Gates was an improvement on Rumsfeld, but not by much. Gates was still committed to war vs. Islam as far as I could see and never entertained the idea of getting out of Afghanistan. Did he even get us out of Iraq? [As far as I know an indeterminate number of troops are still there.] The US needs to downsize its military establishment far more than Gates did or his probable successor will ever do. It needs to give up the idea of a world empire of military bases virtually everywhere and particularly get out of China's face as well as Russia's. We have no business meddling in the border areas of Russia nor to have our aircraft carriers roaming the ocean off China. The US needs to shrink, drastically, its footprint around the world and withdraw to sensible lines of defense: the mid Pacific to protect Hawaii and the mid-Atlantic to protect the Azores. Then it would again be a Defense Department, not the Imperial War Department that it has, in effect, become.

In the previous post 40 or so of the 119 posts were made by one hasbara troll who used extensive cut and paste comments from various hasbara sites (without attribution). Most of this material was totally distracting from Walt's original post. Also this troll uses a handle highly emotive of US patriotic feelings though the sentiments are not American but but purely Israeli.

It is very difficult to engage in any kind of discussion because of this distraction. Perhaps that is the goal of the troll. If so, it is successful. Is it possible to police this site, perhaps limit the number of comments from one poster or to just ban the obvious troll?

The warmongers are worried that China might not be a pushover in the war they think, I presume, probable:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/may/25/inside-the-ring-377211977/

Or (typical fall back position) China might send weapons to Iran when we go to war there.

If the US doesn't rule the world, disaster is nigh.

America’s Fatal Love Affair With Israel Gained Us a Permanent War.

If we had followed George Washington’s advice in his “Farewell Address”, we would not have become involved in the “War on Terror”. I loaded his complete address in my blog and highlighted the parts that are of special interest to Americans that believe in the American limited constitutional republic type of government.

By intervening in the Israel-Muslim conflict, we created the conditions that started the American war with Muslim terrorists. Intervening in other countries always leads to war and enemies. Terrorism is the strategy of the powerless when they fight the powerful. The next step in this permanent war is that terrorists will detonate dirty or conventional nuclear bombs on the NATO countries and America. We have to stop the steps that are leading us to this end and change the strategy to win and end the war before it escalates.

Why are we providing Israel annually with $3.5 billion American taxpayer debt dollars? They are rich and can afford to defend themselves. Israel has nuclear weapons and a strong military; they don’t need our money or participation in this Israeli-Muslim conflict that has been going on even before the founding of Israel in 1948. Why are we paying Egypt annually over $1.5 billion in foreign aid? The American taxpayer is paying foreign aid to many nations, but Communist China has no foreign aid. China buys oil fields, mines and finances the government debts of the American and now European governments. China is obtaining real power and influence by following the policy that George Washington explained in his “Farewell Address” advice to the American people.

The global interventionist policy gained us Israel’s enemies. The terrorist attack on 9/11 is a result of intervening in a conflict that concerns Israelis and Muslims. Osama Bin Laden’s strategy was to draw America into conflict in the Muslim world to bankrupt us like what happened to the former interventionist, expansionist Soviet Union. The Afghanistan war and the many Soviet global interventions bankrupted the Soviet Union and caused its ignoble collapse in 1991. We have been playing Osama’s game since 9/11 and we are losing our wealth and power.

We get most of our oil from Canada and other suppliers that are not in the Middle East. The Communist Chinese announced last year that they now have a controlling interest in Iraqi oil and proudly announced the receipt of the first oil shipments. It is clear that they have a strategy of gaining real power at the expense of the follies of other powers. We are fighting a war against maybe 2,000 Al Qaeda terrorists without a military strategy to win the war. Instead, the military talks about the nonsense of “nation building” and “democracy building” in Iraq and Afghanistan. We just added thousands of new enemies by intervening in Libya. The Libyans that Obama killed have families. Every bomb that falls in the American Muslim war is financed by debt and represents a nail in our coffin. We really know how to win friends and influence people.

