US Message Board

Go Back   US Message Board > US Discussion > Military
Register FAQ Blogs Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Military Armed force strategies, news and comments


Login to remove all ads

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old 08-11-2008, 09:22 AM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 784
Rep Power: 2
Orange_Juice could be police chiefOrange_Juice could be police chiefOrange_Juice could be police chiefOrange_Juice could be police chiefOrange_Juice could be police chiefOrange_Juice could be police chiefOrange_Juice could be police chiefOrange_Juice could be police chief
More Diplomacy, Less Military

Great op-ed!


Iraq and Afghanistan are the messes getting attention today, but they are only symptoms of a much broader cancer in American foreign policy.

A few glimpses of this larger affliction:

¶The United States has more musicians in its military bands than it has diplomats.

¶This year alone, the United States Army will add about 7,000 soldiers to its total; that’s more people than in the entire American Foreign Service.

¶More than 1,000 American diplomatic positions are vacant because the Foreign Service is so short-staffed, but a myopic Congress is refusing to finance even modest new hiring. Some 1,100 could be hired for the cost of a single C-17 military cargo plane.

In short, the United States is hugely overinvesting in military tools and underinvesting in diplomatic tools. The result is a lopsided foreign policy that antagonizes the rest of the world and is ineffective in tackling many modern problems.

After all, you can’t bomb global warming.

Incredibly, the most eloquent spokesman for more balance between “hard power” and “soft power” is Defense Secretary Robert Gates. Mr. Gates, who is superb in repairing the catastrophe left behind by Donald Rumsfeld, has given a series of astonishing speeches in which he calls for more resources for the State Department and aid agencies.

“One of the most important lessons of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan is that military success is not sufficient to win,” Mr. Gates said. He noted that the entire American diplomatic corps — about 6,500 people — is less than the staffing of a single aircraft carrier group, yet Congress isn’t interested in paying for a larger Foreign Service.

“It simply does not have the built-in, domestic constituency of defense programs,” Mr. Gates said. “As an example, the F-22 aircraft is produced by companies in 44 states; that’s 88 senators.”

With the Olympics unfolding in China now, the Navy and the Air Force are seizing upon China’s rise as an excuse to grab tens of billions of dollars for the F-22, for an advanced destroyer, for new attack submarines. But we’re failing to invest minuscule sums to build good will among Chinese.

For the price of one F-22, we could — for 25 years — operate American libraries in each Chinese province, pay for more Chinese-American exchanges, and hire more diplomats prepared to appear on Chinese television and explain in fluent Chinese what American policy is. And for the price of one M.R.E. lunch for one soldier, the State Department could make a few phone calls to push the Chinese leadership to respond to the Dalai Lama’s olive branch a few days ago, helping to eliminate a long-term irritant in U.S.-China relations.

Then there’s the Middle East. Dennis Ross, the longtime Middle East peace negotiator, says he has been frustrated “beyond belief” to see resources showered on the military while diplomacy has to fight for scraps. Mr. Ross argues that an investment of just $1 billion — financing job creation and other grass-roots programs in the West Bank — could significantly increase the prospect of an Israeli-Palestinian peace. But that money isn’t forthcoming.

Our intuitive approach to fighting terrorists and insurgents is to blow things up. But one of the most cost-effective counterterrorism methods in countries like Pakistan and Afghanistan may be to build things up, like schooling and microfinance. Girls’ education sometimes gets more bang for the buck than a missile.

A new study from the RAND Corporation examined how 648 terror groups around the world ended between 1968 and 2006. It found that by far the most common way for them to disappear was to be absorbed by the political process. The second most common way was to be defeated by police work. In contrast, in only 7 percent of cases did military force destroy the terrorist group.

“There is no battlefield solution to terrorism,” the report declares. “Military force usually has the opposite effect from what is intended.”

The next president should absorb that lesson and revalidate diplomacy as the primary tool of foreign policy — even if that means talking to ogres. Take Iran. Until recently, the American officials in charge of solving the Iranian problem were not even allowed to meet Iranians.

