Originally Posted by Classic-X'er

I don't think that we are any where close to being the France of the 1780's.

Fine, that's your opinion.

Wake up dude, look around you and get a grip on reality before you and others here end up experiencing what it's like to really get hurt.

And the above means?????

Originally Posted by MordecaiK

A big part of our problem is that US policy has been to deliberately discourage nations like Japan, Australia, European nations from having the kind of militaries that can defend themselves with. We convinced majorities in those countries to let the US be big brother and handle their defence. A policy which reached it's flowering in the Clintonista neo-Whig Francis Fukayama "end of history" ideology of the 1990s.

True enough. I'll play travel agent for a bit. Here are the "enlightening attractions I have in mind."
1. Detroit for a full day/night say. Experience the attractions of the post industrial apocalypse.

2. Next stop, tap water tasting in Flint Michigan. If it's OK for the locals to taste, its even better for our boo-boo bamboosie denizens of DC.

3. Next stop, a nice trip out to the land of Sunshine , California. Hang out with the gangs and see how things really go.

4. Last, but not least. A stop in the plains states and get a first hand glimpse of global warming and get a warm reception from our grass fires.

Stay the night and play guess that gun! Cash prizes for the best gun guessers.

And now that conflicts are no longer essentially "police actions" and power is more diffuse in the world and we really need allies who can make more of a contribution than basing rights and token fig leaf support for US actions, we don't have those kind of allies. Because until recently we didn't want powerful allies and didn't believe that we needed powerful allies. And we still see that attitude in every political candidate but Trump and Sanders.

Yup, everyone else is living is living in the past.

Originally Posted by Classic-X'er

I don't think that we are any where close to being the France of the 1780's. Wake up dude, look around you and get a grip on reality before you and others here end up experiencing what it's like to really get hurt.

Every people has its limits for tolerating nastiness.

Economic inequality has intensified in America without obvious necessity -- and it is beginning to hurt. Death rates for white middle-aged people have been rising, allegedly due to suicide and alcoholism (both linked to depression). Medical costs have risen without abatement, compelling people to choose between life at high cost and letting Nature take its harsh course.

No this is not the "evil white man oppressing colored peoples" -- it is economic elites imposing policies that hurt people for the greed of those elites.

Those are symptoms. Now recognize that America is becoming much less democratic than it used to be (it seems to be getting harder to throw the b@stards out due to gerrymandering), with as a consequence apolitical order more responsive to financial backers than to constituents. Lobbyists really run the Legislative branch; government by lobbyist is an imminent risk that will make a mockery of democracy.

I'm not the only person to see life slide a level or two down Maslow's hierarchy of needs, as in "Just be thankful to have food in your belly and a protection from the elements". Such results from an economic order that increasingly deems that the sole purposes of the common man are to enrich and pamper the economic elites who allegedly know what is best for Humanity -- their own gain and indulgence.

Government by lobbyist is the harsh reality of the Legislative branch of the federal and most State governments. It is not democracy.

Originally Posted by herbal tee

Fine, that's your opinion.


And the above means?????

You are upset or scared of what the future might bring or has in store for you. What kind of life have you led to this point? Easy, hard, challenging, tough or depressing. Me, I have led a challenging life so far by choice. We tend to choose our paths in life depending upon the type of person that we come to know and believe that we are as individuals. In America, who has the right to condemn and use a guillotine to solve their problems without a fair trial? Nobody! No one has that right. I don't, you don't and the government doesn't have that right.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

Every people has its limits for tolerating nastiness.

Economic inequality has intensified in America without obvious necessity -- and it is beginning to hurt. Death rates for white middle-aged people have been rising, allegedly due to suicide and alcoholism (both linked to depression). Medical costs have risen without abatement, compelling people to choose between life at high cost and letting Nature take its harsh course.

No this is not the "evil white man oppressing colored peoples" -- it is economic elites imposing policies that hurt people for the greed of those elites.

Those are symptoms. Now recognize that America is becoming much less democratic than it used to be (it seems to be getting harder to throw the b@stards out due to gerrymandering), with as a consequence apolitical order more responsive to financial backers than to constituents. Lobbyists really run the Legislative branch; government by lobbyist is an imminent risk that will make a mockery of democracy.