An economist estimated that the total cost of the war on terror is $5 trillion. 57% of Americans that are fighting this war are contractors, not military personnel. The war contractors are now a powerful special interest group. They are not likely to voluntarily abandon this lucrative business and join the underpaid and overtaxed American civilian population.

The terrorists have more time and supporters than we have money. To survive we have to stop all interventions and occupations in the world. We must defend our borders and attack only targeted actual terrorists. This total divorce from the world's problems will eventually cause the terrorists to focus on their own internal affairs because they will see that America is out of their area and that it's in their best interest to end terrorism against America to keep us out. This is the only way to end this permanent war before we enter the terminal stage of our economic and social cancer.

The $1.65 Trillion dollars out of a budget of $3.7 Trillion, that the Federal government has to beg and borrow this year and every year, should not be spent on war contractor profits and foreign affairs. Confront reality; The USA is the largest debtor in world history. The annual national current account balance losses are over $700 billion (this is wealth that is lost according to the formula national assets-liabilities). Industry is only 9% of the economy.

According to the official government statistics, 36% of males 16 to 64 years old are permanently out of the labor force and don't count. The Federal, State and local governments must reduce their size by 37% to fit actual taxes. There are not enough taxpayers to support this huge government of over 20 million people and an equal number of people that are employed by dependent government contractors. Taxes are too high already. Most taxpayers are struggling with increasing local property tax increases and the rising cost of living.

We need to re-industrialize to become financially and politically independent from the global corporations and special interests. America has to nation build to restore its prosperity. 47% of American households are too poor to be legally obligated to pay income taxes. American owned companies cannot compete with imported global corporate products made with cheap labor. We cannot survive competing with Chinese that earn $200 a month.

Focus on our own problems, end globalization, mass immigration and re-industrialize with free enterprise competitive American owned companies before we become another failed state. Stop voting for the two political parties that ruined America. Choose independent politicians and change them when they sell out to the special interest groups. Constitutional government must represent national interests that include corporations, the rich, the middle class and the poor.

Roman Gil
http://roman-gil1.blogspot.com

Very nice translation, clearly depicting what was being tried to say - paradoxically. Phlebotomy Training CNA Training

Steve is right that, under current U.S. economic conditions (likely to last at least another five years), the defense budget is to be squeezed -- but, surprisingly, no proposals, except Cato's, reduce it much. The trouble is that a flat budget is the hardest for the military establishment to handle. Of course, there is no future for U.S. defense until after Afghanistan, but nobody knows when that may be (some hope 2014). We are definitely out of Iraq at the end of this year, per agreement with the Iraqis, who never got to love us.

When we do get out, Steve suggests there will be some kind of struggle between short-term and long-term strength of the U.S. military. The trouble is that, for the long-term, DOD, without adult leadership, goes back to inventing enemies and fantastic scenarios, then embarking on fantastic weapons and other systems that cost too much and don't work well, thus bought in fewer numbers, so the forces shrink, and the despair in our own invented scenarios gets even deeper. See China now replacing the Soviet Union in awesome strength.

Rather, after Afghanistan, when most U.S. forces come home (with only small residuals in Europe and Northeast Asia and the Navy patrolling the Persian Gulf to protect the oil going to China and the rest of Asia), what we are left with is very strong legacy forces, better than any others in the world. It is their readiness, only incrementally and sensibly improved, that will be the strength backing what are mostly U.S. economic dealings with the world, while simply preserving the most respected U.S. institution (the military). It won't take much "building," but good management.

A last comment: for those of us who actually served in the U.S. government, we never thought of being "dominant," or pursuing "global ambitions," or "dictating events." We never used the word or thought of being some kind of "hegemon." We worked with allies to help on their defense, as opposed to their somehow "taking our burdens." Since then end of the Cold War, when the Clinton Administration discovered Somalia was not the future, U.S. leadership has been mostly in helping to set up and improve the global economic institutions -- which is our main foreign policy pursuit now. Otherwise, we react to problems that spring up, like the Arab Spring/Winter now raging.

