This is not to drum up anything or make an accusations, but anyone versed in political/presidentail office "law" know if the President is able to retain the office through his term in times of war?

Scenario being- 2008 comes, we are at war with Iran, N. Korea, Iraq, Puppies, Christmas, whoever. Can the Bush administration/Act of Congress suspend, delay, post-pone elections until "peace" is achieved?

Nope..
If FDR had to run for re-election, and Lincoln had to run for re-election.. this fucker does too.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/86/ElectoralCollege1940-Large.png/800px-ElectoralCollege1940-Large.png

However, wonder what would happen if he declared that was what was gonna happen. We could piss and moan, sure. But there's already 30% of the country brainwashed into thinking this is a good idea off the bat - would the other 70% be willing to stand up violently if necessary?

Would depend, but many of us have sworn to uphold the constitution. And obey the orders from the president, however unlawful orders should not be followed. So if it were against the law/constitution I think you'd see a surprising amount of people willing to take up arms if it cam to that. Maintaining the constitution comes first.

If that idea were ever to be discussed openly, I would look for Cheney's fingerprints on it more than Dubya's. I see George showing the signs of stress that accompany his position, especially in these times, and I would not be at all surprised if he were looking forward to exitting the position. Cheney, on the other hand, clearly loves power and the ability to do as he pleases.

Shit he probably wants to end his nightmare. One would think he's ready to relax on the ranch with his rifle and all the cash he made from making war with Iraq.

If that idea were ever to be discussed openly, I would look for Cheney's fingerprints on it more than Dubya's. I see George showing the signs of stress that accompany his position, especially in these times, and I would not be at all surprised if he were looking forward to exitting the position. Cheney, on the other hand, clearly loves power and the ability to do as he pleases.

It was discussed openly in 2004.

They can try to do whatever they want, but you'd need a Constitutional amendment to override the 20th and 22nd. Something to postpone elections still wouldn't change the changeover date unless you managed to push it past that.

I agree that Bush wants to get it over with. Iraq? That will be the next President's problem. If all goes well there, Dubya can take credit for getting the ball rolling. If it fails, well, Dubya tried but the next guy botched the job. In this respect, Iraq = mission to Mars.

This is not to drum up anything or make an accusations, but anyone versed in political/presidentail office "law" know if the President is able to retain the office through his term in times of war?

Scenario being- 2008 comes, we are at war with Iran, N. Korea, Iraq, Puppies, Christmas, whoever. Can the Bush administration/Act of Congress suspend, delay, post-pone elections until "peace" is achieved?

Stop, you're teasing me.....

Just make sure your Brown Shirt is pressed and be at the Beer Hall no later than 11

You won't see Bush try to hold onto power past his term. He knows full well that Pres McCain will handle the position effectively.


Fandros

The only thing that bothers me about McCain, is he still has the old vietnam war attitude towards the National Guard. (Or at least it seems that way anyways)

Hell, as much as ya'll are used nowdays are you really just National Guard? Methinks ya'll are more fulltime Army and should be treated as such.

Fandros

McCain/Lieberman will be an interesting ticket.:cool:

Hell, as much as ya'll are used nowdays are you really just National Guard? Methinks ya'll are more fulltime Army and should be treated as such.

Fandros

Thats kinda my point, from what I understand he'd like to see us go back to being underfunded, undertrained weekend warriors and leave everything to the active duty. (Mind you this statement is all based on second hand information so it's veracity is questionable)

If that were to happen with the Guard, wouldn't we then be forced to implement the draft?

At this juncture I can't see any reason to change things with the guard or reserve. And, I don't think any politician or citizen wants to see a draft. Our volunteer Army is working well for us. It would not be a good thing to pull you guys out, you're too needed right now. Unless something changes and we win this war :|

Our Armed Forces are too fucking big.

If I were President, id cut the budget in half, and scale back our standing army to 1/4 of its current size.

