If it is necessary, then we don't need permission from other countries to do it, as long as we can know that we're conducting ourselves ethically and responsibly.


By any chance, have you forgotten about a certain incident in Manhattan about four and a half years ago?

1. Would our country be better off without a military?
No. If we were to completely stand down our military tomorrow, there would be foreign invaders here before the April Fool's Day. Notice that not even the Swiss, legendary for the neutrality, have disarmed themselves.

2. Would the Coast Guard(which is a division of the military) and police force be able to thwart an attack on the United States?The Coast Guard is not a division of the military, it falls under Homeland Security, and before DHS was created, the USCG was part of the Department of Transportation. During wartime, the Coast Guard is placed under the Department of the Navy. It is a unique institution in America, the only Federal para-military (para-naval actually) organization.

That said, there is no way that the Coast Guard could defend the United States against a seaborne invasion by the following countries:

China
Japan
United Kingdom
Russia
France
Spain
India
Brazil
Germany
Italy

All of those countries currently have sufficient naval firepower to blow the USCG out of the water, and there's quite probably another dozen that would make the list. The police would face an even greater challenge. Aside from the very different training that policework involves compared to combat operations, there is the little issue of "military grade" equipment versus law enforcement. A single modern combat brigade has more firepower than all of the police in the US, at all levels of government, combined. Whether or not an invader under this scenario could actually conquer this country isn't even relevant, because an invader could cause enough economic, environmental, social and human damage that all of our defense spending since WW2 would pale in comparison.

***************************************************************
The only reason no one can mount an invasion is because the US Navy rules the oceans and the US Air Force rules the skies. If both were to change, then we could be invaded.

In 1937, the US would have been hard pressed to invade Cuba. By August 1942 we were conducting amphibious invasions in the South Pacific, with Operation Torch, the landings in North Africa to follow in November. So the question becomes, how long would it take for another nation to build the capacity needed to womp us?
We could easily hold Iraq together, doing so would simply requires that we change how we're doing things over there. Forget helping the Iraqis, we just destroy anything and kill anybody that looks in the slightest bit threatening. Think of the challenges that faced Arnold Schwarzennegger's character in Kindergarten Cop. Its not that we can't, but that our own self-imposed restrictions limit us.

I don't. Again, WW2 is quite instructive. Germany was essentially equal in size to France, equal to England, and smaller than Russia. Yet look how close that was.... Israel is smaller by all measures than the combined Arab nations that threaten it, yet it has managed to beat them 4 times in straight up combat, although the 6 Day War was very close.

Seasoned how? One huge advantage that the US currently has is the combat experience that our troops are getting. How would our "home protection force" get the experience? It is a given that military competence degrades over time without experience. The combat experience that many Wehrmacht and Luftwaffe members gained in the Spanish Civil War was crucial to Germany's early successes.

Weaponization of space is a touchy subject, but even if we proceeded with it, we would have the problem of "resupplying" the satellite weapon systems.

Uhhh, who or what is going to protect the Europeans? While they could certainly re-arm in a meaningful way, until they do they remain vulnerable themselves. And this assumes that the Europeans aren't the ones we need support against! As for Canada, they currently can't even defend themselves. The Texas National Guard could motor on up I-35 and conquer Canada all by itself. Seriously, one of the factors (albeit not a big one) in the Liberal defeat in the recent Canadian elections is the sad state of Canadian defense capability. At the end of WW2 they had the 3rd largest navy in the world, today they're not even in the top 10. Their Army and Air Force have been similarily weakened. As long as the Canadien's can rely upon the US to insure the security of North America, they've been willing to spend more on butter than bullets.

Vietnam? You do know that Vietnam was conducted based on broad agreements with other nations, say under SEATO? Considering this point, I fail to see why conducting operations under NATO or the UN would be any better than Vietnam.

No there aren't. Unless the "well armed Americans" are supplied with advanced military grade weapons, there is no way that the civilian populace could stop an invasion. Assume that whoever invades us has no interest in minimizing loss of American life.... As an analogy, consider the Israel-Palestine conflict. Israel could end the conflict permanently in less than 2 weeks, and there's nothing the Palestinians could do to stop it. The Palestinian's survive only because the Israelis tolerate them, and Israel believes (probably correctly), that enough non-Palestinian's wouldn't tolerate genocide. I'm think it would be quite unwise for us to make such a hopeful assessment about any would be invasion of the US.

**************************************************************

The US Navy is, economically speaking, the most important defense organization in the entire world. Globalization literally depends on the watchful eyes of the Navy. Just as the most robust trade in the ancient Mediterranean took place under Pax Romana, so too does the global economy depend on Pax Americana. And yes, we benefit from this as well.

