for display only
Big Blue Interactive The Corner Forum  
Back to the Corner

Archived Thread

NFT: Peace in the Western Hemisphere

jdf : 8/26/2016 8:46 am
A good column in today's NYT makes the point that with the ending of the FARC insurgency in Colombia (after 52 years), we now have peace throughout the Western Hemisphere. Of course, there is still plenty of violence and other problems, but I think the broader point here is that we (people in general) tend to focus on bad news, and often overlook the good news on how much progress has been made in various areas.

Here's an interesting passage to consider: "Today, there are no military governments in the Americas. No countries are fighting one another. And no governments are battling major insurgencies.

This progress of an entire hemisphere toward peace follows the path of other major regions of the world. Western Europe’s bloody centuries of warfare, culminating in the two world wars, have given way to seven decades of peace. The last military governments in that region, in Greece, Spain and Portugal, yielded to democratic rule in the 1970s. In East Asia, the wars of the mid-20th century — Japan’s conquests, the Chinese civil war and the wars in Korea and Vietnam — took millions of lives. Yet despite serious political disputes, East and Southeast Asia today are almost entirely free from active combat.

In fact, the world’s wars are now concentrated almost exclusively in a zone stretching from Nigeria to Pakistan, an area containing only a sixth of the world’s population. Far from being a “world at war,” as many people believe, we inhabit a world where five out of six people live in regions largely or entirely free of armed conflict."
Colombia's Milestone in World Peace - ( New Window )
How is there peace  
superspynyg : 8/26/2016 8:57 am : link
There is still a war with Mexican drug lords. That counts.
RE: How is there peace  
Pete in 'Vliet : 8/26/2016 9:04 am : link
In comment 13087021 superspynyg said:
Quote:
There is still a war with Mexican drug lords. That counts.


There will always be crime, everywhere. And the Mexican Cartels do slightly blur the line between crime and insurgencies, but its not quite on the level of political insurgencies, civil wars or wars between neighboring countries.
Hopefully  
AP in Halfmoon : 8/26/2016 9:07 am : link
at some point we have political will to downsize the DoD. The current spending levels are border line insanity.
RE: Hopefully  
njm : 8/26/2016 9:18 am : link
In comment 13087040 AP in Halfmoon said:
Quote:
at some point we have political will to downsize the DoD. The current spending levels are border line insanity.


Question is, leaving the question of wasteful spending aside, would the world be as peaceful if not for the level of defense spending? Would Putin be moving more aggressively against the former Russian states, particularly Ukraine and the Balkans? How aggressive would China be in the South China Sea? And there still ate the issues running from Nigeria to Pakistan. What I would like to see is a more reasonable level of spending by out NATO allies. The piggybacking was necessary in the aftermath of WWII, but should have been addressed as early as the 60's. The intervention in the Balkans in the mid/late 90's should have been strictly an EU action.
RE: RE: Hopefully  
x meadowlander : 8/26/2016 9:25 am : link
In comment 13087067 njm said:
Quote:
In comment 13087040 AP in Halfmoon said:


Quote:


at some point we have political will to downsize the DoD. The current spending levels are border line insanity.



Question is, leaving the question of wasteful spending aside, would the world be as peaceful if not for the level of defense spending? Would Putin be moving more aggressively against the former Russian states, particularly Ukraine and the Balkans? How aggressive would China be in the South China Sea? And there still ate the issues running from Nigeria to Pakistan. What I would like to see is a more reasonable level of spending by out NATO allies. The piggybacking was necessary in the aftermath of WWII, but should have been addressed as early as the 60's. The intervention in the Balkans in the mid/late 90's should have been strictly an EU action.
I disagree.

Defense spending is no longer just about keeping the world safe.