An Army this big and this powerful is going to have lots of people trying to find uses for it. Basically the United States Armed Forces is the worlds biggest Bureaucracy. Nothing even comes close to its size and power.
Bureaucracies operate under a universal set of behaviors.

1. The Bureaucracy will seek means to justify and thereby sustain its existance and size.

2. There are two types of people who work for a Bureaucracy. (Pournelles Iron Law of Bureaucracy)


Those that work to uphold the actual goals of the organization (ie A teacher who teaches to the best of their ability, or a soldier who loves his country)
Those who work for the organization itself. (ie the Teacher Union who works to keep the least qualified teacher on staff... or Dick Cheney/Lockheed Martin/KRB)

This law furthers itself by explaining that the second type of person will always gain control of the Bureaucracy and write the rules under which the organization functions.

The Volunteer Army is NOT working well for this country. It will lead us, like the Romans into an endless series of wars of choice and opportunity. I would love for this country to return to its roots, to the way all democracies should work. When your country needs you, in times of dire need, it will call us and we will answer the call.
Id like to see our military return to post WW2 levels and capability.

/blink

So you'd favor a miltary force shored up nearly entirely by levee's to be summoned when needed.

Woot, no training, no cohesion and an utter lack of ability.

Hope you like rice with your sweet and sour cat.

Fandros

Any facts on the size of our military back then and now off hand. Don't feel like looking but people join the military but leave 5-6 years later (most anyways) so its a cycle that maintains but doesn't necessarily grow any larger? Its also work and schooling for those who join. What to do with those when we downsize?

We have a cold war era sized army. We dont need it..
We dont need half the weapons systems we have.
We dont need the troop levels.

We spend, right now.. approximiatly 20% of national income per year on a military WE CANNOT AFFORD.
http://www.warresisters.org/images/FY07_deception.jpg

The world, every single nation, spent 1.2 Trillion on its Military might. In 2005, 500 Billion of that was spent by the United States.

You think the Military is what keeps us safe from the Chinese? Let me introduce you to two friends of mine.. Meet the Atlantic and Pacific Ocean. Fellas, say Hi to Fanny.

We get attacked on 9/11 and we wonder why we attack Iraq? We responded with the weapons we put so much cash into and time into developing. How can trillions of dollars of defense spending be rendered useless by 19 men with $100,000 budget?

I'll give you this, there is a big change that needs to happen in regards to the DoD.

We need to stop awarding contracts to the lowest bidder and then allowing ramp up of budget overruns. We get horrible quality coupled with top dollar.

It's very wasteful, and I would wager you could make a huge cut in the defense budget if you were to attack it ( as well as provide your military with better equipment.)

Fandros

For starters we are far from the Cold war level of troops. We have significantly downsized the Active and Reserve componets since the Wall fell. Let me ask you this.. What effect will getting rid of the military have on the local economy around active duty posts? Look at how Germany is now backtracking after we started to pull troops out. They realized that many towns survived because of our bases over there. What about here in our own country? How many jobs are created because of the need of the military? Many people here.. ok Bly.. bashes Haliburton, but look at the jobs they create. Boeing, Nortrup Grumman, Lockheed, ... I could go on. If it was not for the military contracts, these companies would fold up.


Another interesting point is that most of your "liberal" candidates actually pressed for MORE troops in 2004. That was Kerry's big push to get military votes... Increase special forces, and add more Brigades to Active duty. Kind of goes against your though process there LL. Yet when Rumsfeld tries to streamline and actually downsize more.. he is criticized. Go figure.

Frandros is right.. the guard needs to be recognized, and treated more like the active componet. We deserve the same benefits that they recieve, and if people want to argue that.. just look at the percentage of forces in Iraq now.. 50/50 ....

Something to think about from a historical perspective.

During its "Golden Age" (5 Good Emperors) Rome had approx. 150,000 Legionaires. At the time of its fall and destruction Rome had 450,000.