“We need to believe in the power of American diplomacy, and we should not believe a military conflict with Iran is inevitable,” said Nicholas Burns, until recently the under secretary of state for political affairs and for three years the government’s point person on Iran. “Our first impulse should be a serious and patient and persistent diplomatic effort. Too often in our national debate we focus on the military option and give short shrift to the diplomatic option.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/10/op...10kristof.html
Reply With Quote
       

Login to remove all ads

  #2 (permalink)  
Old 08-11-2008, 09:28 AM
dilloduck's Avatar
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Austin, Tx
Posts: 25,191
Rep Power: 79
dilloduck could be the buddhadilloduck could be the buddhadilloduck could be the buddhadilloduck could be the buddhadilloduck could be the buddhadilloduck could be the buddhadilloduck could be the buddhadilloduck could be the buddhadilloduck could be the buddhadilloduck could be the buddhadilloduck could be the buddha
Quote:
For the price of one F-22, we could — for 25 years — operate American libraries in each Chinese province, pay for more Chinese-American exchanges, and hire more diplomats prepared to appear on Chinese television and explain in fluent Chinese what American policy is
Right--that will happen any day now. Cmon fool---we can "diplomacy" until we are blue in the face. No one is willing to talk back. Have you heard Al- Quaeda or the Taliban throw out any ideas for settling all this peacefully ?
__________________
"Some men eventually stumble over the truth but they usually pick themselves up and walk on as if nothing ever happened."
-Winston Churchill

"But though there is no difference in this respect between the best demagogue and the worst, both of them having to present their cases equally in terms of melodrama, there is all the difference in the world between the statesman who is humbugging the people into allowing him to do the will of God, in whatever disguise it may come to him, and one who is humbugging them into furthering his personal ambition and the commercial interests of the plutocrats who own the newspapers and support him on reciprocal terms."
-George Bernard Shaw
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old 08-11-2008, 09:29 AM
Beavis
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Michigan
Posts: 4,921
Rep Power: 13
sealybobo could be city mayorsealybobo could be city mayorsealybobo could be city mayorsealybobo could be city mayorsealybobo could be city mayorsealybobo could be city mayorsealybobo could be city mayorsealybobo could be city mayorsealybobo could be city mayorsealybobo could be city mayorsealybobo could be city mayor
It is inexcusable for U.S. taxpayers to continue to foot the bill for projects the Iraqis are fully capable of funding themselves. We should not be paying for Iraqi projects, while Iraqi oil revenues continue to pile up in the bank.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/06/wo...=1&oref=slogin
Soaring oil prices will leave the Iraqi government with a cumulative budget surplus of as much as $79 billion by year’s end, according to an American federal oversight agency. But Iraq has spent only a minute fraction of that on reconstruction costs, which are now largely borne by the United States.
The unspent windfall, which covers surpluses from oil sales since 2005, appears likely to reinforce growing debate about the approximately $48 billion in American taxpayer money devoted to rebuilding Iraq since the American-led invasion.

What did I say? I said the GOP were playing us for fools. See, it is more profitable for the oil companies if WE pay for Iraq's reconstruction, not them and not Iraqi oil

That's what I mean when I say Republicans like to privatize profits and socialize the losses.
Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old 08-11-2008, 09:30 AM
Beavis
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Michigan
Posts: 4,921
Rep Power: 13
sealybobo could be city mayorsealybobo could be city mayorsealybobo could be city mayorsealybobo could be city mayorsealybobo could be city mayorsealybobo could be city mayorsealybobo could be city mayorsealybobo could be city mayorsealybobo could be city mayorsealybobo could be city mayorsealybobo could be city mayor
Bulk of Iraq Reconstruction Monies 'Will Come From Iraqis,' Rumsfeld Says
By Gerry J. Gilmore
American Forces Press Service


WASHINGTON, Oct. 2, 2003 – The American taxpayer will not have to foot the entire bill for rebuilding post-Saddam Iraq, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said here today.
Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old 08-11-2008, 09:33 AM
dilloduck's Avatar
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Austin, Tx
Posts: 25,191
Rep Power: 79
dilloduck could be the buddhadilloduck could be the buddhadilloduck could be the buddhadilloduck could be the buddhadilloduck could be the buddhadilloduck could be the buddhadilloduck could be the buddhadilloduck could be the buddhadilloduck could be the buddhadilloduck could be the buddhadilloduck could be the buddha
Quote:
Originally Posted by sealybobo View Post
It is inexcusable for U.S. taxpayers to continue to foot the bill for projects the Iraqis are fully capable of funding themselves. We should not be paying for Iraqi projects, while Iraqi oil revenues continue to pile up in the bank.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/06/wo...=1&oref=slogin
Soaring oil prices will leave the Iraqi government with a cumulative budget surplus of as much as $79 billion by year’s end, according to an American federal oversight agency. But Iraq has spent only a minute fraction of that on reconstruction costs, which are now largely borne by the United States.
The unspent windfall, which covers surpluses from oil sales since 2005, appears likely to reinforce growing debate about the approximately $48 billion in American taxpayer money devoted to rebuilding Iraq since the American-led invasion.