If the US were to unilaterally disarm tomorrow, within 5 years I would venture that more than a billion people would be dead as every wannabe empire builder sets out on the path to glory. And that doesn't even count the potential cost to America itself. Since the end of the Cold War, the greatest challenge for every tinpot despot (aside from surviving the next coup) has been staying just under the American radar. Think of it as riding in the car and teasing your sister in the back seat just enough to avoid getting backhanded by Dad. Mom's nagging is a small price to pay, but you don't want to get Dadsmacked!

To be fair this is not just the American navy; the British navy for one plays a large part in patrolling the Worlds seaways still, as do most of the G8 nations, but essentially yes - the naval powers of the world maintain the international trade that globalisation relies on.

To answer the questions raised

1. Would our country be better off without a military?
No. Most countries in the world could admittedly do with re-examining how they utilise their military but their are very few nations that would be better off without a military.

2. Would the Coast Guard(which is a division of the military) and police force be able to thwart an attack on the United States?
Quite simply no. The Coast Guard is built for a very different purpose than defence of your shores against a foreign invader and a police force is never as effective as a trained military. A cop car stands little chance against a 2nd world war tank let alone a modern one.

That begs the question. What is in our interests? My contention is we have spread to wide a net and have also failed to give sufficient concern to the notion that international problems deserve international solutions. This go it alone invent our own reality and to heck with anybody else leads to things like Iraq and Vietnam.

Ha, this is funny. Talking heads get all upset with a San Fran city supervisor who has no background for the talking point. Here's what the guy does for a living:

Member, Board of Supervisors
Attorney, City and County of San Francisco
Special Assistant, Budget and Finance Department, Office of the Mayor

Source

I would say that his opinions on the military are as valid as Joe Schmoe's on the street.

Hey Joe! Do we need a military? No? Ohmegot, dah wurld's fallin' apart. How can you think that way? Do you realize what you are doing to us? Next thing you know some crazy mom will set up camp outside the Prez's ranch, and all hoohaw breaks loose. That already happened? See! It's all YOUR FAULT, JOE!

Let me take a wild swag at this. I bet the guy has budget and finance problems. I bet he looks at our military budget and goes, holly cow! That's a lot of dough. Then he thinks, hey, what's the ROI? This looks like a huge black hole! What about the kids, hey? What about the kids.

Then weeping and moaning, etc. and so on. Typical lib-roll. Bunch of pansies from the land of fruits and nuts. Dismiss them.

Which is what's to be expected, like Harry Browne of the Libertarian party who called for massive military cutbacks in his book, The Great Libertarian Offer. Spend just enough for actual defense, that was his crazy idea.

Source

Anyway, the take of not needing a military is an extreme, just as it is extreme to nuke Iraq, Iran, N. Korea, China or whomever we deem nukable. Cutting back on the military and putting the money into education isn't extreme, but it isn't popular either. That's one of the reasons Browne only got something like 2% of the vote in 2000.

And I'm not going to lose any sleep over what a San Fran city guy thinks.

Blackstone, our military could not then prevent 9/11 and it could not now prevent a 9/11. The military can do little at all to prevent a terrorist attack since the terrorists do not come raging down the street in a MadMax styled van screaming at the top of their lungs "Death to the ....." allowing chuck norris to come out of nowhere, say something witty and pull a rocket launcher from his pocket and win the day.

BikerDad
There are only 2 ways into our country,north/south. Trying to run a naval procession would again be the traditional turkey shoot and whatever got thru would
learn that Normandy was nothing in comparison.
the land to the north has limited routes that could be used leaving our southern border the prime entry point--and I would gladly pay admission money just to see someone try and invade Texas
I'm fairly certain texas would refuse military aid and just declare a 3 day weekend

Since we would be focusing on a home based guard BD, I would imagine we would take steps to assure the necessary hardware was available.

1. Would our country be better off without a military?
In a word......hell no. OK that's two, but that's how strongly I feel about the matter. In the interest of full disclosure, for anyone who doesn't know, the military is my employer, so one could say that I have a vested interest in the viability of said military for my paycheck, benefits and future retirement income.

Many have touched on the obvious points already, but I wanted to key in on a couple. The first concerns the institutional knowledge and experience base. If we were to disband the military today, in the theme of 'nobody is really able to invade us', that may be true for the moment, but it won't always be the situation. A simple understanding of history proves that point. For a military to be solvent and capable, it must have a cohesive lineage, with doctrine and training continually updated, as well as the 'lessons learned' from our current and past experiences inputted to the overall psyche.
This has been a systemic problem within the US military until very recently. We had a history of once a war, expedition or police action was complete, we would downsize our manpower and material levels, as would be expected, but we would fail to continue to upgrade that doctrine and equipment, as well as research and development. It was not until the early 1980's that we finally started break out of the post Vietnam malaise and engage in some truly foreword thinking. Unfortunately, we were hamstrung by the cold war mentality, thus leading to some of our fits and starts with Operations Iraqi and Enduring Freedom.