Additionally, look to Athens and the Delian League. Athens military spending on behalf of the rest of the Greek Peninsula (sans Sparta) was the precursor to its demise.

For the opposing side, read Loren B. Thomson article from 1999.
http://www.policyreview.org/oct99/thompson.html

Keep in mind who Loren B Thomson is. He is a founding member of the Lexington Institute, a core NeoCon thinktank.

What effect will getting rid of the military have on the local economy around active duty posts?

I dont know.. you are a conservative, you tell me what the end result of a 20%+ drop in taxes would bring about.

How many jobs are created because of the need of the military? Many people here.. ok Bly.. bashes Haliburton, but look at the jobs they create. Boeing, Nortrup Grumman, Lockheed, ... I could go on. If it was not for the military contracts, these companies would fold up.
Being paid with government dollars.. seems to me thats simply a redistribution of weath scheme. Shanno.. YOU GODLESS COMMUNIST.

Another interesting point is that most of your "liberal" candidates actually pressed for MORE troops in 2004.
How are these my candidates? Is there some rule that because I dont like Bush, I have to support these people? Is there a further rule that I owe them my blind obedience and support?
No sir, these are not my candidates. These are not the droids I am looking for.

I was in more than one National Guard unit durring both Clinton terms.... we went from training with trucks to putting tape on the ground and *simulating* a truck.... I am not kidding....

I dont know.. you are a conservative, you tell me what the end result of a 20%+ drop in taxes would bring about.



First mistake is.. where do you concieve that we would have a 20% drop in taxes? Do you really think that because you do not need to fund a military that the government will just give all that money back? I am sure that some other way of giving my money to undeserving programs would suck it all up. I know.. lets start that research to show that the sun does provide warmth to the earth.. just to be sure you know..

Being paid with government dollars.. seems to me thats simply a redistribution of weath scheme. Shanno.. YOU GODLESS COMMUNIST

Now this comment I find funny. So now you are saying that any business that is aided by Governmental contracts are part of a communist ideal? One of the main forces that allows this country to prosper is commerce with the Government. Imagine all the farms that would go under without having the Government buying crops, that we give turn around and use for humanitarian needs. Imagine taking thousands of government employees and forcing them into the civilian workplace (not to mention all the now unemployed military), what would your unemployment levels be now? Remember.. many of your larger businesses would be cutting back because of no government contracts.


Take your Communist comments and shove them up your ass. I am far from a Communist. I do not believe in government control of assets, or set prices, or depending on the government for basic needs. But I do recognize that without the Government (or DOD if you want to stay specific), this country would be in a world of hurt economically. I do recognize that even though I am a Guardsman, I know that we need to maintain an Active duty force that is always ready to deploy and fight. I see first hand how difficult it is for employers of Guardsman when the employees that many depend on have to deploy. I see first hand how families who are not use to the military life day to day have to cope when the main source of income (in most cases) has to leave for up to 15 months or longer. The problem with "calling" or drafting the civilian population has a greater impact then just inexperience. Right now, the United States can react to ANY need for military action within 48-72 hours.. That would not be possible with 1/4 the current force. Yea.. we could get there.. but with nothing in reserve.. watch out.


How are these my candidates? Is there some rule that because I dont like Bush, I have to support these people? Is there a further rule that I owe them my blind obedience and support?
No sir, these are not my candidates. These are not the droids I am looking for.


So you voted independent last election? Unless you did, then yes.. those droids are your candidates.

Yeah, the cuts Clinton made were drastic and a complete shambles.

BTW L2, last time I checked I was trained with a firearm and formed up under a Squadron/Flight org. I damn sure know I wasn't handed a bronze short spear, a tower shield and fought in a phlanx (sp).

You can't keep comparing modern society to Rome simply because your a history teacher. You know full well you can pick any moment in history and mold it to fit the opinion you seek to back. Doesn't mean it's relevent to actual terms.

Rome fell for many reasons, one was it's inabilty to communicate effectively over the massive areas they controlled. I don't think the Republican's/wigs were behind it!!

