Post by jeffolie on Apr 10, 2009 13:29:10 GMT -6
I have long promoted the idea that the US should not be in Afghansitan. I am not a complete isolationist but why are we supporting a puppet without local support and country that has not curbed its massive opium production? We should not.
The issue of US imperial overeach has been around for more than 10 years. The US has not yet collapsed because of overreach. The has not been a test of the US's ability to defend its defense commitments. No other country has dared take the US on.
Economics and politics are 2 sides of the same coin. The dynamics of this are that with weak economics our politics are shifting away from capitalism ever so slightly and moving toward socialism slightly under Bush and Obama. The US socializes corporate losses currently and is moving toward ever larger govenment.
American detractors claim the US is unable and unwilling to project power. Obama is projecting military and political power into Afghanistan and thus rejects the US detractors.
How long can the American economy support Obama's projection of military power? I predict a breaking point for Obama's military adventure with the breaking of the economy in 2012-13.
================================================================
April 09, 2009
Stretched to the Breaking Point
Although the United States is at present still pre-eminent economically and perhaps even militarily, it cannot avoid the two great tests that challenge the longevity of every major power that occupies the number-one position in world affairs. First, in the military-strategic realm, can it preserve a reasonable balance between the nation's perceived defense commitments and the means it possesses to maintain those commitments? And second, as an intimately related question, can it preserve the technological and economic bases of its power from relative erosion in the face of the ever-shifting patterns of global production? This test of American abilities will be the greater because America, like Imperial Spain around 1600 or the British Empire around 1900, bears a heavy burden of strategic commitments, made decades earlier, when the nation's political, economic, and military capacity to influence world affairs seemed so much more assured. The United States now runs the risk, so familiar to historians of the rise and fall of Great Powers, of what might be called "imperial overstretch": that is to say, decision-makers in Washington must face the awkward and enduring fact that the total of the United States's global interests and obligations is nowadays far too large for the country to be able to defend them all simultaneously.
—Paul Kennedy, "The Relative Decline of America," The Atlantic, August, 1997 (via Word Spy)
According to Paul McFedries' Word Spy -- "The Word Lover's Guide to New Words" -- "imperial overstretch" refers to "the extension of an empire beyond its ability to maintain or expand its military and economic commitments."
Does that describe the United States? Consider the following post by "Jake, the Champion of the Constitution" at Nolan Chart, "a public forum for commentary from all over the political map," entitled "America's Military Empire":
One of the sticking points I encounter in conversation is when someone challenges me that America does not have, as I allege, a military empire. However, they never seem to be able to rattle off any facts or statistics to the contrary. This article is my attempt to document facts that he is unaware of for our benefit. The Department of Defense last issued information on troop deployment in December 2008. Obama's recent troop additions of 21,000 troops to Afghanistan were covered here, but is not factored into the below facts. (photo)
The DoD report reveals:
America has military personnel in 147 countries.
There are 194 states in the world, so therefore we have troops in 76% of all countries on the planet.
The size of America's armed forces is 1,402,227 soldiers.
476,039 of these troops, or 34% are stationed overseas. 15% of our troops are engaged in Iraq and Afghanistan.
54,974 soldiers are based in Germany, although WWII ended 64 years ago.
34,039 soldiers are based in Japan, although WWII ended 64 years ago.
24,655 soldiers are based in South Korea as technically this "police action" that resulted in the deaths of 36,516 Americans and the wounding of 92,134. In my opinion, the greatest barrier to peace with North Korea is the presence of these soldiers.
We have 0 troops and bases in Vietnam, and get along with their nation fairly well, considering 58,159 were killed and 303,635 wounded during that "police action."
The 2008 DoD military "Base Structure Report" reveals:
America's DoD is "one of the world's largest "landlords" possessing 545,714 buildings, 5,429 bases, spanning 29.8 million acres of land. (p3/205)
761 bases, or 14%, are located on foreign soil. (p23/205)
12 of the 111 bases designated as "large" are located on foreign soil. (p33/205)
However, reading the remainder of the report reveals that bases in countries such as Afghanistan, Iraq, and Israel are not listed, so both number of bases and "large" bases are too low.
Over 5,000 soldiers have died in Iraq and Afghanistan for the War of Terror. (source)
Furthermore, CBS and the military revealed that 18 veterans commit suicide per day during the 8-year Global War on Terror, resulting in an estimated 46,000 deaths. (source)
Time Magazine asked several days ago "Why Are Army Recruiters Killing Themselves?"
The DoD stated its total spending in 2009 will be $617 Billion. (p7/26)
However, the data put together by War Resisters League appears to be closer to reality. They demonstrate that America will spend $1,449 Billion on our military during 2009. They estimate the War of Terror has cost $990 Billion.
Keep these facts in mind when "supporting our troops." My conclusion is the best way to do this is for all major deployments should return to US soil as soon as possible. This includes all personnel in Iraq and Afghanistan, as I have explained in my writings.