It also drives a shitload of high-quality American Engineering jobs.
njm  
AP in Halfmoon : 8/26/2016 9:26 am : link
I agree with all of the above. Our military has played a key role in deterring bad guys. My point was the current level of spending isn't sustainable. There are also better uses for the money, e.g. cancer research
The world is safer than ever  
Deej : 8/26/2016 9:38 am : link
and the pants wetters in our society need to open their eyes to that.
Yet, for some reason  
NYerInMA : 8/26/2016 9:45 am : link
the Colombian government is going to put the peace deal to a referendum, so it could still be rejected. As we saw with Brexit, leaving these decisions to the masses can backfire.
Colombia's peace deal with the FARC could still fall apart - ( New Window )
Cancer research?  
Rob in CT/NYC : 8/26/2016 9:47 am : link
Just about every large, mid, small and micro pharma and biotech company have resources devoted to cancer research...is there some sense that it is underfunded in any way shape or form?
RE: njm  
njm : 8/26/2016 9:52 am : link
In comment 13087085 AP in Halfmoon said:
Quote:
There are also better uses for the money, e.g. cancer research


The Latvians, Estonians and Lithuanians might disagree.
Russia spends $66 billion on their defense  
eclipz928 : 8/26/2016 9:53 am : link

China spends $215 billion.

The US spends $596 billion.

Even the most liberal, anti-war people in our country still understand the need to maintain a level of defense spending to maintain our military strength as a deterrent to would-be malicious factions abroad. The issue is the lack of political courage to scale back the defense budget even just minimally - even as the country is still working with a huge deficit and with several other domestic issues that need to be addressed - and even as we're currently living in the most peaceful time in the history of the civilized world.
RE: RE: njm  
njm : 8/26/2016 9:53 am : link
In comment 13087126 njm said:
Quote:
In comment 13087085 AP in Halfmoon said:


Quote:


There are also better uses for the money, e.g. cancer research



The Latvians, Estonians and Lithuanians might disagree.


And I missed the most obvious, the Yazidis. We've actually prevented Holocausts.
don't let the mainstream media get wind of this  
djm : 8/26/2016 9:56 am : link
they have shit to stir and ratings to pull in. Peace sells but who's buying? ( not even sure that line is relevant to my point or this thread but it's megadeath so deal with it)
I don't believe peace sells  
AP in Halfmoon : 8/26/2016 10:01 am : link
based on the current environment I believe the opposite is true.

njm, can we accomplish those goals for $400B or $500B?
It's funny.....  
BillKo : 8/26/2016 10:25 am : link
all the talk of how much we spend on defense. Defense is important.

Some would want you to believe we have cut our military to the degree where we can't defend ourselves anymore.............
RE: Russia spends $66 billion on their defense  
njm : 8/26/2016 10:28 am : link
In comment 13087131 eclipz928 said:
Quote:

China spends $215 billion.

The US spends $596 billion.

Even the most liberal, anti-war people in our country still understand the need to maintain a level of defense spending to maintain our military strength as a deterrent to would-be malicious factions abroad. The issue is the lack of political courage to scale back the defense budget even just minimally - even as the country is still working with a huge deficit and with several other domestic issues that need to be addressed - and even as we're currently living in the most peaceful time in the history of the civilized world.


While certainly not accounting for all of the difference, the difference in pay scale for an all volunteer US army and an army of draftees at Chinese prevailing wages explains a material part of it.
RE: It's funny.....  
NYerInMA : 8/26/2016 10:33 am : link
In comment 13087179 BillKo said:
Quote:
all the talk of how much we spend on defense. Defense is important.

Some would want you to believe we have cut our military to the degree where we can't defend ourselves anymore.............


Depends on how you define "defending ourselves." For example, do you really need to be able to project force anywhere on the planet at a moment's notice? Do you really need to keep 28,500 troops in South Korea AND ~50,000 troops in Japan? It's nice to be able to crow about having the world's best military, but that's a different profile than defending the U.S. from external threats. I think you could probably knock at least $100-$200 billion off the military budget and still be able to defend the U.S. effectively. As posted above, at this point the military budget is more about providing jobs for the economy than actually deploying a fighting force in defense of the homeland.
Unfortunately, bad news sells  
jdf : 8/26/2016 10:33 am : link
As someone who works in the media, I've seen this over and over again. It's very hard to get good news or solutions-oriented stories published, or prominently placed.