Fandros

Shanno, L2 is a teacher...he's sucking at the same hind teet of taxpayer cash as we are. He's just working your goat.


Fandros

Something to think about from a historical perspective.

During its "Golden Age" (5 Good Emperors) Rome had approx. 150,000 Legionaires. At the time of its fall and destruction Rome had 450,000.

Additionally, look to Athens and the Delian League. Athens military spending on behalf of the rest of the Greek Peninsula (sans Sparta) was the precursor to its demise.

For the opposing side, read Loren B. Thomson article from 1999.
http://www.policyreview.org/oct99/thompson.html

Keep in mind who Loren B Thomson is. He is a founding member of the Lexington Institute, a core NeoCon thinktank.

Interesting you are the second person this week to speak about us and the Roman empire. The other scenario was that every great civilization eventually has a downfall and their belief was that we are on the downward turn. I'm not so sure I buy into it. I think the military could definitely run more efficiently but reducing the size and only calling peopel up when needed will not keep us at the ready and trained level we need to be in case we are needed.

Yeah, the cuts Clinton made were drastic and a complete shambles.

Fandros

So, are you saying that the Chief of Staff and his command staff did a horse shit job of advising Clinton on what needed to be cut? Or was it the House/Senate members of the committee making recommendations that sucked?

I too agree there were some poor choices made, but let's not lay all the horse-hooey at one man's feet when there were so many more qualified that were creating it.

heh, I should clarify as I've had aprox 2 hours of sleep in the last 36 I might have cut Clinton a lil short on that one.

The cuts that were made to the military during the years that Clinton was President were a complete shambles and left the military in a state unfit to carry out required missions.

Fandros

Some should remember that in the months leading up to WWII, the military had been cut to the bone and it took a long time to get it up to speed. its one of the reasons we had to fight basically a 1 front war when we first went forward. If memory serves the Marine Corp II was over 40 percent depleted, but that might be the korean statistics its been a while since I lasted looked at staffing levels.

Rev

I too agree there were some poor choices made, but let's not lay all the horse-hooey at one man's feet when there were so many more qualified that were creating it.I'll be sure to remind you of this the next time you complain about our progress in Iraq :p

I'll be sure to remind you of this the next time you complain about our progress in Iraq :p

I am not sure that I have complained about our progress in Iraq, but I would not blame Bush solely if I were to complain; his advisors, Rove and Cheney chief among them, served him poorly. If I have complained about Iraq it has to do with going in without a complete plan of action, and underestimating the religious element of the conflict, not with our progress.

And we all know I detest Bush and Cheney, hehe.

I bet McCain would have served the military much better as Commander in Chief, tho'; and, I look forward to him having that opportunity after the '08 elections. :D

How can trillions of dollars of defense spending be rendered useless by 19 men with $100,000 budget?

This is one of the two reasons why terrorism and proxy-wars are and always will be long-term successful. Europeans and the Soviets realized the ultimate futility and eventual bankruptcy of Brezhnev-style dominion, and one day we will too. Hopefully before the dollar is totally devalued and we end up as the resource farm for China and India.

One of the things I love most about base closure debates is that we are always talking about closing the ones at home (where they at least provide some sort of local economic return, however inefficient), and not the ones in other nations. It's also interesting that while our military is relatively small compared to some highwater marks, it's as expensive as when we were building nuclear weapons as fast as possible and staffing hundreds of long range strategic bombers and submarines, and an every-growing part of that cost is going to private contracting firms that sell us the services of our former soldiers.

I was still living in San Antonio, TX, when they closed a number of long-term Air Force bases there. Virtually at the same time, they were building a multi-billion dollar one on an otherwise worthless rock in the middle of the ocean to provide bomber routes into central Asia.

I do agree with Malse here, we should be closing more bases abroad. Pref in the EU countries as they are bolstering their own bases.