I'm not the only person to see life slide a level or two down Maslow's hierarchy of needs, as in "Just be thankful to have food in your belly and a protection from the elements". Such results from an economic order that increasingly deems that the sole purposes of the common man are to enrich and pamper the economic elites who allegedly know what is best for Humanity -- their own gain and indulgence.

Government by lobbyist is the harsh reality of the Legislative branch of the federal and most State governments. It is not democracy.

I have limitations for tolerating nastiness. You've seen my limitations and you've experienced what happens when my limitations have been exceeded. Did you learn anything from those experiences? Who is at greater risk here? I'm not here to win a popularity contest with liberals. I'm not here to gather social support by offering up and promising a bunch of freebies. I'm not here to use terms to acquire this or that for myself. Wise up. You live in America. The most heavily marketed and economically targeted group of people on Earth. I saved you one time. I could have let the hounds continue attacking you. One of the hounds was a fairly good friend of mine at the time. But, as you know, I stepped in and took the brunt and eventually made peace, so to speak. You should be thankful that you have food in your belly, a roof over your head and protection from the elements. I'm thankful for having those things. I'm also thankful for having more than just those things. Wise up. It's America and most Americans my age or older are very hard to dupe.

These libertarians aren't only morons - they are, but that's not a crime - they're also a danger to themselves. Go on and let granny eat Alpo; her grandson's going to be pointing the barrel of a rifle down your worthless throat.

If they're so terrified of overreaching government, I'd be happy to give them what they want and mandate the registration of politically active libertarians.

Originally Posted by radind

It is true that once an action is chosen, we can only speculate on what would have occurred had a different action been taken. The best we can do , before an action is taken, is to review history for possible insights. It appeared to me that the attempted occupation of Afghanistan was a mistake and the invasion of Iraq was a bigger mistake.

We need an historian in the President's cabinet.

Good idea!

Originally Posted by herbal tee

Pure sensationalism and fear mongering. Both Australia and Japan are big boys.
United Germany is also a big boy.

Those "big boys" are not even in the top ten -



And as for blue water navy, all three are considered to be in the 4th rank (Limited range power projection beyond exclusive economic zone) while China is moving rapidly from the 4th to the 3rd level (Power projection to regions adjacent its own) and Russian working just as hard to move from 3rd to 2nd (At least one major power projection operation globally) -

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue-water_navy

There's difference between fear mongering and knowing/stating facts, grasshopper.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

Obviously it's not possible to know the alternative had we not acted. That's not what I was asking. Presumably there were interventions done it which it is fairly generally agreed that the outcome was positive, for example WW II. I think a case for the Kosovo intervention can be made too. The question is when the positive things accomplished by one set of interventions are compared to with the bad blowback that occurred with another, different set of interventions, one may be able to draw some conclusions.
What alternative would have unfolded if we had not intervened? We can speculate, but we can't know. That's the worst part of international affairs: we can't control and often can't even influence players outside our borders. So we model the problem and pick results we think are viable, but we're typically wrong. Models are simplistic versions of reality, but reality is complex, messy and often contradictory.

I suspect our chances are equally bad (or good) no matter what choice we make ... some cases to the contrary, of course. Meddling always generates blowback, but not meddling encourages recklessness. We intervened in the Middle East and got a rolling disaster (we should add Afghanistan to the list, since we meddled in the Russian war there by sponsoring Osama bin Laden). Now, we have the Chinese slowly absorbing one of the great trade routes as part of its territorial waters. Do we act ... not act ... wait ... hurry?

I doubt we can do more than guess at the results of any of those choices. This is the ideal time for a doctrinaire response, but BHO is not in any position to state and enforce an Obama Doctrine. I'm not sure any of the replacements could do so either. Worse, the Trump Doctrine sounds like a strategy in Bridge.

It seems you're focused on criteria of likelihood of an intervention's success. Obviously, we don't have a time machine to know for certain, but as far as I'm concern, it should be the number one consideration, i.e. the probability of success.