If our military were to be downsized into a police or paramilitary force, ala Costa Rica, we would find ourselves in the future unable to properly mobilize and train forces in the event of an invasion. Unfortunately, every bubba in America having a shotgun and pistols does not constitute having an appropriate defense in the face of an organized enemy. Firearms are only part of the equation; tactics and leadership within a coherent force are the other components. If we were to downsize our military, we might as well turn over the keys to the country to the oppressive nation of your choice, and save the time and the trouble.

The second point, at the risk of sounding like an Army recruiting commercial, is that currently, and historically, the military has provided a vast influx of technically competent men and women who by and large possess character, integrity and a sense of responsibility, that while found in the civilian sector, isn't found in such concentration. It is no myth that many employers look for and attempt to recruit former military men and women. I believe that absence the leadership and teamwork skills learned in the military would significantly impede the nations ability to function at the level we are currently enjoying.


2. Would the Coast Guard(which is a division of the military) and police force be able to thwart an attack on the United States?
As has already been brought up, the Coastie's aren't technically part of the military, but they are certainly competent in their duties. Those duties by the way, do not include thwarting attacks on the United States.

Well, technically, the Coast Guard is a part of the military. It is part of Homeland Security, but is at all times a member of the Armed Forces. The Coast Guard has fought in every armed conflict since 1790, and according to United States Code (U.S.C.) Title 14, Chapter 1, section 1,
""The Coast Guard as established January 28, 1915, shall be a military service and a branch of the armed forces of the United States at all times."
wikihttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Coast_Guard

That being said, the mission and training have nothing to do with defending against invasion, and the Coast Guard is fitted with aging technology, and is smaller or equal to the size of the NYPD, so there is no way they are capable of defending the coastlines from military attack by themselves.

1. Would our country be better off without a military?
It is true that the US military hasn't fought any real threats since the Cold War. However, going without the Military is like going without Fire Insurance. Its one of those things that most people never have to really use, but people need to have it.
With that said, America can have both a military and invest in education for the kids. America needs to cut back its overseas commitments and maintain a balanced force back at home. America also needs to make its social programs more efficient as well. As long as the Federal Government is nationbuilding abroad or giving Social Security checks to people who don't need it, Government will always have money problems.

2. Would the Coast Guard(which is a division of the military) and police force be able to thwart an attack on the United States?
If a foreign country tried to invade America with a real military, with tanks and Missile Ships, the Coast Guard and Police Force would lose in a front line battle.
The real challenge would be holding onto America. Besides having an abundant supply of pawnshops selling rifles, America is a large country with mountains, caves, forests, swamps, cities, suburban complexes, and many other potential hiding places for guerilla fighters. Regardless of how difficult occupying America would be for a foreign country, America should still have an adequate military force and no American should fantasize about being a kid hero from Red Dawn.

That has to be determined in each situation, but I dare say that we're better equipped to figure that out on our own than a bunch of foreign bureaucrats. I for one am not willing to have them decide what's best for us.


Interestingly enough, our interventions both in Iraq and Vietnam were publicly justified on the grounds of obligations under international bodies - UN Security Council resolutions in the case of Iraq, and SEATO obligations in the case of Vietnam. In both cases, the one and only proper authority should have been a congressional declaration of war as provided by the Constitution. We'd do better to focus on reestablishing that practice, than on sapping our sovereignty with largely unaccountable international bodies that don't have any real loyalty to anyone or anything.


At #16 you said, "Who can actually attack us? No one!" and now you're saying that not only can we be attacked, but there's nothing we can do to prevent it. If you could make a consistent point, we could continue the discussion from there.

When it comes to international matters an international solution is better than a unilaterally one in most instances. Certainly in the long run.


We did not get international sanction (SEATO, give me a break!) or serious broad cooperation in either case. In fact we had most of the world against us, and one can see the results.

Actually, the ethical and responsible solution is better than the unethical and irresponsible one. Internationalizing the decisionmaking process isn't any more likely to result in a better decision than when one country makes the decision on its own after its people and their representatives consult. But it can hamstring us from doing what needs to be done.


Hey, you brought up NATO. SEATO is just the equivalent of that in another corner of the world.


Would the results have been better if more countries had approved of the missions? I don't really see how. I do, on the other hand, see how they could have been improved if the whole country had been behind them more. Requiring a solemn declaration of war tends to have the effect of making sure that the country is solidly behind the mission before it begins.

You're kidding right, you can tell the difference right?
Really?
Ri-ight!
Want to explain how the military can stop a terrorist attack?
Take your time.

The military cannot stop a terrorist attack like 9/11, never could never will.
repel a foreign invader nice enough to march their army against us--yes

Stop people already incountry- already seemingly part of our society who instead of driving to work, drive their vehicle into a building and trigger a detonator.

want to explain how the miltary will stop that?

Let me ask a question to that question:

Would we be better off spending the $250 Billion we spent in Iraq on roads in the US, universities, alternative fuel research, R&D in general, paying down our debts, cutting our obligations to China and Japan, etc?