Fandros

I do agree with Malse here, we should be closing more bases abroad. Pref in the EU countries as they are bolstering their own bases

I'm okay with bases overseas as long as they serve OUR nation's interests... I don't much care for the 'but if we leave their local economy will crumble' bull.

while our military is relatively small compared to some highwater marks, it's as expensive as when we were building nuclear weapons as fast as possible and staffing hundreds of long range strategic bombers and submarines

Please keep some perspective when talking costs, Malse.

When I was discharged with a medical retirement at the age of 18 in March of 1971 due to the left side of my face being broken up and left eye blinded, I received a 40% disability rating which gave me a monthly check of $98. Now, in 2006, that 40% has increased to a more helpful $440 (approx) per month. But that still means an E-4 (Corporal/Spec4) is only making $1100 per month.

While the subs and bombers and missile systems all carry enormous price tags, and our Senators (like Trent Lott with an additional carrier)) have more or less forced the military to accept additional spending not asked for, one of the costs still argued over and complained about is the salaries paid our troops. It is only when the "evil" media exposes the hardships still faced by many militiary families in making ends meet on military pay that those in Washington that can affect some change make meager increases to the military compensation.

I agree we could well do without some of our foreign bases, mostly those in Europe, but there are many others that really are crucial to providing a sense of security in troubled areas as well as giving us a jumping off point in the event of a crisis.

Our biggest military bases are in Germany, Okinawa, Korea, Afghanistan, and Iraq (as resources are moved from Saudi Arabia and the UAE/Qatar). Which of these bases are still relevant to real security? Which of them would be constructed today, assuming they didn't exist already, creating threats by their existence?

You really ought to read _Sorrows of Empire_ Byl, given you're one of the few posters here who wouldn't dismiss it out of hand. Even if you don't agree with the conclusions, there are extensively documented facts about our military spending (the payments to enlistees being almost inconsequential) that will likely chill your blood. The costs of providing for veterans never even enters into strategic decisions.

TBH, of the 5 bases you listed, Germany is the only one i couldnt argue a good strategic locaiton. The threat of russia is pretty much gone. Okinawa and Korea are great staging points for the lways volitile southern Asian area, and No need to even explain why AFghanistan and Iraq are important.

If you can't look at that list Malse and without question answer to yourself why at least at a minimum the Korean, Afghan, and Iraqi military bases are important, an intelligent discussion on this matter here isn't even possible.

I would argue that all our bases in the EU are pointless. The idea behind NATO was that everything was interchangable, IE if the Germans have a base in Berlin, then why do we need one in Luxemburg (not positive of where any bases are other than Ramestein). why not use those bases in the event that we need a staging base instead of maintaining one of our own or a co owned one.


Rev

If you can't look at that list Malse and without question answer to yourself why at least at a minimum the Korean, Afghan, and Iraqi military bases are important, an intelligent discussion on this matter here isn't even possible.

I know exactly why the bases are where they are. My point is that if our largest combat deployment outside of Iraq was not currently in South Korea, would we have justified building it there? Same with Okinawa, Cuba, the Phillipines, or England and nearly all of Europe. These installations have been creating further justification for their own continued functioning for decades in some cases, and we know they have a tremendous impact on local and regional politics because we exploit it constantly.

It's difficult to ever be the one to say "This has to end," because of the fear of changing a status quo that has been influencing our world view for the lifetime of everyone posting here and nearly everyone in general. But it's also exceptionally difficult to explain today why we would need to build tremendously expensive bases in virtually all of the locations we have, particularly given how in debt we are. The greatest irony being that our most recent war effort and associated base construction has been (in name, at least) against a rogue organization that decided to attack us exactly because we had built numerous bases in Saudi Arabia.

This pretty much sums it up!

RESUME

GEORGE W. BUSH

1600 Pennsylvania Avenue
Washington, DC 20520

EDUCATION AND EXPERIENCE

LAW ENFORCEMENT

I was arrested in Kennebunkport, Maine, in 1976 for
driving under the influence of alcohol. I pled guilty,
paid a fine, and had my driver's license suspended for
30 days. My Texas driving record has been "lost" and
is not available.