I guess the benefit of this is that it does focus people's attentions on problems that need to be fixed -- and there will always be those. The downside is, sometimes we take for granted what progress has been made, or if the bad news seems overwhelming, there's a tendency for people to throw up their hands and say there's nothing they can do.
RE: RE: It's funny.....  
BillKo : 8/26/2016 10:35 am : link
In comment 13087197 NYerInMA said:
Quote:
In comment 13087179 BillKo said:


Quote:


all the talk of how much we spend on defense. Defense is important.

Some would want you to believe we have cut our military to the degree where we can't defend ourselves anymore.............



Depends on how you define "defending ourselves." For example, do you really need to be able to project force anywhere on the planet at a moment's notice? Do you really need to keep 28,500 troops in South Korea AND ~50,000 troops in Japan? It's nice to be able to crow about having the world's best military, but that's a different profile than defending the U.S. from external threats. I think you could probably knock at least $100-$200 billion off the military budget and still be able to defend the U.S. effectively. As posted above, at this point the military budget is more about providing jobs for the economy than actually deploying a fighting force in defense of the homeland.


Oh I agree....it's the one spot you can cut and still be very effective. But I am saying some people would make you think we have cut it so much, that we are a shell of what we used to be.
RE: RE: RE: It's funny.....  
NYerInMA : 8/26/2016 10:39 am : link
In comment 13087204 BillKo said:
Quote:
In comment 13087197 NYerInMA said:


Quote:


In comment 13087179 BillKo said:


Quote:


all the talk of how much we spend on defense. Defense is important.

Some would want you to believe we have cut our military to the degree where we can't defend ourselves anymore.............



Depends on how you define "defending ourselves." For example, do you really need to be able to project force anywhere on the planet at a moment's notice? Do you really need to keep 28,500 troops in South Korea AND ~50,000 troops in Japan? It's nice to be able to crow about having the world's best military, but that's a different profile than defending the U.S. from external threats. I think you could probably knock at least $100-$200 billion off the military budget and still be able to defend the U.S. effectively. As posted above, at this point the military budget is more about providing jobs for the economy than actually deploying a fighting force in defense of the homeland.



Oh I agree....it's the one spot you can cut and still be very effective. But I am saying some people would make you think we have cut it so much, that we are a shell of what we used to be.


Sorry, I misread your post. Yes, the military is a sacred cow these days, and any talk of closing obsolete bases or canceling useless weapon purchases is met by cries of "you don't support the troops". Irritates me greatly.
RE: RE: RE: It's funny.....  
Deej : 8/26/2016 10:46 am : link
In comment 13087204 BillKo said:
Quote:
In comment 13087197 NYerInMA said:


Quote:


In comment 13087179 BillKo said:


Quote:


all the talk of how much we spend on defense. Defense is important.

Some would want you to believe we have cut our military to the degree where we can't defend ourselves anymore.............



Depends on how you define "defending ourselves." For example, do you really need to be able to project force anywhere on the planet at a moment's notice? Do you really need to keep 28,500 troops in South Korea AND ~50,000 troops in Japan? It's nice to be able to crow about having the world's best military, but that's a different profile than defending the U.S. from external threats. I think you could probably knock at least $100-$200 billion off the military budget and still be able to defend the U.S. effectively. As posted above, at this point the military budget is more about providing jobs for the economy than actually deploying a fighting force in defense of the homeland.



Oh I agree....it's the one spot you can cut and still be very effective. But I am saying some people would make you think we have cut it so much, that we are a shell of what we used to be.