What also needs to be considered is the blowback from NOT intervening. If one doesn't even mention that consideration, then it is pretty obvious one has already got their answer before asking the question.

The real nut, however, is defining success.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

Why? I don't see Brazil, Mexico or Canada working out doctrinaire responses. Why should we?

Because our doctrine has considerably more consequences?

Originally Posted by Classic-X'er

You are upset or scared of what the future might bring or has in store for you. What kind of life have you led to this point? Easy, hard, challenging, tough or depressing. Me, I have led a challenging life so far by choice. We tend to choose our paths in life depending upon the type of person that we come to know and believe that we are as individuals.

As to me a 54 year old joneser male, I am concerned a bit about elderhood. But, assuming continued good health, the short and mid term looks tolerable.
I've had challenging times too. Mostly around my early 30's i.e. 1990-96.

In America, who has the right to condemn and use a guillotine to solve their problems without a fair trial? Nobody! No one has that right. I don't, you don't and the government doesn't have that right.

I hope that our 4T stays within constitutional grounds. If this election cycle follows an 1860 pattern as closely as I suspect it might, we will know a lot more a year from now if it will or not. It's hard for me to see the US getting to 2020 without that year being an accepting or rejection of what happens this year. If things do fall apart and we see political violence in America, both sides will act like Americans rather than the French. In short, we won't use guillotines, we'll use guns.
But hopefully we won't see things get to that point.

Originally Posted by playwrite

Those "big boys" are not even in the top ten -



And as for blue water navy, all three are considered to be in the 4th rank (Limited range power projection beyond exclusive economic zone) while China is moving rapidly from the 4th to the 3rd level (Power projection to regions adjacent its own) and Russian working just as hard to move from 3rd to 2nd (At least one major power projection operation globally) -

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue-water_navy

There's difference between fear mongering and knowing/stating facts, grasshopper.

Raw troop numbers? I'm disappointed in you. We both know that a a modern prosperous country with the economy to keep a sufficent force in the field is more than enough to defend against an invader who has a different culture, language, ect. Remember Vietnam? Afghanistan? Iraq? Boots on the ground is a very limited measure of strength.

Originally Posted by Classic-X'er

We may have lost the battle of independence for South Vietnam from communism but we eventually won the Cold War.

I was talking about the Domino Theory, which was a concept used to justify the intervention in Vietnam. The idea was if we did not intervene to prevent the fall of South Vietnam, all of SE Asia would become Communist.

So we intervened, but South Vietnam ended up becoming Communist anyways. So with Vietnam we actual get to see what would have happened had we not intervened and "let" South Vietnam become communist. And what would have (and did) happen is that all of SW Asia would not (did not) become communist and a communist Vietnam would pose no problem for the US at all (today Communist Vietnam is pretty pro-capitalism--just like Red China). We lost the domino effect and it did not matter.

Originally Posted by radind

One big difference during the cold war era is the it was essentially a bipolar world. It is easier to maintain 'control' with just 2 superpowers. I recall hearing after fall of Soviet Empire that 'the world is a safer place'. Better-maybe, but not safer.

Not so sure about that from a global perspective -



Those big post-WW2 spikes in the '50s/60s was Korea and Vietnam and in the 80s Afghanistan for the Russians - all pretty much hot aspects of the Cold War between superpowers.

As of 2014, the majority of that bump-up (101K) was in Syria (54K) with a good dose from Iraq (14K); together that's 2/3s revolving around ISIL coming into the picture. The rest comes from Afghanistan/Pakistan, Nigeria and Ukraine, and then South Sudan, Yemen, and Israel/Hamas. For 2015, the data isn't in, but certainly total numbers have gone up almost all as a result of Syria and to a lesser extent Yemen; combat deaths have amazingly leveled off in Iraq and Pakistan/Afghanistan (for how long, who knows? Post-winter it could get very nasty again) and decreased in most other places.