MILITARY

I joined the Texas Air National Guard and went AWOL. I
refused to take a drug test or answer any questions
about my drug use. By joining the Texas Air National
Guard, I was able to avoid combat duty in Vietnam.

COLLEGE

I graduated from Yale University with a low C average.
I was a cheerleader.

PAST WORK EXPERIENCE

I ran for U.S. Congress and lost. I began my career in
the oil business in Midland, Texas, in 1975. I bought
an oil company, but couldn't find any oil in Texas.
The company went bankrupt shortly after I sold all my
stock.

I bought the Texas Rangers baseball team in a
sweetheart deal that took land using taxpayer money.
With the help of my father and our friends in the oil
industry, including Enron CEO Ken Lay, I was elected
governor of Texas.

ACCOMPLISHMENTS AS GOVERNOR OF TEXAS

I changed Texas pollution laws to favor power and oil
companies, making Texas the most polluted state in the
Union. During my tenure, Houston replaced Los Angeles
as the most smog-ridden city in America. I cut taxes
and bankrupted the Texas treasury to the tune of
billions in borrowed money. I set the record for the
most executions by any governor in American history.
With the help of my brother, the governor of Florida,
and my father's appointments to the Supreme Court, I
became President after losing by over 500,000 votes.

ACCOMPLISHMENTS AS PRESIDENT

I am the first President in U.S. history to enter
office with a criminal record. I invaded and occupied
two countries at a continuing cost of over one billion
dollars per week. I spent the U.S. surplus and
effectively bankrupted the U.S. Treasury. I shattered
the record for the largest annual deficit in U.S.
history. I set an economic record for most private
bankruptcies filed in any 12-month period. I set the
all-time record for most foreclosures in a 12-month
period. I set the all-time record for the biggest drop
in the history of the U.S. stock market.
In my first year in office, over 2 million Americans
lost their jobs and that trend continues every month.

I'm proud that the members of my cabinet are the
richest of any administration in U.S. history. My
"poorest millionaire," Condoleeza Rice, had a Chevron
oil tanker named after her. I set the record for most
campaign fund-raising trips by a U.S. President. I am
the all-time U.S. and world record-holder for
receiving the most corporate campaign donations. My
largest lifetime campaign contributor, and one of my
best friends, Kenneth Lay, presided over the largest
corporate bankruptcy fraud in U.S. History, Enron.

My political party used Enron private jets and
corporate attorneys to assure my success with the U.S.
Supreme Court during my election decision. I have
protected my friends at Enron and Halliburton against
investigation or prosecution. More time and money was
spent investigating the Monica Lewinsky affair than
has been spent investigating one of the biggest
corporate rip- offs in history.

I presided over the biggest energy crisis in U.S.
history and refused to intervene when corruption
involving the oil industry was revealed. I presided
over the highest gasoline prices in U.S. history. I
changed the U.S.policy to allow convicted criminals to
be awarded government contracts. I appointed more
convicted criminals to administration than any
President in U.S. history. I created the Ministry of
Homeland Security, the largest bureaucracy in the
history of the United States government

The war on terror is only going to be won by spending money on intelligence gathering and information systems with the proper analyists to deceipher it. That and figuring out a way to disarm the pre-disposed hatred those that participate in terrorism seem to have for Americans and other Western nations. No brand new carrier or base or jet fighter will replace the ability to thwart an attack which is in reality conducted more like a criminal enterprise than what was considered in the past to be warfare or gain insight as to why they did it. Warfare now is such a gray area riding between crime and combat, the end result is that weapons designed for total mass destruction don't even make sense. They would never be used as intended, since we frankly don't have the stones to destroy a country harboring what are basically criminals who swear no exact allegiance to any particular country. The destruction we DO cause when we roll in masses of ships, troops, tanks and fighters to chase after terrorists hiding in the unsuspecting populace of what is otherwise innocent civilians who just want to be left alone probably does not much else but breed more hotbeds of discontented recruits for terrorist cells who had their loved ones killed by a trigger happy Marine or a mistargetted bomb. It makes me happy to see my Seabee battalion sent in to harms way, as much as it sucks, to rebuild humanitarian related projects as opposed to blowing them up. At least the locals will remember Americans as the one that built their school or their community center and not the ones who blew it up.