Which people?
Well, I'm sure the Chinese would like this...  
okiegiant : 8/26/2016 10:46 am : link
Quote:
For example, do you really need to be able to project force anywhere on the planet at a moment's notice?
RE: Yet, for some reason  
HomerJones45 : 8/26/2016 10:47 am : link
In comment 13087119 NYerInMA said:
Quote:
the Colombian government is going to put the peace deal to a referendum, so it could still be rejected. As we saw with Brexit, leaving these decisions to the masses can backfire. Colombia's peace deal with the FARC could still fall apart - ( New Window )
Yes, these "masses" should simply defer to the infallible judgment of their betters.

How does the Times count the Venezuelan or Cuban authoritarian regimes?
RE: RE: Yet, for some reason  
njm : 8/26/2016 10:55 am : link
In comment 13087226 HomerJones45 said:
Quote:
In comment 13087119 NYerInMA said:


Quote:


the Colombian government is going to put the peace deal to a referendum, so it could still be rejected. As we saw with Brexit, leaving these decisions to the masses can backfire. Colombia's peace deal with the FARC could still fall apart - ( New Window )

Yes, these "masses" should simply defer to the infallible judgment of their betters.

How does the Times count the Venezuelan or Cuban authoritarian regimes?


Interesting point. Don't Raul Castro and Maduro (and Chavez before him) wear military uniforms?
Defense spending is positively correlated with having the reserve  
kicker : 8/26/2016 10:59 am : link
currency.

Can't have one without the other...
How can there be peace in this hemisphere when Josh Brown  
Marty in Albany : 8/26/2016 11:18 am : link
might still be our kicker? Huh? (GRIN!)

On a more somber note, can we truly say the the United States is at peace or be content with the state of world affairs when there are American servicemen and women still overseas fighting and dying on behalf of our country?
I've wondered at the lack of will for the peace dividend  
TJ : 8/26/2016 11:27 am : link
It comes down to politics (duh). Our society & economy can't survive without big gummint. But many politicians have gotten themselves elected by pretending to oppose that very thing. The only Fed spending they can support while keeping themselves in office is military spending. Fed spending for disaster recovery, foreign aid/foreign policy, humanitarian crisis etc is easier to support it the money goes through the military.

It's already started of course but expect the trend to continue that has military forces expanding their role to less traditionally "defense" related tasks.
Politicians are crucified for supporting any cut in defense  
AP in Halfmoon : 8/26/2016 11:33 am : link
but votes against critical infrastructure are below the radar. It would be interesting to see how much we've spent on infrastructure in Iraq, Afghanistan, etc compared to the US.
RE: RE: RE: RE: It's funny.....  
BillKo : 8/26/2016 1:06 pm : link
In comment 13087224 Deej said:
Quote:
In comment 13087204 BillKo said:


Quote:


In comment 13087197 NYerInMA said:


Quote:


In comment 13087179 BillKo said:


Quote:


all the talk of how much we spend on defense. Defense is important.

Some would want you to believe we have cut our military to the degree where we can't defend ourselves anymore.............



Depends on how you define "defending ourselves." For example, do you really need to be able to project force anywhere on the planet at a moment's notice? Do you really need to keep 28,500 troops in South Korea AND ~50,000 troops in Japan? It's nice to be able to crow about having the world's best military, but that's a different profile than defending the U.S. from external threats. I think you could probably knock at least $100-$200 billion off the military budget and still be able to defend the U.S. effectively. As posted above, at this point the military budget is more about providing jobs for the economy than actually deploying a fighting force in defense of the homeland.



Oh I agree....it's the one spot you can cut and still be very effective. But I am saying some people would make you think we have cut it so much, that we are a shell of what we used to be.



Which people?


Trump for one.
RE: Politicians are crucified for supporting any cut in defense  
giants#1 : 8/26/2016 1:12 pm : link
In comment 13087300 AP in Halfmoon said:
Quote:
but votes against critical infrastructure are below the radar. It would be interesting to see how much we've spent on infrastructure in Iraq, Afghanistan, etc compared to the US.


