January 22, 2006
TECHNOLOGICAL SUPERIORITY IS CHEAP:
The Isolation Pendulum: Expect a Cyclical U.S. Retreat From World Affairs After the Iraq War (Peter Beinart, January 22, 2006, Washington Post)
When Americans think about foreign policy, they often think in cycles. In 1952 an academic named Frank Klingberg divided America's relations with the world into periods of "extroversion" and "introversion," each lasting about a generation. After World War I, he noted, America turned inward, only to turn outward again after World War II. In 1974 another scholar, Michael Roskin, picked up the thread, arguing that Vietnam was pushing the pendulum back to isolationism. Sometime in the 1990s, he predicted, the pendulum might swing again.
Most of what follows is nonsense--the view of Ronald Reagan as an isolationist is particularly hilarious--but it's certainly the case that the defense will soon be cut just as quickly as it's been built up over the past four years. We just don't spend money on the military in peacetime.
Posted by Orrin Judd at January 22, 2006 9:12 AM
There is no peace. Build the military up 5% of GDP annually.
Posted by: Robert Schwartz at January 22, 2006 11:12 AMnot in a democracy you can't. For one thing, you'd need a draft to reach that level of spending permanently.
Posted by: oj at January 22, 2006 11:15 AMDraft? Totally irrelevant.
The money will go to technology, Replacement of ships, aircraft, and space warfare capability, none of which involve mere numberts. The world government cannnot and will not set down its burden.
To turn away from preparation for war makes war inevitable. Haven't we learned anything in the last 10,000 years/
Posted by: Lou Gots at January 22, 2006 12:20 PMTotally relevant. Technology is cheap. Manpower costs.
Posted by: oj at January 22, 2006 12:39 PMI've been playing Civilization IV recently and have been looking for a chance to comment on how frustrating it can be. When I don't spend a lot of resources on the military I have a great civilization but get conquered. When I do spend a lot of resources on the military, I never get a chance to use it.
Posted by: David Cohen at January 22, 2006 1:27 PMuse the money to build up foreign legions in allied jr states.
Posted by: toe at January 22, 2006 3:58 PMDavid:
Try playing with your kids on your team and offering them money if you don't buy a military....
Posted by: oj at January 22, 2006 4:24 PM"Technology is cheap"? Try arguing that with Air Force procurement types and the Congresscritters who vote on hi-tech weapons systems.
Posted by: PapayaSF at January 22, 2006 5:56 PMRe:; oj reply to David:
It is always a temptation to am armed and hostile nation
To call upon a neighbor and to say:--
We invaded you last night--we are quire prepared to fight,
Unless you pay us cash to go away."
And that is called asking for Dane-geld,
And the people who ask it explain
That you've only to pay 'em the Dane-geld
Ans then you'll get rid of the Dane.
It is always a temptation for a rich and lazy nation,
To puff and look important and to say:--
"Though we know we should defeat you, we have not the time to meet you.
We will therefore pay you cash to go away."
And that is called paying the Dane-geld;
But we've proved it again and again,
That if once you have paid him the Dane-geld
You never get rid of the Dane.
It is wrong to put temptation in the path of any nation,
For fear they should succumb and go astray;
So when you are requested to pay up or be molested,
You will find it better policy to say:--
"We never pay anyone Dane-geld,
No matter how trifling the cost;
For the end of that game is oppression and shame,
And the nation that pays it is lost."
Lou:
Yet we always crush the Dane anyway when the time comes. a standing military is a waste.
Posted by: oj at January 22, 2006 9:21 PMBeinart's first sentence would have made more sense had he written: "When Americans think about foreign policy, they often get headaches".
Posted by: jim hamlen at January 22, 2006 10:27 PMWhat Papaya said. Never underestimate the power of defense contractors (yours truly among them) to spend your money.
Posted by: joe shropshire at January 23, 2006 2:35 AMYes, but weapons systems don't cost much.
Posted by: oj at January 23, 2006 8:49 AMNow that's the thinking that got us into World War Two.
It forgets the truth that unless the military-industrial complex, and its ethos, are maintained, the country lapses into the "rich and lazy" slough of weakness and malaise described by Kipling.
The antidote for this is to maintain the warlike spirit through the sports-gun-cars-video games culture. The last named is particularly helpful.
http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htmurph/articles/20060118.aspx
Posted by: Lou Gots at January 23, 2006 12:46 PM
Lou:
There was no reason for us to get into WWII, but even having built down to nothing we won it easily once we did enter. A standing military just gets dated.
Posted by: oj at January 23, 2006 1:12 PM