And would we be better off reducing the 1/2 trillion dollars spent on many defense programs that are outdated, pure pork, a complete waste of money, to reduce our spending and debt obligations?

And would we be better off not sticking our noses in everyone's business aka Iraq occupation or $100 million for a new campaign to spur democracy in Iran? And reducing our debt obligation?

In other words, how much of our military and occupation costs are worthy of massive borrowing to burden future generations?


Do we need a military? Yes. Do we need a giant defense industrial complex with outrageous expenditures when our economy is faultering? NO. DEFINATELY NOT.

Eliminate? No. Severly cut back? YES.

It's very easy to state the opinion of severely cutting back on military spending, but my question for you is, where do you make the cuts? To start with, I disagree that our economy is faltering, but I don't believe defense spending (Iraq war aside) is today anymore wasteful than other government programs and bureaucracies.
The line always has to be drawn between frugal use of money and resources, and forward progress in the technological capabilities of our military.

Uhhh, who or what is going to protect the Europeans? While they could certainly re-arm in a meaningful way, until they do they remain vulnerable themselves. And this assumes that the Europeans aren't the ones we need support against! As for Canada, they currently can't even defend themselves. The Texas National Guard could motor on up I-35 and conquer Canada all by itself. Seriously, one of the factors (albeit not a big one) in the Liberal defeat in the recent Canadian elections is the sad state of Canadian defense capability. At the end of WW2 they had the 3rd largest navy in the world, today they're not even in the top 10. Their Army and Air Force have been similarily weakened. As long as the Canadien's can rely upon the US to insure the security of North America, they've been willing to spend more on butter than bullets.

I don't deny that Europe contains no super powers, but it houses decently advanced armies and navies (second probably to only our own), with great logistical capabilities. The world contains an integrated economy, and no one with any sanity is going to initiate, or allow warfare that will greatly disrupt the global economy, not even China. Threats are going to come from impulsive dictatorships, and theocracies, and countries of that description simply don't have much money, because they don't care enough about their own economies. Without wealth, military options are limited, oversea logistics are pathetic, and advanced technology is unavailable.

The most plausible scenario of an attack on America would be something like when Argentina invaded the Falkland islands, and frankly, there are at least a dozen countries in Europe capable of easily thwarting such an attack.

You mention us protecting Europe, but now that the USSR has collapsed, what are we protecting them from?

Terrorists have no military strength, and the hard part is finding them, not capturing or killing them.

I can think of no country that could or would attack Europe, so what are you talking about?

There was this country you might have heard of.. It was called Germany... Where would the world be today if the United States had not had a military when Hitler was attempting world domination?

1.) I actually had the (mis)fortune to watch the original interview and I must say I was rather disgusted by the opinion being expressed. Our country would not be America without a military. Our armed forces keep the country protected against threats, and believe you me: without our military, our country would be attacked quite a bit more than what we saw on 9/11. Call me paranoid, but I think our military by simply existing is keeping away more threats than it is currently fighting.

No one wants to confront the United States because of sheer might or technology. Well, even if they are not in action for us, our military is complementing this nation by being a force for good in other places.

2.) That is like putting a tissue on a paper air plane and launching it at the moon and hoping it explodes. To say that the coast guard, who more or less simply answer phones and occasionally go out to pick a person up (not insulting any former or current coast guardsmen out there, simply saying). They would be unable to break out the AK-47s and protect the country with the same precision or energy that the military might.

What I want is for you to stake out a consistent position before we can continue at all with this discussion, because right now, the two positions I quoted from you are diametrically opposite each other.

Actually defense cuts are pretty ease to find. I agree, most gov't programs are pork and poorly run. Most are targets for abuse and corruption.

But there is plenty of pork and worthless spending in our defense budget. I can't believe we're increasing spending on defense now, when our biggest threat is a guy coming into our harbor with a nuke in a cargo bin.

Saying we need no defense is just idiocy. But right now we're wasting billions, nearly trillions on worthless defense spending.

And having massive deficits and debts are not a sign of a faltering economy? Last I checked, the folks down the street who did the same thing were not doing well fiscally, in fact they filed for bankruptcy.

I find it unthinkable that we are BORROWING for Iraq as well as unnecessary defense spending.

Of course an ethical decision is to be preferred over an unethical one. I will add a wise decision is preferable to a dumb one. I think we have finally found an area of agreement. However to me on international matters employing a filter that requires an internationally sanctioned approach is a buffer against the kind of narrowly focused jingoistic decisions that have unleashed such horrors on the world. It wasn't the League of Nations that gave us the 2nd World War. An international body without the pressure of narrow parochial interests and accountable to a multitude of diverse nations is far better positioned to consider matters of international concern than a single nation which is primarily concerned with advancing its own interests.


No it was not equivalent. Not even close. Tell me which country in SEATO, besides the US, made a major commitment in the Vietnam conflict? SEATO was little more than window dressing.


