In the past week both Dean and Clark have made foreign policy statements that should scare the bejeezus out of us. (On the very off chance either of them could ever win).

First Dean says that he would 'seek permission' from the UN before using our military. Then Clark says that he will 'give the EU the right of first refusal' before we took military action. It seems they are both advocating that we hand over our foreign policy and national defense issues to, well, someone other than ourselves.

Now, the dems have been bearing the label of being soft on national security for quite some time now. Seeing as these two are currently at the top of the dem heap, my question for debate is simply this..........

Is the 'soft on national security' label an accurate one for the dems? In fact, might it not be a tad understated?

I don't believe it to be accurate at all. Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman, and Lyndon Johnson were presidents who weren't afraid to pull the trigger when they needed to. Yes, you can blame LBJ for Vietnam, but don't forget that even a Republican would've increased involvement in southeast asia. I believe that what a lot of democrats feel is important is that other nations be included when it comes to our foreign policy decisions. We can't ask others to abide by UN resolutions and laws if we ourselves, act as renegades. Every nation has the right to defend itself if directly attacked, and democrats support the war against Afghanistan and have been very vocal about that. If anything, a lot of democrats wanted to see Afghanistan finished BEFORE jumping headfirst into Iraq and overstressing our armed forces. The Iraq thing is a bit different, and now token opposition and disapproval is appearing to be sagacious on their part.

As it pertains to the two in question I would say its absolutely accurate. Dean made a comment something to the effect of "The US should look ahead to not being a military superpower". I don't know about anyone else, but I enjoy being a superpower. It gives me a fairly secure feeling.

Clark seems to have unlimited faith in the UN, which has shown time and time again to be ineffective at upholding its resolutions, and charter.

We will always be a military superpower because its necessary for our security, and I would rather look ahead to a time where the UN is no longer relevant since that seems like a more probable scenerio.


EDIT:
Found the direct quote:



(taken from the October 26th editon of the Plain Dealer Cleveland, OH)

Ah. Not sure where I saw this analysis, but the idea is that our military is spread too thin for our economy to support. Eventually, the system will collapse because it isn't self-supporting.

To ignore this reality is to live in fantasy. So, carry on with your fears and insecurities. Others of us look at the reality and are concerned.

How do other countries manage? Well, for one, they join together in mutually supportive agreements.

Oh, dear! Heaven forfend that America shouldn't be able to "do whatever the hell it wills", to quote that silly little man, Crowley.

AuthorMusician, you are quite right. A simple study of population growth (and retraction) patterns can clue us in on this; not to mention that historically (and I see no reason to think we will be different) Dr. Dean is 100% correct. There has been no empire or "superpower" which has lasted forever. Why would we think that we are different?

Now, I do think it was imprudent of Dean to mention this while he is running for president. That, however, is not the question posed by Passion51. It is certainly wise to think of foreign policy and security issues within the context of the FACT that someday the US will not be the most powerful military nation in the world. Indeed, both Dean and Clark are defining strategies which will reap far more long-term benefits than the idiotic posturing which substitutes for foreign policy and security policy in the current administration.



I have seen no evidence that Democrats deserve any such label; certainly not any more than Republicans do. This is a label used by ignorant people as a simplistic partisan attack.

As for working with the UN and international organizations: when I was in kindergarten, I learned a lot about the importance of cooperation. In this life, we have better relationships when we choose a path of cooperation rather than coercion; we create a better future by joining hands than we do by shoving others.

To turn this thread's question on its head (because I believe it is a cheap question), I might say (to be equally unfair), "the current Republican ideas of National Security and Foreign Policy are a testament to their failing marks in the "plays well with others" category when they were in grade school. To say that their ideas are myopic and certain to implode would be an understatement."

This analysis is accurate. After the Cold War America had an army of about 1.8 million soldiers. Bush cut the fat out of that down to 1.6 million troops because we no longer needed the capacity to carry on a war with the Asian continent.

Clinton however, against the advice of the military cut the budget requirements for troops down to 1.4 million. He did this against the advice of generals who told them that he wouldn't be able to carry on two major wars at one time and they told him this was necessary in order to have complete security at all times. Clinton apparently thought this was a good way to clear up his budget problems and wipe out a deficit. - These numbers and scenarios were given by Olie North and supported by Gen. Richard Meyers.

This is only one example of why we can't trust Democrats who aren't in favor of a large military. We need to sustain leadership that promotes safety and security.

As for your secondary points. We did go at this with other countries. Some 60 countries have helped us in the effort. I'll never get why people think that the wolrd is against us, because The french didn't want to fight, again.

The answer is not to have the UN at our side at every turn. The answer is to have a military that is self sufficient by American funding.

Vote Republican.