Restore the Republic or Pay for a Bankrupt Military Empire, it is our choice. As for me, "hell in a handbasket" is not an option.
www.economicroadmap.com/2009/04/more-than-stretched.html
The issue of US imperial overeach has been around for more than 10 years. The US has not yet collapsed because of overreach. The has not been a test of the US's ability to defend its defense commitments. No other country has dared take the US on.
Economics and politics are 2 sides of the same coin. The dynamics of this are that with weak economics our politics are shifting away from capitalism ever so slightly and moving toward socialism slightly under Bush and Obama. The US socializes corporate losses currently and is moving toward ever larger govenment.
American detractors claim the US is unable and unwilling to project power. Obama is projecting military and political power into Afghanistan and thus rejects the US detractors.
How long can the American economy support Obama's projection of military power? I predict a breaking point for Obama's military adventure with the breaking of the economy in 2012-13.
================================================================
April 09, 2009
Stretched to the Breaking Point
Although the United States is at present still pre-eminent economically and perhaps even militarily, it cannot avoid the two great tests that challenge the longevity of every major power that occupies the number-one position in world affairs. First, in the military-strategic realm, can it preserve a reasonable balance between the nation's perceived defense commitments and the means it possesses to maintain those commitments? And second, as an intimately related question, can it preserve the technological and economic bases of its power from relative erosion in the face of the ever-shifting patterns of global production? This test of American abilities will be the greater because America, like Imperial Spain around 1600 or the British Empire around 1900, bears a heavy burden of strategic commitments, made decades earlier, when the nation's political, economic, and military capacity to influence world affairs seemed so much more assured. The United States now runs the risk, so familiar to historians of the rise and fall of Great Powers, of what might be called "imperial overstretch": that is to say, decision-makers in Washington must face the awkward and enduring fact that the total of the United States's global interests and obligations is nowadays far too large for the country to be able to defend them all simultaneously.
—Paul Kennedy, "The Relative Decline of America," The Atlantic, August, 1997 (via Word Spy)
According to Paul McFedries' Word Spy -- "The Word Lover's Guide to New Words" -- "imperial overstretch" refers to "the extension of an empire beyond its ability to maintain or expand its military and economic commitments."
Does that describe the United States? Consider the following post by "Jake, the Champion of the Constitution" at Nolan Chart, "a public forum for commentary from all over the political map," entitled "America's Military Empire":
One of the sticking points I encounter in conversation is when someone challenges me that America does not have, as I allege, a military empire. However, they never seem to be able to rattle off any facts or statistics to the contrary. This article is my attempt to document facts that he is unaware of for our benefit. The Department of Defense last issued information on troop deployment in December 2008. Obama's recent troop additions of 21,000 troops to Afghanistan were covered here, but is not factored into the below facts. (photo)
The DoD report reveals:
America has military personnel in 147 countries.
There are 194 states in the world, so therefore we have troops in 76% of all countries on the planet.
The size of America's armed forces is 1,402,227 soldiers.
476,039 of these troops, or 34% are stationed overseas. 15% of our troops are engaged in Iraq and Afghanistan.
54,974 soldiers are based in Germany, although WWII ended 64 years ago.
34,039 soldiers are based in Japan, although WWII ended 64 years ago.
24,655 soldiers are based in South Korea as technically this "police action" that resulted in the deaths of 36,516 Americans and the wounding of 92,134. In my opinion, the greatest barrier to peace with North Korea is the presence of these soldiers.
We have 0 troops and bases in Vietnam, and get along with their nation fairly well, considering 58,159 were killed and 303,635 wounded during that "police action."
The 2008 DoD military "Base Structure Report" reveals:
America's DoD is "one of the world's largest "landlords" possessing 545,714 buildings, 5,429 bases, spanning 29.8 million acres of land. (p3/205)
761 bases, or 14%, are located on foreign soil. (p23/205)
12 of the 111 bases designated as "large" are located on foreign soil. (p33/205)
However, reading the remainder of the report reveals that bases in countries such as Afghanistan, Iraq, and Israel are not listed, so both number of bases and "large" bases are too low.
Over 5,000 soldiers have died in Iraq and Afghanistan for the War of Terror. (source)
Furthermore, CBS and the military revealed that 18 veterans commit suicide per day during the 8-year Global War on Terror, resulting in an estimated 46,000 deaths. (source)
Time Magazine asked several days ago "Why Are Army Recruiters Killing Themselves?"
The DoD stated its total spending in 2009 will be $617 Billion. (p7/26)
However, the data put together by War Resisters League appears to be closer to reality. They demonstrate that America will spend $1,449 Billion on our military during 2009. They estimate the War of Terror has cost $990 Billion.
Keep these facts in mind when "supporting our troops." My conclusion is the best way to do this is for all major deployments should return to US soil as soon as possible. This includes all personnel in Iraq and Afghanistan, as I have explained in my writings.
Restore the Republic or Pay for a Bankrupt Military Empire, it is our choice. As for me, "hell in a handbasket" is not an option.
www.economicroadmap.com/2009/04/more-than-stretched.html