I'm going to guess we spend a lot more on our own infrastructure. According to the CBO (via the OMB and Census Bureau) we spend ~$416B on US infrastructure in 2014.


Link - ( New Window )
If you cut defense spending  
bradshaw44 : 8/26/2016 1:19 pm : link
What will 60% of the population in the DC Metro area do for work??
From a 2013 study  
AP in Halfmoon : 8/26/2016 1:30 pm : link
These are reconstruction costs only; the total cost to the U.S. of the Iraq and Afghan conflicts exceeds $1.4 trillion.

RE: From a 2013 study  
giants#1 : 8/26/2016 1:35 pm : link
In comment 13087514 AP in Halfmoon said:
Quote:
These are reconstruction costs only; the total cost to the U.S. of the Iraq and Afghan conflicts exceeds $1.4 trillion.


Based on what? Per this site the total is ~$160B over the 10+ years:

Quote:
The United States has invested more reconstructing Iraq and Afghanistan than it did rebuilding Germany after World War II. $60.45 billion has been spent in Iraq, more than $100 billion in Afghanistan. For comparison, the U.S. spent less than $35 billion in today’s dollars in Germany from 1946 through 1952. (And Volkswagen began exporting Beetles to American in 1949).

The Iraq expenditure is more than four times the sum committed to Iraq by America’s allies. In Afghanistan stabilization is expected to cost at least $9 billion per year through 2014.
These are reconstruction costs only; the total cost to the U.S. of the Iraq and Afghan conflicts exceeds $1.4 trillion.


$414B in one year >>>>> $160B over 10 years
link  
giants#1 : 8/26/2016 1:35 pm : link
.
Link - ( New Window )
RE: From a 2013 study  
njm : 8/26/2016 1:43 pm : link
In comment 13087514 AP in Halfmoon said:
Quote:
These are reconstruction costs only; the total cost to the U.S. of the Iraq and Afghan conflicts exceeds $1.4 trillion.


$1.4 trillion ONLY for reconstruction costs doesn't pass the smell test. Could you provide a source?
RE: RE: How is there peace  
RC02XX : 8/26/2016 1:44 pm : link
In comment 13087031 Pete in 'Vliet said:
Quote:
In comment 13087021 superspynyg said:


Quote:


There is still a war with Mexican drug lords. That counts.



There will always be crime, everywhere. And the Mexican Cartels do slightly blur the line between crime and insurgencies, but its not quite on the level of political insurgencies, civil wars or wars between neighboring countries.


I think this all depends on how you look at it. When you have the Mexican government using its military to combat these cartels, that has killed more people than many insurgent groups have, I think it's premature to say there is relative peace in all countries. Throw in similar stories in other Central American countries, and you are still fighting overwhelming threat of violence in many of these countries.
The George Washington University study cited by giants#1....  
njm : 8/26/2016 1:46 pm : link
puts the TOTAL cost at $1.4 trillion.
That's the same article I quoted  
AP in Halfmoon : 8/26/2016 1:49 pm : link
.
Or about 1.5 years of US investment  
AP in Halfmoon : 8/26/2016 1:50 pm : link
.
RE: I don't believe peace sells  
RC02XX : 8/26/2016 1:51 pm : link
In comment 13087146 AP in Halfmoon said:
Quote:
based on the current environment I believe the opposite is true.

njm, can we accomplish those goals for $400B or $500B?


We're trying to get there by reducing our forces. However, many of our weapons systems are aging with many equipment still being used well beyond their prescribed life-cycle, and in order to get newer (and more capable) systems, you have to spend a boatload of money. Now we can argue that going back to buying 3rd and 4th generation fighters or less capable ships, tanks, and other systems may be more cost effective, but warfare is all about advancing faster than your enemies. And in order to do so, you have to research, build, and buy those 5th generation fighters, those stealth ships, those IED and mine survivable vehicles, and so and on and on.