Edited to add:

Quark,
Every student of history agrees that the main reasons that large empires (which we are not) can't sustain their capacity to rule because they spent too much money socially on programs of "bread and circus" while neglecting a fighting force and allowing their people to become weakened by philosophies that their is nothing worth fighting or dying for. Rome fell for many reasons, primarily because they spent on welfare instead of military. That's what allowed the Goths to win the battles that lead to the fall of Rome. Not to mention countless other tribes that kept attacking thier borders. If Rome had sustained it's military prowess and forced it's peasants to work, they could have continued to boom.

Emporer Theodocius recognized this and bought the empire an extra two hundred years.

Hmm. I consider myself a "student of history," and I disagree with your statement. Of course, getting into that more deeply is more worthy of debate in the "History" forum. My point was that historically, every empire has fallen. They haven't all disappeared (ie: the British Empire), but they have all fallen. The likelihood of the United States remaining as the preeminent superpower in the world for the indefinite future is slim to none. Thus, to see the world through a lens of history is not anathema to having strong or wise national security policies, as the questioner implied.

Indeed, one could argue that reducing our military strength while promoting international cooperation is in fact the wisest national security strategy possible, especially for the long term. I think that Dean's statement was unwise - not because it was untrue, but rather because it could be so easily misunderstood by people who's only definition of strength is the size of the muscle; whose only definition of security is the kill-power of the military; whose only definition of peace is intimidation.



According to these figures, assuming they are accurate, Bush (I) and Clinton both cut the military by the same amount - 0.2 million. Yet, in your interpretation, Bush was "cutting the fat," while Clinton was trying to "clear up his budget problems and wipe out a deficit." Methinks I hear the sound of something spinning... so when a Republican does something, it's noble, but when a Democrat does the same thing, it's indicative of weakness? Riiiight.

Not entirely correct johnlocke. There was a big split in the generals of the time as to whether or not a smaller force would be able to handle our needs, with about half arguing for a smaller active duty force, with an increase in technological warfare development. New planes, new technology ships, and the like. They felt the new technology would compensate for the smaller troop force.

And if rebuilding troop and ship strength is a big priority since the end of the Clinton administration, you'd never know it by looking at the current state of the military, because not much has changed. Let's take a look:

Year.....................................2000 ................2003
Army
Active Divisions ....................10 ....................10
Reserve Personnel ............555,826 ............555,000

Navy
Active Carriers/Training ........11 / 1 ..................12
Attack Submarines .................55 .....................55
Ships ....................................316 ...................308
Active Wings/Reserve ...........10 / 1 ................10 / 1

Air Force
Active Wings .........................13 .....................12+
Reserve Wings .....................7.6 .......................7+

Marine Corps
Active/Reserve Divisions ......3 / 1 ..................3 / 1

Source: Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assesments, 2003

Now, there is no doubt that we needed some big cuts in the 80s and 90's, since we were no longer going to be fighting the Soviets. Did we cut too much? Maybe, although current (meaning the last 3 years) Pentagon thinking doesn't really support this, or we would have been seeing massive troop increases, ships brought out of mothballs, etc. That's not really happening.


We've been through this before, in another thread. There are really only about a dozen (if that) of those countries that provided troops and/or money to this cause. Most of the rest signed on (willingly or not) because of some bribery and arm twisting on our part, and had very little more to offer than "moral support".


I agree. On the other hand, we spend ten times what the next "free world" country (Great Britain) does, and more than the militaries of eastern and western Europe (including Britain) and South America combined.

I think that what Clark was saying about the EU having "right of first refusal" on conflicts overseas, is that if something should happen over there, like another Kosovo, that they should be the ones to put up troops and equipment. After all, they are the ones that are most directly involved. That's not to say that we wouldn't become involved if asked, or if necessary, because the EU refused to act for some reason.

But it shouldn't be necessary for us to go galloping across the globe, settling every squabble, and toppling every dictator, just because we can. We have to have a balance between involving ourselves in those situations, and actually being able to defend our country and it's security interests.

We don't necessarily need a bigger military, but we do need to be smarter about where and when we deploy it.

For the Republicans to chide Democrats for being "soft" on national security is like being called ugly by an ape.

For anyone to suggest that Wesley Clark is somehow less than 100 percent committed to a strong--but smart military is simply laughable.

If anything it's good conservative Republicans like Donald "Let's Make A Deal" Rumsfeld whose idea of "national security" seems to be as flexible as his morals.

Here's an interesting item about the Secretary of Defense's "situational ethics" and how he played footsie with Saddam Hussein even while the "Butcher of Baghdad" was gassing the Kurds:

WASHINGTON - Fresh controversy about Donald Rumsfeld's personal dealings with Saddam Hussein was provoked yesterday by new documents that reveal he went to Iraq to show America's support for the regime despite its use of chemical weapons.

The formerly secret documents reveal the current Defence Secretary was dispatched to Baghdad 20 years ago to assure Iraq that America's condemnation of its use of chemical weapons was made "strictly" in principle.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/storydisplay.cfm...ubsection=world

Quark,

No spin involved. While the tide turned enough for George Bush Sr. to cut the military, by the time Clinton took over the military situation hadn't changed enough for Clinton to cut another 200,000 troops from the military. See.