Thanks for a reasoned comment. I do however differ with you in some respects. You or your friends may not have "thought of being dominant or pursuing global ambitions" but there were plenty who did and who became immensely influential. Neocons who wrote the 1995 New World Order document and who spearheaded the war on Iraq. As I recall one famously said "we create our own reality". Just slogging along "working with allies" can unconsciously lead to hegemonic attitudes; and in a sense empire simply crept up on the USA as a result of what it perceived as "need" for its protection around the world. Taiwan is a good example. An utter anachronism that we should have abandoned long ago and a prime reason we still fly in China's face, imperialistically. Japan too. The US should have told Taiwan to reach a settlement with Mainland China long ago and Japan told to develop its own defense. I also doubt that "protecting oil supplies" is the main reason we are in the Persian Gulf. Our defense of Israel is the real reason for that. If it were merely to protect oil supplies, why not let the Chinese do that if necessary. Do we have military bases everywhere oil comes from? No. PS Both Iraq and Afghanistan were absurdities and we are still in
Afghanistan with no certain exit.

The DoD must figure out how it will reduce its budget (hundreds of billions?) while at the same time providing national security and a hard power projection of America's interests.

As Secretary Gates stated and most agree, we are not going to face an enemy of the Soviet Union's stature for quite some time (the development of one being an entirely preventable eventuality using soft power and diplomacy). The most likely situations involving American forces are going to be those of limited proportions, where our forces so clearly overwhelm our opponents that shear numbers are not necessary. Excluding the debate on whether or not we SHOULD enter these conflicts examples of this type of conflict being Lybia, Yemen, Sudan, Somalia, etc.

There is a solution, Big Army and Big Navy won't like it, but the weighting the Marine Expeditionary Unit (MEU) as the Main Effort, is the best way. Reduce the size of our Army and focus ship building efforts around new and more capable Amphib ships. The Marines need to be prepared to support a more robust Op Tempo (once commitments in Afg are done) to support a fourth MEU on each coast. The shear impact of parking a MEU within eyeshot of a coast will diffuse many situations (Liberia 2003).

Using our current forray in Lybia as an example, albeit a messy one, we see a few points:

1)Airpower and Tomahawk missiles have not been enough to depose Ghadaffi (supposing that is our goal?).

2)Airpower and Tomahawk missles were not enough to stop the Lybian military from making considerable advancement against the rebel forces and though it is now a defacto stalemate, the military still holds the commanding tactical position should European forces become unable or unwilling to maintain the NFZ.

3)Only one organization in the world was able to position itself to place forces on the ground in a timely manner. The United States Marines were on scene even before the NFZ was ready to implemented.

A MEU, augmented by either nearby Air Force capabilities or a Carrier Strike Group, and SOF elements can handle nearly all of emerging and likely threats or "kinetic military actions". It can also be done more efficiently, deployed more rapidly, and for less money. What is the cost monitarily, CivCas, and in military initiative waiting for military buildups? Sacrifice within the agencies in the DoD is inevitable, why would we not sacrifice that which isn't needed and reinforce our strengths?

And here is Hillary in Pakistan giving orders to the government.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/may/27/clinton-zardari-us-pakistan-bin-laden

I would guess Washington has yet to figure out that the more it attempts to push Pakistan around the less cooperation it will get. I presume that the lack of "cooperation" to date is indicative of Pakistan's not liking US pressure. Passive resistance, as it were.

The supremacist mist emanating from Walt is clearly crawling into the minds of the captive audience. How about official racial quotas?

The Money Quote referenced by Mr. Walt must be paired with this companion from the speech.

"For starters, I have long believed – and I still do – that the defense budget, however large it may be, is not the cause of this country’s fiscal woes. However, as matter of simple arithmetic and political reality, the Department of Defense must be at least part of the solution. "

Secretary Gates is right on to say that DOD budgets will have to level off or slightly decrease. He's also right to say that the solution has to protect the capability of the force while trimming the fat. It would help tremendously if the whole federal government, and not just the DOD, heeded his words about the failure of making mindless cuts to the top line. The real failure of the entire government sector is the failure to increase productivity at a pace similar to what has happened in the private sector over the past few decades. Secretary Gates's efforts to do that within the DOD are commendable, but incomplete. I hope his successor takes up the fight.

Don't let door hit ya, where the good lord split ya.