Things get expensive fast. Oh yeah, lets also not forget that the cost associated with so many service members having been exposed to combat/trauma/etc. can add up in the future as well.
RE: That's the same article I quoted  
njm : 8/26/2016 1:54 pm : link
In comment 13087545 AP in Halfmoon said:
Quote:
.


My reading of the article is that the $1.4 trillion represents the total of BOTH reconstruction and non-reconstruction costs over that multiyear period.
RE: RE: That's the same article I quoted  
RC02XX : 8/26/2016 2:00 pm : link
In comment 13087558 njm said:
Quote:
In comment 13087545 AP in Halfmoon said:


Quote:


.



My reading of the article is that the $1.4 trillion represents the total of BOTH reconstruction and non-reconstruction costs over that multiyear period.


That's how I read it as well. That the reconstruction cost was $160 billion and the remainder was the cost of doing military operations and stabilizing those nations since the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan began.
RE: RE: Russia spends $66 billion on their defense  
HomerJones45 : 8/26/2016 2:24 pm : link
In comment 13087183 njm said:
Quote:
In comment 13087131 eclipz928 said:


Quote:



China spends $215 billion.

The US spends $596 billion.

Even the most liberal, anti-war people in our country still understand the need to maintain a level of defense spending to maintain our military strength as a deterrent to would-be malicious factions abroad. The issue is the lack of political courage to scale back the defense budget even just minimally - even as the country is still working with a huge deficit and with several other domestic issues that need to be addressed - and even as we're currently living in the most peaceful time in the history of the civilized world.



While certainly not accounting for all of the difference, the difference in pay scale for an all volunteer US army and an army of draftees at Chinese prevailing wages explains a material part of it.
You are correct in that the largest proportion of the US defense budget is personnel costs. In addition, since China and Russia steal a lot of tech, they are happy to let us spend on development so they can minimize their costs. Also, it's not like China and Russia are totally transparent.

You want a peace dividend, it means shedding military personnel.
^^^^  
RC02XX : 8/26/2016 4:10 pm : link
We've heard and seen articles written about the DoD's proposal to revamp the retirement benefits of military personnel. I'm not sure that it will ever come to fruition, but it will drastically cut down on the long term cost of the military budget if they do make that change. It will, of course, negativel impact recruiting and retention however.
A quick point about DoD spending:  
Mike from SI : 8/26/2016 4:15 pm : link
You're using the internet because of defense spending. Your phone has GPS because of defense spending. Etc. It trickles down to ordinary citizens, eventually.

And the deterrent/stabilizing effect of our military is huge.
But we could be doing space R&D instead  
AP in Halfmoon : 8/26/2016 4:17 pm : link
.
RE: RE: RE: Yet, for some reason  
jdf : 8/26/2016 4:19 pm : link
In comment 13087238 njm said:
Quote:
In comment 13087226 HomerJones45 said:


Quote:


In comment 13087119 NYerInMA said:


Quote:


the Colombian government is going to put the peace deal to a referendum, so it could still be rejected. As we saw with Brexit, leaving these decisions to the masses can backfire. Colombia's peace deal with the FARC could still fall apart - ( New Window )

Yes, these "masses" should simply defer to the infallible judgment of their betters.

How does the Times count the Venezuelan or Cuban authoritarian regimes?



Interesting point. Don't Raul Castro and Maduro (and Chavez before him) wear military uniforms?


It's not the Times that is making these claims, it's the op-ed contributors: Pinker and Dos Santos. I guess they're not classifying Cuba or Venezuela as military dictatorships, although you could certainly make the case they are. Perhaps they classify Cuba as a Communist dictatorship, although of course it's backed up by the military. Venezuela is a little more complicated. It has opposition parties, but whether those parties will ever be allowed to win the presidency is an open question.
RE: But we could be doing space R&D instead  
RC02XX : 8/26/2016 4:36 pm : link
In comment 13087827 AP in Halfmoon said:
Quote:
.