Sure, there is the arguement that Saddam and the Taliban had to go, but then again, perhaps we could have found a more precision way of doing that. "Shock and Awe" made alot of pretty explosions and allowed alot of people who were itching to see how well their toys they designed or trained on could blow things up. It scared the shit out of alot of people but did it really have merit as far as getting the mission over and done? Was it even needed at all? Could we have just let Saddam die of old age under close surveillance and perhaps also allowed the terrorists the chance to be discredited by their own people? We allowed Castro to live this long unharmed and unchallenged and that bastard parked and aimed nuclear weapons right at our back door, less than 100 miles away from US civilian soil. Is there a greater act of terrorism than that?

So no, if terrorists are the enemy and our military masterminds are still in the mindset that war is just strictly a numbers game, than we will fail. Its best to now try to understand, educate, and prevent the events that breed terror in the first place and pull back and downsize. Battles of attrition don't exist in the Global War on Terror where having more of a certain bomb will decide the tide of the battle.

The War on Terror is fought at the dinner tables of ordinary homes between ordinary people who are either willing or not to make extraordinary sacrifices or condone those that do. Its politics and psychology more than bombs and bullets. Typically all it takes for a terrorist cell to exist is a few cosmopolitian idealistic fanatical masterminds with access to resources that sort of upbringing provides and a pissed off youthful rock throwing, tire burning source of "soldiers" to die for you. Convince them that its the Americans or the Zionists that have forced them to live in a corregated steel shack and exploit as well as distort the common religious threads that bind them all together by stating that they will be a prince in the Kingdom of Heaven if they fly a plane into a building and that is all you need. Chances are perhaps it was us Americans that did that to them if they want to frame their time of reference around the Dubbyah Bush administration.

The arguements against downsizing and focusing more on humanitarian and intelligence methods of prevention is there might be the paranoia of another nation such as China becoming imperialistic and there being no other force to counter balance that threat in the world. Perhaps the fact that military spending actually drives a good chunk of what little remains of American research, development and advance manufacturing may also have some merit. In a service economy where a majority gets paid a crap wage to do each others laundry while China and other sweatshop nations make the everyday items that Americans used to be able to make, defense is one last hold out for those that could not afford an expensive college education but want a decent middle class lifestyle.

Ultimately, the US needs to figure out how to move past World War 2 and the Cold War and as a country we need to do it fast. We are lazy and complacent and we don't understand yet how to live on a planet that is otherwise at peace and has little room for the expensive brute force our military yields. You can kill a man just as dead by one bullet to the head as you could if you blew up his whole town around him. We are fast frittering away the lead we had on technology and science gained by those conflicts by failing to recognise that global market competition if anything, should be encouraging us to excel on those fronts more than ever and by all rights be leading to great things and discarding old models. Instead we are pissing the world off by some kind of notion of divine right since we were on the winning side of those conflicts. We are acting like a bully who gets satisfaction by brute intimidation and yet has failing grades in school to assure in a less than ideal future. No, we should not be a push over, but we should also not expect to get avoid being stung if we swat a hornet's nest with a stick either, especially if there are other more reasonable and precise methods to get rid of the hornets. Too bad we got this doofus Bush who by all rights expected to just coast through his presidency and collect an easy check for himself and his buddies if it were not for 9/11 when we really needed someone with intelligence as well as conviction who could have used our military and other assets as precision tools for purposes of last resort only.