Well you can start by comparing Gulf War 1 with Gulf War 2. International sanctioned action does more than simply supply help, which is important. It also confers legitimacy. There was real shared responsibility in GW 1, both militarily and financially. I think this country ended up out of pocket very little. And it was successful in its objectives - getting the Iraqis out of Kuwait. When we followed by going into unilateral mode and started PNACing the situation and making the decision to overthrow Saddam instead of working out some modus vivendi as most of the world was prepared to do, then things went all to hell. The appropriate way to go after Saddam would have been through the World Court. But we basically decided to go it alone militarily with a few folks we dragged reluctantly and minimally into the picture. I, at least, get the lesson.

Nor was it started by a free society consulting its true interests in an open fashion. If you're really trying to compare us to Nazi Germany, I strongly suggest that you not go there.

Interesting that you brought that up, though, seeing as how on the other thread where we conversed you thought we should have intervened in the Spanish Civil War, despite a League of Nations resolution against doing so. Seems that the fine line between "jingoism" and legitimate intervention is very much in the eye of the beholder. I want that "beholder" to be the American people and their representatives, not foreign bureaucrats.


Yes, let's. In the first one, we left Saddam intact because our coalition was to indecisive to go that far. The result was a decade of UN sanctions which contributed to Arab anger and resulted in one of the most spectacularly corrupt scandals of the century known as "Oil-for-Food", which simultaneously lined the pockets of UN bureaucrats and connected companies, helped Saddam shore up his military machine, and still failed to help the people it was supposedly designed to help.

In the second, we actually removed the oppressor, and made life better for most Iraqis. Yes, there continues to be trouble, but the gloom and doom predictions that have been constantly trotted out over the past three years have not come to fruition, and even still in the face of this latest provocation by some likely terrorist group, are still being held at bay. As I said earlier, it would certainly have been better if a serious declaration of war had been obtained from Congress before going in. That would have conferred far more legitimacy than the benediction of the assembled collection of dictators, oligarchs, kleptocrats, and Saddam-connected politicians that make up the UN.

Off course we should have a military, this should be our defense and not the coast gaurd and police. The coast gaurd and police would be easily overrun and destroyed. A military is a necessity to any nation. It would be truly insane to exist as a nation without a military.

No they quite simply are not inconsistent. the military can not now or ever stop a terrorist from attacking america. it can not find someone who has lived quietly here unnoticed as a member of our population and just suddenly commits his attack. CIA-maybe, FBI-maybe, local law enforcement maybe. The armed forces - no.
the military is only good against an enemy that is standing around waiting to fight them.
I really cannot say it any simpler for you. Here's your sign.

1. Would our country be better off without a military?
Answer: No. I believe our country would be better off if our military were actively engaged in protecting us.
2. Would the Coast Guard(which is a division of the military) and police force be able to thwart an attack on the United States?
Answer: No. Not unless, the military (USN, USA, USAF, USMC) personnel and resources were to become the US Coast Guard.

Frankly I don't know what you are talking about. I simply said the League of Nations didn't start any war. It was individual nations like Germany operating outside the authority of the League that did. I don't what kind of track you want to take that on. Comparing us to Nazi Germany? Where did you come up with that one?


The Spanish Gov. representative came to the League of Nation and appealed to them for support under the international principle of "collective defense" which the League was suppose to sponsor. England's narrow nationalism prevailed and made it impossible for the League to fulfill its contract. I understand that the League did oppose all foreign intervention which would have applied to Germany, Italy and Portugal as well. The US in intervening on the side of the Republican government would have very much been operating in the spirit of the League charter, ie collective defense of an invaded country that was a member of the League. Unfortunately once again narrow nationalism prevailed when applied to an international crisis and once again we and others payed the horrible price.



This is what I wrote and I'll stand by it.


Funny thing about the UN oil-for-food-scandal. UN haters act like they were the only players in the game. It was the various countries and companies with their unprincipled greed that drove the scandal. Somehow the UN backbiters seem to want to forget that. The answer to the UN side of the problem, like with any organization, is to do a better job of hiring and monitoring. Only folks who want to delegitimatize the UN as a body try to use their corruption as a basis for general condemnation. They don't do that with their own countries or the much greater corruption that now exists in Iraq. Curious isn't it?

Saddam's military machine was forth rate, barely enough to maintain military control within his own country where the alliance would let him. He was flat bottled up. The war was a success in terms of its objectives and we had Arab and world backing for the most part at that time. Obviously things weren't necessarily that great if you were an Iraqi. Overall, for what it intended, Gulf 1 was a success. It was the transition after that where things got unilateralized that largely led to the cess pool we are in now

As for GW 2, life is better for some Iraqis and a lot worse for others and that's after 400 + billion in taxpayer money thrown into this mess, with corruption and terrorists running wild. Spare me the pollyanna hype about a unilateral policy that is coming apart at the seams. More important the policy has been awful for the US and has weakened us in practically every way around the world and in our own country. Calling Gulf War 2 a success is nothing more than a bad joke. Like Vietnam, it is a standing example of the failure of unilateralist policies that thumb their nose at the world.