We do need better R&D and preparations to bring inevitably bring Matt Damon back when he gets stranded somewhere in the solar system.
RE: RE: I don't believe peace sells  
Deej : 8/26/2016 4:38 pm : link
In comment 13087552 RC02XX said:
Quote:
In comment 13087146 AP in Halfmoon said:


Quote:


based on the current environment I believe the opposite is true.

njm, can we accomplish those goals for $400B or $500B?



We're trying to get there by reducing our forces. However, many of our weapons systems are aging with many equipment still being used well beyond their prescribed life-cycle, and in order to get newer (and more capable) systems, you have to spend a boatload of money. Now we can argue that going back to buying 3rd and 4th generation fighters or less capable ships, tanks, and other systems may be more cost effective, but warfare is all about advancing faster than your enemies. And in order to do so, you have to research, build, and buy those 5th generation fighters, those stealth ships, those IED and mine survivable vehicles, and so and on and on.

Things get expensive fast. Oh yeah, lets also not forget that the cost associated with so many service members having been exposed to combat/trauma/etc. can add up in the future as well.


Drones are the future. Cheaper drones.
Wars are still won by having boots on the ground...  
RC02XX : 8/26/2016 4:47 pm : link
Unless you're talking about Skynet...and we saw how that turned out... 😮
If you don't understand  
section125 : 8/26/2016 5:23 pm : link
28K troops in South Korea and 50K in Japan, there is a wacky little chubby face dude sitting above the 38th parallel who would invade the South in 15 seconds if we weren't sitting there.
And yes, China stealing EEZ's of other Asian countries would go on unabated. They already told the World Court to eff off.

I'm pretty much an isolationist, but I seriously doubt we could cut back much, especially when many of our "allies" have reneged on their responsibilities.
RE: If you don't understand  
NYerInMA : 8/26/2016 6:39 pm : link
In comment 13087919 section125 said:
Quote:
28K troops in South Korea and 50K in Japan, there is a wacky little chubby face dude sitting above the 38th parallel who would invade the South in 15 seconds if we weren't sitting there.
And yes, China stealing EEZ's of other Asian countries would go on unabated. They already told the World Court to eff off.

I'm pretty much an isolationist, but I seriously doubt we could cut back much, especially when many of our "allies" have reneged on their responsibilities.


The South Korean troop deployment makes more sense than the Japanese one. But it is really our responsibility to police the South China Sea because South Korea, Japan, Vietnam, the Philippines, Taiwan, Brunei, and Malaysia can't be bothered?
As much as many of you may hate it...  
RC02XX : 8/26/2016 6:42 pm : link
The US has taken on the role of being the big man on the block, who ensures that the bullies don't outright beat up on the neighborhood kids. I'm sure we can give it up, but at what cost?
RE: As much as many of you may hate it...  
NYerInMA : 8/26/2016 6:45 pm : link
In comment 13088019 RC02XX said:
Quote:
The US has taken on the role of being the big man on the block, who ensures that the bullies don't outright beat up on the neighborhood kids. I'm sure we can give it up, but at what cost?


I would hope at the very least that the U.S. could get some compensation, whether it be in the form of outright payments or some sort of economic preference, for these efforts in order to offset the costs of providing protection.
But we do...  
RC02XX : 8/26/2016 6:48 pm : link
We are able to station a large force in these countries to maintain power projection. They allow us to keep bases and we provide an umbrella protection.

Now people can argue that we don't need to have such power projection anymore, and there will be valid points on both sides. But fact remains that it's mutually beneficial to have these bases.
Send the troops  
OldPolack : 8/26/2016 6:51 pm : link
to Chicago, Baltimore and Washington.
RE: Send the troops  
RC02XX : 8/26/2016 8:29 pm : link
In comment 13088027 OldPolack said:
Quote:
to Chicago, Baltimore and Washington.


Hahaha...hahaha
.  
Bill2 : 8/26/2016 8:36 pm : link
kicker with the post of the thread
Back to the Corner