What did I say? I said the GOP were playing us for fools. See, it is more profitable for the oil companies if WE pay for Iraq's reconstruction, not them and not Iraqi oil

That's what I mean when I say Republicans like to privatize profits and socialize the losses.
well get your favorite diplomatic and go tell Iraq to give us the money.
__________________
"Some men eventually stumble over the truth but they usually pick themselves up and walk on as if nothing ever happened."
-Winston Churchill

"But though there is no difference in this respect between the best demagogue and the worst, both of them having to present their cases equally in terms of melodrama, there is all the difference in the world between the statesman who is humbugging the people into allowing him to do the will of God, in whatever disguise it may come to him, and one who is humbugging them into furthering his personal ambition and the commercial interests of the plutocrats who own the newspapers and support him on reciprocal terms."
-George Bernard Shaw
Reply With Quote
  #6 (permalink)  
Old 08-11-2008, 09:47 AM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 784
Rep Power: 2
Orange_Juice could be police chiefOrange_Juice could be police chiefOrange_Juice could be police chiefOrange_Juice could be police chiefOrange_Juice could be police chiefOrange_Juice could be police chiefOrange_Juice could be police chiefOrange_Juice could be police chief
Quote:
Originally Posted by dilloduck View Post
well get your favorite diplomatic and go tell Iraq to give us the money.
Maybe we can get the military band to to it, we have so many of them!

I love how the op-ed points out that so much military spending is simply pork. You know, earmarks, that McCain says he will --cough cough--eliminate.

Oink, oink
Reply With Quote
  #7 (permalink)  
Old 08-11-2008, 09:50 AM
dilloduck's Avatar
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Austin, Tx
Posts: 25,191
Rep Power: 79
dilloduck could be the buddhadilloduck could be the buddhadilloduck could be the buddhadilloduck could be the buddhadilloduck could be the buddhadilloduck could be the buddhadilloduck could be the buddhadilloduck could be the buddhadilloduck could be the buddhadilloduck could be the buddhadilloduck could be the buddha
Quote:
Originally Posted by Orange_Juice View Post
Maybe we can get the military band to to it, we have so many of them!

I love how the op-ed points out that so much military spending is simply pork. You know, earmarks, that McCain says he will --cough cough--eliminate.

Oink, oink
Bullshit--the military bands play music, dumbass. YOU get your diplomatic buddies to go over there. How many does it take to hear Iraq say fuck you, for God sakes ?
__________________
"Some men eventually stumble over the truth but they usually pick themselves up and walk on as if nothing ever happened."
-Winston Churchill

"But though there is no difference in this respect between the best demagogue and the worst, both of them having to present their cases equally in terms of melodrama, there is all the difference in the world between the statesman who is humbugging the people into allowing him to do the will of God, in whatever disguise it may come to him, and one who is humbugging them into furthering his personal ambition and the commercial interests of the plutocrats who own the newspapers and support him on reciprocal terms."
-George Bernard Shaw
Reply With Quote
  #8 (permalink)  
Old 08-11-2008, 11:32 AM
CSM's Avatar
CSM CSM is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Northeast US
Posts: 6,788
Rep Power: 79
CSM could be the buddhaCSM could be the buddhaCSM could be the buddhaCSM could be the buddhaCSM could be the buddhaCSM could be the buddhaCSM could be the buddhaCSM could be the buddhaCSM could be the buddhaCSM could be the buddhaCSM could be the buddha
If diplomacy is damned effective, why do so many countries even bother with maintaining a military force at all?

The truth is that diplomacy simply does not work against an adversary that is determined to blow your ass up.
__________________
"Why, it appears that we appointed all of our worst generals to command the armies and we appointed all of our best generals to edit the newspapers. I mean, I found by reading a newspaper that these editor generals saw all of the defects plainly from the start but didn't tell me until it was too late. I'm willing to yield my place to these best generals and I'll do my best for the cause by editing a newspaper." -- Gen. Robert E. Lee
Reply With Quote
  #9 (permalink)  
Old 08-11-2008, 12:28 PM
Mr. Forgot-it-All
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Maine
Posts: 6,630
Rep Power: 43
editec has a reputation beyond reputeeditec has a reputation beyond reputeeditec has a reputation beyond reputeeditec has a reputation beyond reputeeditec has a reputation beyond reputeeditec has a reputation beyond reputeeditec has a reputation beyond reputeeditec has a reputation beyond reputeeditec has a reputation beyond reputeeditec has a reputation beyond reputeeditec has a reputation beyond repute
Quote:
Originally Posted by Orange_Juice View Post
Great op-ed!