Yes, like with any other organization, including the U.S., wherever it went wrong. That was exactly my point that you laughed at earlier, which is that we need to focus on making sure we make the best decsions we can, not delegating the decisionmaking to the UN, where there's far less accountability than there is in our own public affairs here at home.


Wrong. Al-Qaeda was able to ratchet up hatred against the West in the Middle East in large part because of the multilateral UN decision to impose crushing sanctions on the Iraqi people, and because, thanks to the multilateral indecisiveness that prevented us from taking Baghdad at the time, it became necessary to station troops in Saudi Arabia over the course of the decade. If we had gone in at the time of the first war, we'd be faced with a lot fewer headaches in Iraq than we are now.

The unilateralization you refer to didn't happen until after the attacks on 9-11-01, brought about in part by the failure of UN policy towards Iraq.


And if we had intervened in the Spanish Civil War and secured a victory for the Republicans, you'd probably be able to make the same assessment of the aftermath of that as well. I agree that things in Iraq could be better, and that the Bush Administration screwed a few things up. But it also could be a lot worse, like the way the UN screwed things up the first time around, and like they screwed up Somalia and Kosovo as well.

You may be addressing some point but its not mine. I'm saying we need international solutions to international problem. Focusing on the international agencies failings in order to cripple it with the same standards not being applied to national agencies only betrays the arguers bias.


We didn't belong in Saudi Arabia. Deploy our forces if necessary in the open sea. Another nationalistic mistake in dealing with an international issue - overseas oil. To the extent policies were being followed to bring extreme pressure on Iraq to the extent of causing great civilian harm I think this reflected nationalistic concerns to remove SH. I think a genuine UN generated policy would have been far different and I frankly don't have the expertise to separate out what was imposed by countries like the United States and what was an honestly internationally generated policy to remove the threat by Iraq but to also not harm civilians. The inspections were good and they were from the UN. They were removed according to Scott Ritter because the CIA was trying to nationalistically employ them as spies.


9-ll had a lot more to do with Saudi Arabia and Israel than Iraq. SH was death on the jihadists. As I said the bad part of sanction policy appears to have been to a major degree due to the pressures of countries like the US and Britain.


Somalia and Kosovo by the standard of Iraq are monumental successes. In Somalia the humanitarian mission was carried out and when it became clear the mission was no longer viable we left. As far as the problems please don't compare a mouse with an elephant.

A Spanish victory would have left a viable government as they had one before Franco revolted. There is no comparison with Iraq which had its government destroyed.

Internationalism wins in every instance.

1. Would our country be better off without a military?

Well, in a word- no. However- redifining "military" to TRUE defensive capability instead of the "policeman of the world" mission we are trying to carry out now MAY have been the context of what he was getting at. To that, I don't disagree. In fact, I think we are LESS ready for a true invasion, should a mythical country try to invade us, that prior to 9/11 and GW2. We are stretched pretty thin with too many obligations right now. But since I don't think the EU, Russia and China are going to gang up on us and attack us next week, the point is pretty moot there as well- we are our own worst enenmy in regards to deployments.

But to go to pre-WW2 levels of military, with our being lulled into thinking we truly had a "war to end all wars" is disastrous as well.

We do need to stop being the worlds bully or proffesional cop, depending on your POV, and start concentrating on true domestic safety and protection.

2. Would the Coast Guard(which is a division of the military) and police force be able to thwart an attack on the United States?

Well, depends on how you think of this problem- let's say, we took the entire navy and made it "the coast guard"- mission accomplisheder, right GW? LOL- there is some strategic and good sense if you really think it out and not in "bumper sticker" analogies- for instance- if we took the entire Naval fleet and all it's assets and used it on port security, I believe we may actually have port security! - same with the Army- if we took the 100K+ troops from the gulf, and use them in airport and border security- with all those military assets as back up- but trained them still as the army and navy trains today- we might actually be safer.

Pulling all the money out of the middle east- including aide to Isreal, Hamas and everyone else- and let them settle thier issues on thier terms- we might have some real homeland security- let them kill each other off and deal with those left standing for our oil or whatever.

Genocide is a horrible thing- BUT- it is secondary to actual homeland security for Americans. Genocide in WW2 coincided with an actual attack on our shores, a military attack, not a guerilla bombing- so either state sponsored terrorism or state to state agression can be dealt with on those terms.

Sounds horrible- but those countries are not my concern until, as a nation, they attempt to harm us. At that time, we don't try to "HOLD" the country- but rather, take away thier assets to make war against us, then leave.