Just before the Russian intervention in Syria, it was only a matter of weeks before Assad's regime would have fallen. That probably would have been a bloodbath but perhaps the majority of the fighting in Syria's population centers would have stopped and the focus would turn to routing out ISIL in the deserts. Routing out ISIL in Iraq, particularly Mosul, would have been another bloodbath but essentially that too would likely end most of the fighting. Together, an end of open combat in areas of high populations would likely return us to the previous global trend since WW2 of generally less combat.

But now with hints of a new cold war by proxy emerging, I'm not so sure. But from the graphs, I certainly think it better if we not return to the numbers when there were two or three superpowers.

Originally Posted by playwrite

I'm certainly not a neoCon (much of which is grounded in Kiplingesque) but I am also not so naive to believe China would give up on expanding their hegemony, including by military means, in southern Asia and around the China Sea or continue to move into influence in the Middle East and Africa to the point where their desires became a lot more important to Europe than our own - the impact on our own standard of living would be substantial and long-lasting. I also don't underestimate the propensity of our nuclear arsenal in dissuading other nuclear holders from taking a nuclear shot at one of their neighbors - radioactive fallout doesn't respect national boundaries.

The Kipling reference apparently went over your head. I was referred to your denial of agency to non-Western peoples. Japan is perfectly capable of producing a big nuclear deterrent and were America to withdraw from its hegemonic role, would probably build one if they believed as you do.

Between a nuclear Japan, a nuclear India and a nuclear Russia, China is ringed by potential foes. A distant, increasingly decadent America is the least of their concerns.

Originally Posted by playwrite

It seems you're focused on criteria of likelihood of an intervention's success.

No I'm not, you are.

Obviously, we don't have a time machine to know for certain, but as far as I'm concern, it should be the number one consideration, i.e. the probability of success.

But this is unknowable. My metric is knowable. Consider if interventions had a 100% probability of failure to achieve their objectives, then it would make no sense to ever engage in one.

Surely there have been successful interventions. Among the big ones I would label successes as Korea, the Gulf War and the Iraq War. Each achieved their initial objectives. In Korean South Korea did not fall to the North. In the Gulf Iraq was driven out of Kuwait. In Iraq, the Saddam regime fell and the country was certified free of WMDs. I rate these three successes as Good, Bad and Bad.

Then we can look at the failed interventions in order to get an idea of what might happen if we don't choose to intervene. In this category I would put Vietnam and Afghanistan.

It is too early to tell with Afghanistan, but for Vietnam the outcome has been neutral.

So as an objective function I you sum up the successes and the converse of the failures:

Good + Bad + Bad + -neutral = net Bad.

Here I did not place magnitudes, not did I consider minor interventions. We can add interventions in 1958 Lebanon Panama, 1964 Panama, 1965-6 Dominican Republic, 1983 Grenada, Honduras, 1989 Panama, 1990 Liberia, 1992 Somalia, 1993 Bosnia, 1994 Haiti, 1996 Congo, 1997 Liberia Albania, 2001 Macedonia, 2002 Philippines, 2003 Columbia, 2001 Libya, 2014 ISIS, but this gets hard.

What also needs to be considered is the blowback from NOT intervening.

This is addressed by looking at what did happen in the failures.

Originally Posted by playwrite

Because our doctrine has considerably more consequences?

I don't follow you here.

Originally Posted by Classic-X'er

I have limitations for tolerating nastiness. You've seen my limitations and you've experienced what happens when my limitations have been exceeded.

I have never met you in person. I do not want to.

Did you learn anything from those experiences? Who is at greater risk here? I'm not here to win a popularity contest with liberals. I'm not here to gather social support by offering up and promising a bunch of freebies.

People do not get much respect by offering stuff without strings.

I'm not here to use terms to acquire this or that for myself. Wise up. You live in America. The most heavily marketed and economically targeted group of people on Earth. I saved you one time. I could have let the hounds continue attacking you. One of the hounds was a fairly good friend of mine at the time. But, as you know, I stepped in and took the brunt and eventually made peace, so to speak.

Was that the fellow who told another poster to commit suicide and gave explicit instructions on how to do so? Or was that the one who accused me of some really-nasty crimes*? Good riddance to both; I may have done much to get those two taken out of these Forums. I was not alone, so I don't expect much credit.