Iraq and Afghanistan are the messes getting attention today, but they are only symptoms of a much broader cancer in American foreign policy.

A few glimpses of this larger affliction:

¶The United States has more musicians in its military bands than it has diplomats.

¶This year alone, the United States Army will add about 7,000 soldiers to its total; that’s more people than in the entire American Foreign Service.

¶More than 1,000 American diplomatic positions are vacant because the Foreign Service is so short-staffed, but a myopic Congress is refusing to finance even modest new hiring. Some 1,100 could be hired for the cost of a single C-17 military cargo plane.

In short, the United States is hugely overinvesting in military tools and underinvesting in diplomatic tools. The result is a lopsided foreign policy that antagonizes the rest of the world and is ineffective in tackling many modern problems.

After all, you can’t bomb global warming.

Incredibly, the most eloquent spokesman for more balance between “hard power” and “soft power” is Defense Secretary Robert Gates. Mr. Gates, who is superb in repairing the catastrophe left behind by Donald Rumsfeld, has given a series of astonishing speeches in which he calls for more resources for the State Department and aid agencies.

“One of the most important lessons of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan is that military success is not sufficient to win,” Mr. Gates said. He noted that the entire American diplomatic corps — about 6,500 people — is less than the staffing of a single aircraft carrier group, yet Congress isn’t interested in paying for a larger Foreign Service.

“It simply does not have the built-in, domestic constituency of defense programs,” Mr. Gates said. “As an example, the F-22 aircraft is produced by companies in 44 states; that’s 88 senators.”

With the Olympics unfolding in China now, the Navy and the Air Force are seizing upon China’s rise as an excuse to grab tens of billions of dollars for the F-22, for an advanced destroyer, for new attack submarines. But we’re failing to invest minuscule sums to build good will among Chinese.

For the price of one F-22, we could — for 25 years — operate American libraries in each Chinese province, pay for more Chinese-American exchanges, and hire more diplomats prepared to appear on Chinese television and explain in fluent Chinese what American policy is. And for the price of one M.R.E. lunch for one soldier, the State Department could make a few phone calls to push the Chinese leadership to respond to the Dalai Lama’s olive branch a few days ago, helping to eliminate a long-term irritant in U.S.-China relations.

Then there’s the Middle East. Dennis Ross, the longtime Middle East peace negotiator, says he has been frustrated “beyond belief” to see resources showered on the military while diplomacy has to fight for scraps. Mr. Ross argues that an investment of just $1 billion — financing job creation and other grass-roots programs in the West Bank — could significantly increase the prospect of an Israeli-Palestinian peace. But that money isn’t forthcoming.

Our intuitive approach to fighting terrorists and insurgents is to blow things up. But one of the most cost-effective counterterrorism methods in countries like Pakistan and Afghanistan may be to build things up, like schooling and microfinance. Girls’ education sometimes gets more bang for the buck than a missile.

A new study from the RAND Corporation examined how 648 terror groups around the world ended between 1968 and 2006. It found that by far the most common way for them to disappear was to be absorbed by the political process. The second most common way was to be defeated by police work. In contrast, in only 7 percent of cases did military force destroy the terrorist group.

“There is no battlefield solution to terrorism,” the report declares. “Military force usually has the opposite effect from what is intended.”

The next president should absorb that lesson and revalidate diplomacy as the primary tool of foreign policy — even if that means talking to ogres. Take Iran. Until recently, the American officials in charge of solving the Iranian problem were not even allowed to meet Iranians.

“We need to believe in the power of American diplomacy, and we should not believe a military conflict with Iran is inevitable,” said Nicholas Burns, until recently the under secretary of state for political affairs and for three years the government’s point person on Iran. “Our first impulse should be a serious and patient and persistent diplomatic effort. Too often in our national debate we focus on the military option and give short shrift to the diplomatic option.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/10/op...10kristof.html
If the office supply lobby was as powerful as the military industrial complex lobby...

...THEN the State Department would get some respect in Congress and plenty of funding for those administrative needs, too.
Reply With Quote
  #10 (permalink)  
Old 08-11-2008, 12:28 PM
Beavis
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Michigan
Posts: 4,921
Rep Power: 13
sealybobo could be city mayorsealybobo could be city mayorsealybobo could be city mayorsealybobo could be city mayorsealybobo could be city mayorsealybobo could be city mayorsealybobo could be city mayorsealybobo could be city mayorsealybobo could be city mayorsealybobo could be city mayorsealybobo could be city mayor
Quote:
Originally Posted by CSM View Post
If diplomacy is damned effective, why do so many countries even bother with maintaining a military force at all?