The major problem we have with our foriegn policy is not democrat vs republican (though the current policy is probably the stupidest EVER) - it is our cultural belief that we have some moral or ethical imperitive to "fix" other countries problems, and that somehow, we are morally superior and have the ability to be "big brother" to them. That is why we end up so evil in so many of our encounters. We just can't mind our own darn biz and take care of our own instead of running around like a hyperactive church lady.

However- DTOM and others are right in the fact that we mustn't lose our ability to make war when we need it to protect ourselves either.

Internationals interests do not necessarily allign with American interests. This being said, our interests would not necessarily be secured by defering our military capacity to international agencies with poor records on international dispute settlements.



UN imposed mandates were responsible for far more Iraqi civilian casualties then US detractors have been willing to acknowledge. Furthermore, the issues surrounding overseas oil are far too divisive to attain any true multilateral consensus without later resorting to tradtional forms of power politics.



NATO acted without the consent of the UN to intervene in Kosovo, and the comparison between Kosovo and Iraq simply doesn't exist. Humanitarian missions that can achieve relatively high levels of consensus cannot and should not be compared to enforcements of internationally sanctionned resolutions on a mildly developed Middle-Eastern country.

If history tells us anything it is that we would not exist as a free nation without the means to defend ourselves. I heard Mr. Sandoval make the ludicrous statements quoted above and even Colmes was flabbergasted.

I guess his city of residence says it all. This man is a complete idiot.

The “coast guard” would have trouble defending us from third world nations – their effectiveness against major (esp. nuclear) powers would be nil.

To define national interests apart from the filter of an international confirming process is to ultimately shoot ourselves in the foot. The Shah was in our narrow national interest and we got Khomenie as a result. Saddam Hussein was useful to us against Khomenie and we got the Kuwait invasion as a result. Getting rid of Hussein was perceived as in our narrow national interest and we got what we have now in Iraq where even neocons are bailing. Supporting the Saudi dictatorship was in our narrow national interest and we got murderous Wahabism and bin Laden as a result. Backing the insurgents against the Soviets in Afghanistan and then leaving the country high and dry when the Soviets left was in our narrow national interest but we trained and layed the foundation for violent Islamist revolution as a result. We back the Israeli occupation in the West Bank against international opinion and we are out mucho bucks and become recruiters for Al Qaeda and Hamas suicide bombers. The record is overwhelming. It is in our interests on international matters to heavily factor in international opinion.


In dealing with UN imposed policies we have to recognize a spectrum of influences. The oil-for-food program as badly as it was carried out and Blix UN inspectors represented in principle the type of approach one expects from an international agency. The American approach of screwing up the inspections process by planting spies and engaging in attempts to overthrow a standing government was the nationalistic side of the equation. One wonders what would have been the outcome if we had worked with Hussein in a more upfront way while guarding against his acquiring WMDs. I realize the devastation that was caused by the sanctions but was that due more to the nationalist or internationalist side of the equation. I think more the former.


I consider NATO a quasi-international outfit. Certainly it is better to work with NATO than go it alone. UN responsibility for the occupation followed shortly on the heels of the NATO success.


I really haven't a clue what you are talking about here. Perhaps you could restate your point.

This is so short-sighted.

All of the above examples you cited were often the best choice out of several options availible. You can't simply say in retrospect that these "narrow interests" as you've defined them were wrong because they purportedly resulted in "x" without first considering the effects that other foreign policy choices might have had and how it could have altered the current geopolitical climate. Similarly, what effect does international opinion have except being a convenient way of moralizing collective aims?



Right, because Hussein was so cooperative and forthcoming with the state of his weapons programme?

International agencies have many more politicians to appease than a national congress. With so many competing interests at stake, true multilateralism is simply a pipe dream and hardly desirable since, as we've seen with the Security Council, the UN becomes a pawn for the stronger powers to assert their authority on a moral basis through this supposed 'multilateral consenus' we keep hearing about.



Of course, it is preferable to work within an international agency when there is significant common ground, but it's hardly a requirement.



You can't compare the successes of international campaigns of relatively small-scale to a full-fledged war of occupation where a tentative socio-ethnic arrangement exists.

First, two items, offered for clarification and edification:

1) He who rules the seas, rules the world. Just ask the British. The sun never set on the British Empire because the sun never set on Her Majesty's Navy. But if the British don't work for you, simply recall Teddy Roosevelt sending the fleet around the world. It wasn't a world-wide holiday cruise. So we need the largest and best-equipped Navy that we can afford. Much of our current limitation with respect to military and other options is simply because we don't have the Navy to do the job [our capacity to conduct amphibious operations, for instance, is quite nearly non-existent, so pray that we never find as an enemy someone that we will need to invade via an amphibious landing, or more simply, I doubt whether we could even accomplish so much as another Inchon]. The Army and the Air Force are not doing any better in that regard, as it has and will take months for us to airlift a force of any decent size to just about anywhere in the world. And that's one reason why we had cruise missiles in Afghanistan following Nairobi and Dar Es Salaam. It took 3,000+ dead before we could get the nerve to make the effort required because of our deficiency in this regard.