You should be thankful that you have food in your belly, a roof over your head and protection from the elements.

A prison offers that, too. Slaves got that. I would not be a slave, and I would not be a prisoner. We are prosperous enough that we should be able to take such for granted. Once those food, shelter, and protection from the elements, people want more. Love, friendship, a sense of belonging? Feeling good about oneself for valid cause?

Bingo! Torture chambers work because they cause people to fear pain, injury, and crippling. Prisons work by ensuring that the food and accommodations are unpleasant. Really-bad employers try to keep workers from relating to each other as fellow human beings and showing anything other than a prescribed personality.

I'm thankful for having those things. I'm also thankful for having more than just those things. Wise up. It's America and most Americans my age or older are very hard to dupe.

I doubt that you have ever sought the goal of self-actualization.

Originally Posted by Ragnarök_62

Could be, however the US is not as it was prior to WWII in that :
1. Then, Detroit was a manufacturing powerhouse, while now it's a post industrial wasteland.
2. Like I said before, our infrastructure is essentially 3rd world. We need to get something of a passenger rail system that works better than what say Bulgaria has. Folks are getting sick from lead poisoning due to decrepit water systems. Lead poisoning is a real nice way of racking up health costs and ruining the lives of those who are around it. So, I guess if it comes to something, they can pick nukes or picking up Mandarin as a 2nd language.



Could be, but the policy of non intervention also carries the nice thing in that we won't be nagging everyone else in the world either!

Like if Mexico wants to legalize weed or whatever and opting out of our inane war on drugs I'm fine with it. We also have no right to impose social costs of our fucked up moral crusades on other nations as well.

You might want to include a trip to the Navajo Nation, parts of it which also lack water.

Originally Posted by herbal tee

Raw troop numbers? I'm disappointed in you. We both know that a a modern prosperous country with the economy to keep a sufficent force in the field is more than enough to defend against an invader who has a different culture, language, ect. Remember Vietnam? Afghanistan? Iraq? Boots on the ground is a very limited measure of strength.

Ah grasshopper, I'm sure you're familiar with all the charts showing how US military expenditure is equal to the combined expenditures of the next 7-8 countries. One example -



Most people walk away there without much thought beyond either (a) we're the badass or (b) we need to spend less, depending on their predisposition. But, let's dive a tad deeper.

First question - these comparisons are based on budgets reported by these nations; do you think the Chinese and Russian have the same level of credibility/scrutiny of their budgets as Western nations, particularly on their military expenditures? If you do, I have this bridge to Brooklyn...

Moving on, let's take the US out. China becomes the "big dog" with your Japan and Germany showing respectable rankings along with Russia; Australia about half that. Again, we have that question of what numbers are actually real, but maybe in a different way. There all in US dollars but what does a US dollar buy in China or Russia compared to what it buys Japan or Germany? Here's a hint from McDonald's (not McDonnell Douglas) -



That's 2013 dollars, what do you think a dollar of defense buying in China today gets you? You think China is perhaps a bigger dog that what might they be letting on?

And speaking of trends, in the last decade, China has increased its military spending by 325% and Russia by 179%; US has increased by 70%. Any guess as to how much Japan, Germany and Australia have increased? Hint - you might have to go to a different ballpark to see their 'game.'

http://isdei.blogspot.com/2014/03/wo...-spending.html

I have to run, but think about just a couple other things -

How much spending do you think China/Russia have for offensive v. defensive weaponry vis-a-vis the ratio for Germany, Japan and Australia? For example, look at the jet fighters - made to intercept or to strike deep? And where are those placements?

Obviously, there will have to be a lot of new 'toys' for everyone if the US bowed out of the picture? If history is any guide, what would stop these players from using their new toys? And the consequences to the US if they did? Say Japan decides one of China's new islands or new missile placements is just too close and takes a couple out just to signal their resolve, but China takes out a new Japanese destroyer to show its own resolve - impact on our stock markets, real estate, banking, consumer confidence, economic activity, etc? Can you say "economic depression?"