The truth is that diplomacy simply does not work against an adversary that is determined to blow your ass up.
I'm sure that's what Iran is telling Mook Tada El Sadr right now about us. LOL.
Reply With Quote
  #11 (permalink)  
Old 08-11-2008, 12:52 PM
CSM's Avatar
CSM CSM is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Northeast US
Posts: 6,788
Rep Power: 79
CSM could be the buddhaCSM could be the buddhaCSM could be the buddhaCSM could be the buddhaCSM could be the buddhaCSM could be the buddhaCSM could be the buddhaCSM could be the buddhaCSM could be the buddhaCSM could be the buddhaCSM could be the buddha
Quote:
Originally Posted by editec View Post
If the office supply lobby was as powerful as the military industrial complex lobby...

...THEN the State Department would get some respect in Congress and plenty of funding for those administrative needs, too.
MAYBE...JUST MAYBE....if the State department and diplomatic corps of the US was as halfway effective as the US military then they would get not only respect and funding but shiny bits of ribbon to pin on their collective chests too.
__________________
"Why, it appears that we appointed all of our worst generals to command the armies and we appointed all of our best generals to edit the newspapers. I mean, I found by reading a newspaper that these editor generals saw all of the defects plainly from the start but didn't tell me until it was too late. I'm willing to yield my place to these best generals and I'll do my best for the cause by editing a newspaper." -- Gen. Robert E. Lee
Reply With Quote
  #12 (permalink)  
Old 08-11-2008, 01:03 PM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 784
Rep Power: 2
Orange_Juice could be police chiefOrange_Juice could be police chiefOrange_Juice could be police chiefOrange_Juice could be police chiefOrange_Juice could be police chiefOrange_Juice could be police chiefOrange_Juice could be police chiefOrange_Juice could be police chief
Quote:
Originally Posted by CSM View Post
If diplomacy is damned effective, why do so many countries even bother with maintaining a military force at all?

The truth is that diplomacy simply does not work against an adversary that is determined to blow your ass up.
You are not very bright, are you? You don't understand anything.
Reply With Quote
  #13 (permalink)  
Old 08-11-2008, 01:05 PM
AllieBaba's Avatar
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 8,884
Rep Power: 65
AllieBaba could be the buddhaAllieBaba could be the buddhaAllieBaba could be the buddhaAllieBaba could be the buddhaAllieBaba could be the buddhaAllieBaba could be the buddhaAllieBaba could be the buddhaAllieBaba could be the buddhaAllieBaba could be the buddhaAllieBaba could be the buddhaAllieBaba could be the buddha
What a fluff thread.
__________________
Poor Spot! He was tired of being thought of as stupid. "I'm gonna join Mensa," he said to myself, "and then I'll be legally permitted to wear the society's insignia--a tattoo of a little map pin pushed into my flesh--and then everyone'll know that I'm not dumb at all!"
Spot Joins Mensa
by James "Kibo" Parry
Reply With Quote
  #14 (permalink)  
Old 08-11-2008, 01:09 PM
KGB KGB is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Pittsburgh
Posts: 210
Rep Power: 1
KGB could be on a school boardKGB could be on a school boardKGB could be on a school board
the use of military force is just another tool in diplomacy.....albeit with more permanent repercussions...
Reply With Quote
  #15 (permalink)  
Old 08-11-2008, 01:25 PM
Beavis
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Michigan
Posts: 4,921
Rep Power: 13
sealybobo could be city mayorsealybobo could be city mayorsealybobo could be city mayorsealybobo could be city mayorsealybobo could be city mayorsealybobo could be city mayorsealybobo could be city mayorsealybobo could be city mayorsealybobo could be city mayorsealybobo could be city mayorsealybobo could be city mayor
Quote:
Originally Posted by KGB View Post
the use of military force is just another tool in diplomacy.....albeit with more permanent repercussions...
So the 9-11 hijackers were just being diplomatic?
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Eradication First then Diplomacy?? Bonnie General Global Topics 7 07-20-2006 08:15 AM
The End of Cowboy Diplomacy Adam's Apple Politics 4 07-17-2006 05:27 AM
The end of cowboy diplomacy CharlestonChad Politics 38 07-13-2006 10:06 PM
Detail Diplomacy preemptingyou03 War on Terrorism 0 06-12-2006 05:45 PM
It's Not All About Diplomacy! Annie War on Terrorism 0 12-26-2003 11:54 AM

 

Celebrity Gossip, Photography Forum, All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:18 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.2.0

Poltical Topsites