2) NATO. Well, NATO, colonialism/imperialism, and US troops in Saudi Arabia. Nice of Osama to want to kill us all for having troops in Saudi, but if such is the correct attitude, then why aren't some Europeans flying fuel-laden passenger jumbo jets into our skyscrapers? We've been "occupying" Germany far longer than we have been "occupying" Saudi, but I don't see any Germans crashing into the Empire State building [though one (Mattias Rust) did take his own little Cessna and fly it and himself into Red Square, the glorious lunatic; oh, and note the Soviet response versus our likely response, which is to say that some rather high up in the chain of command were sent packing]. With the point being, don't give NATO more credit than NATO deserves. NATO came into being simply because the Europeans had need of some security arrangement with the US lest the Soviets come and eat them up like chocolate covered cherries. And the simple reason why it was more than just some money, some equipment, and a security guarantee is because the Europeans did not trust us. So to make up for the deficient trust, they welcomed US troops on their soil. Which is another way of saying that with our troops on the ground, any Soviet move in western Europe would have resulted in coffins draped with the American flag appearing on your and my nightly news. And that was the guarantee that our European friends were looking for. We may not die for them, maybe not even for a few of our own, but hundreds, and maybe thousands, well, then we're good to go.


Now, do we need a military? See the above. Can the Coast Guard and the cops do the job? Apparently, SF does not have the same gang problem as LA did when I lived there, or else someone's neurons aren't quite firing properly. Re the Coast Guard. Well, I don't want to demean a good service that performs rather brilliantly in most every other capacity, but if the CG can't stop some Columbian drugs lords, well, you get the point.


Lastly, re SF and the USS Iowa. Not money, or so Ken Garcia of the SF Examiner reported. According to him, it was "instruments of war" and some vague references to the war in Iraq. Of course, SF didn't deserve her anyway, seeing as how they also rejected the previous opportunity to have a rather special ship serve as a floating museum and tourist attraction. More specifically, our friends from SF gave the big thumbs down to CV-6, the USS Enterprise, ever so lucky talisman of the US Navy during WWII, otherwise known to those who love[d] her as The Big E. The Big E partipicated in every carrier action of that war but one [the Battle of the Coral Sea; she was a day's sailing away when the battle ended]. She and her crew otherwise earned 20 out of a possible 22 battle stars, and she was the most decorated ship of that war and quite possibly the most decorated ship in US Navy history. And not that they necessarily could have known it at that time, but given that the USS Enterprise is, well, you know where I'm going with this, but I would invite you all to check the Trekkie blogs and see for yourself how, in trying to determine why that name, some have educated themselves as concerns our history and The Big E. But anyway, here she is, entering Pearl just following her rush home from her aborted attempt to participate at the Coral Sea, and rushed so that she would be ready for Midway:

http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/images/g60000/g66121.jpg

And here she is after just having launched Scouting Squadran Six and Bombing Squadron Six, who would not so long thereafter be taking out His Imperial Majesty's Akagi and Kaga at Midway:

http://www.cv6.org/1942/midway/midway_2.htm [actually, a photo taken a bit later than the one orginally posted, as the torpedo bombers are now ready to launch]

Sorry, some more, to be fair. SF made the wrong move, and I'm not blaming them for it, but as reported, they took CV-12, the USS Hornet. Only problem is that CV-8, the Hornet previous [as it were], had the shortest career of any carrier in US Navy history, commissioning in October of 1941 and being sunk in October 1942 during the Battle of the Santa Cruz Islands. CV-12 is otherwise reported to be haunted, and so she's called the Grey Ghost [or Haunted Hornet]. Word on the street is otherwise that she had the highest suicide rate in the US Navy and also lost a few sailors to decapitation owing to snapped arresting wire cables. So maybe that explains why no one is beating down the door to tour the gal. That being said, while her forbear was sunk during the Battle of the Santa Cruz Islands, the Big E too took some bomb hits, but as always, she lived to tell the tale. Here she is during that battle, and no, though she has been hit, she's not listing as a result of bomb damage and flooding, instead, good gal that she was, she's merely twisting and turning to avoid the untoward advances of her pursuers:

http://www.cv6.org/1942/santacruz/santacruz_3.htm [second photo on page]

And, truly lastly, it was this bomb hit, in May of 1945 off Okinawa, that ended her war. The explosion resulting from a bomb-laden kamikaze that had crashed-dived her caused the forward elevator to be "thrown" 700 or so feet skyward:

http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-042.htm [second photo on page]

But she did make it back, though, to our shame as a nation, no one wanted her and so she was later sold as scrap. Now, if we'd given her to the Coast Guard, well, then maybe they'd be in a better position to fight that naval war that our friend from SF wants them to fight....

Edited to add: Sorry about the prior links, apparently, one must first go the site and then double-click the photo before one can have access to