Originally Posted by Mikebert

I don't follow you here.

If the US doctrine became non-interventionist overnight, there would likely be regime changes and aggressive military moves around the globe within 24 hours or less, and accelerate as days, weeks and months go by.

On the other hand, a change in military doctrine for the nations you mentioned might or might not be reported in major newspapers.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

The Kipling reference apparently went over your head. I was referred to your denial of agency to non-Western peoples. Japan is perfectly capable of producing a big nuclear deterrent and were America to withdraw from its hegemonic role, would probably build one if they believed as you do.

No, I knew exactly what you meant. There's a difference between agency based on race alone and agency based on actual military strength. I'm pretty sure you know that so I let the cheapshot go by because it's not your usual modus operandi.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

Between a nuclear Japan, a nuclear India and a nuclear Russia, China is ringed by potential foes. A distant, increasingly decadent America is the least of their concerns.

Going nuclear might take a little time, but that's not really my concern.

I'm more concern about "conventional" combat within the region as well as the hegemony that would likely evolve from the threat of such "conventional" warfare. I put conventional into quotes because taking out a missile site on an artificial island in the China Sea would take seconds to minutes and the retaliation of taking out a cruiser or aircraft platform not many more - while the blast radius and fallout are considerable less than a nuclear exchange, the time and prisoner's dilemma is comparable and just as unconventional compared to the past.

Once launched, from there, its not that difficult to connect the dots to see both the US stock market AND economy tank. Hamilton would get that.

That's just one theater. It could happen in lots of other places as an "interventionist USA" removes itself and creates a void. Each theater could reinforce each other. It's happened before when the world was a lot less small.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

Obviously it's not possible to know the alternative had we not acted. That's not what I was asking. Presumably there were interventions done it which it is fairly generally agreed that the outcome was positive, for example WW II. I think a case for the Kosovo intervention can be made too. The question is when the positive things accomplished by one set of interventions are compared to with the bad blowback that occurred with another, different set of interventions, one may be able to draw some conclusions...

A long time ago (source long forgotten), I read that enemies that are easily conquered are very hard to rule. This makes sense, because they may not be motivated to cooperate and set common goals -- even with one another. The opposite is also true. So Japan and Germany can nearly conquer the world, even though they are not that large in proportion to the combined strength of their adversaries, yet they readily adjusted to a new and peaceful paradigm in defeat. On the other hand, states like Afghanistan are more robust in defeat because they are not organized around a central government .. or even a core of shared beliefs, yet any advanced military can roll over them with impunity.

We are better positioned to deal with adversaries in the first group, yet they tend to be the ones we fight in proxy wars. Most of the proxies fall into the second camp. We have a poor record in proxy wars, but no on wants an existential war. A very aggressive Russia and an equally aggressive China may force our hand. It's hard to know whether a face-off at this point is more or less dangerous. We're plying with this in the South China Sea, and might get an answer quicker than we expect.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

Why? I don't see Brazil, Mexico or Canada working out doctrinaire responses. Why should we?

Of course, second-tier nations don't make declarations they have no chance to support, but we can. The questions are: should we and will we, and they are not linked, unfortunately. For example, do we tell the Russians that we will not tolerate more genocide in Syria ... especially under their aegis. We can shoot-down their aircraft if we wish, which no one else can. So far, the Russians have played the bluster role. How would they react to us if we started doing the same?

If we decide to act, we can simply announce that the United States will not tolerate acts of genocide, and reserves the right to end genocide when and by what manner it chooses. That's a doctrinaire approach on steroids, but we could if we wished. We just have to be prepared to deal with the consequences, what ever they are. If the attacks continue, we'll be forced to act or slink away. That's how the Obama Red Line played-out, and it's why we're still talking about this now.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

... Or put more simply if Brazil, Canada and Mexico aren't worrying about China or Russia enough to spend 4% of their GDP on defense, then why should we?

The free-rider problem is common to all endeavors that don't mandate cost-sharing. Our healthcare/health-insurance system has the same problem. In this case, we've allowed it for a long time. Unless we decide to walk away, it may be too late to change it. We certainly should consider it.