With 1.4 million troops we can fight effectively on two fronts and maintain security within the borders. Not so with only 1.2 million.

George Bush Sr. cut out the fat, Clinton cut down to the bone .

So you see, there's no spin invloved. It's only a matter of logic.

Well Johnlocke seems like the Clinton military is doing just fine by my score card because hmmm we are according to the adminstration fighting on 2 fronts Iraq & Afghanistan just great without any need for more troops in Iraq, although I disagree that no more troops are not needed in either conflict. But seems like Clinton's military is doing just fine.

So I guess Clinton did not hurt the military at all and neither would Clark's or Dean's positions for that matter. Cause as they always say work smarter not harder.

I would have to disagree with you as well, johnlocke. Clinton was president 8 years, during that time improvements in the technological capability of our military offset the reduced size of our forces. We retain significant troop strength domesticaly, in Europe and in Asia. We are still ready for the "Two Major War" scenario (or at least the administration beleives we are). I think you would agree that that the chances of an armed intrusion into soveriegn US territory by a foriegn militaryis about nill. As for securing access to strategic rescources, the second valid use of the american military...isn't that what we're doing in Iraq?
Before you condemn Dean, consider for a moment, while it is true we may be forced at some point to act against the will of the UN, it serves little purpose to thump our chests and declare that forthrightly. Friends may come and go, but enemies accumulate.

If we were intersted in building a world empire, then as history has shown, we probably would 'fall'. Eventually. However, that is not our objective. When America goes to war it is with the express intent of defending its national security. Such is the case in Iraq. We sought to eliminate a threat to our country. Exactly where in the threat matrix that specific threat fell has been debated exhausitvely. The fact remains, the threat was there. Some dont believe it was 'imminent' enough to require action. Dean for example. Others thought it was ample cause, depending on the day of the week or the audience he's speaking to. Clark comes immediately to mind.

Seeking permission from the UN, or any int'l body, to take action to protect our own interests is a weak and dangerous foreign policy. It is Dean's policy. Support it and you too support a weak and dangerous foreing policy.

Granting the right of first refusal to the EU before we take action in our own nationa interest is a weak and dangerous foreign policy. It is Clark's policy. Today anyway. Support it and you too support a weak and dangerous foreing policy.

Preparing ourselves for a time when we no longer have the most powerful military in the world is defeatist, weak and dangerous. The energy and resources spent on preparing for that scenario would be better spent preventing it from happening. Unless you want to cede your power and privilege to some int'l body that will only act in your interest by accident.

The current leadership of the Democrat Party promotes a weakening of this nation's strength and influence. So do those hallowed 'international bodies'. So do our enemies. Connect the dots. It's not a pretty picture.

The whole framing of this debate is bogus. A couple of out-of-context quotes about foreign policy and then the question "are the dems soft on the military?"

Since when does "military might = excellent foreign policy"? Only when "might=right". Otherwise, you need diplomacy and friends just as much as military power. Almost EVERY country has a foreign policy that works to some degree for them. Most don't have our military might, but they have friends who want to work with them for a common goal. That's how you survive as a country.

What both Dems are saying is that we need to formulate a foreign policy NOT based on military strength, but on diplomatic strength backed by military resolve. Sounds sane to me. Wish some of the chest-thumpers in Washington would figure that out.

Bill Clinton is still the mold of these Democrats. That in and of itself should scare the bejesus out of you and I. Are the Dems soft on National Defense? Yes. Most recently the Socialists along with AFSCME and SEIU endorsed Dean. Now that will scare me.

I would agree that the question has been poorly expressed. The belief that military force is an extension of foreign policy has been accepted in principle since Clauswitz. The question then becomes how to use the military tool. Proponents of the democrats are soft on defense argument must assume that the US is following an aggressive policy of military intervention. While the proponents are quick to disclaim any attempts at empire, we find ourselves occupying a foreign, hostile land chiefly involved in pacification and the extraction of its natural resources. One has to wonder why that does not qualify as empire building?
The argument that Iraq represented a growing or unique threat to the US is an explanation of our policy, unfortunately the facts do not support our explanations.Unless we produce evidence of an Iraqi nuclear program, the argument that they were a growing or unique threat is unsubstantiated. Every country in the ME retains chem. and bio capability, Iraq was not unique. Nor have we found any evidence that Iraq was developing or producing weapons unconventional weapons, so growing is not an adjective that applies either. From the proponents we hear that As soon as the sanctions were lifted Hussein would be building his nuke. An examination of that reveals they are apparently endorsing the position their opponents held prior to the war, i.e. that the sanctions were working and direct military intervention was unnecessary. Maintaining the sanctions had the added appeal of a known cost; about $3B US per year.

So far a number of replies claim that the premise for debate is 'bogus' or 'poorly formed' or some other blather that serves to avoid the question at hand.

Are the dems soft on national security issues as evidenced by recent statements made by two of their prominent members, Dean and Clark?