Republicans need more than rhetoric on defense
By George F. Will, Published: February 8
Through 11 presidential elections, beginning with the Democrats nomination of George McGovern in 1972, Republicans have enjoyed a presumption of superiority regarding national security. This year, however, events and their rhetoric are dissipating their advantage.
Hours not months, not weeks, hours after the last U.S. troops left Iraq, vicious political factionalism and sectarian violence intensified. Many Republicans say Barack Obamas withdrawal accompanied by his administrations foolish praise of Iraqs stability has jeopardized what has been achieved there. But if it cannot survive a sunrise without fraying, how much of an achievement was it?
Few things so embitter a nation as squandered valor; hence Americans, with much valor spent there, want Iraq to master its fissures. But with America in the second decade of its longest war, the probable Republican nominee is promising to extend it indefinitely.
Mitt Romney opposes negotiations with the Taliban while they are killing our soldiers. Which means: No negotiations until the war ends, when there will be nothing about which to negotiate. We dont, he says, negotiate from a position of weakness as we are pulling our troops out. That would mean stopping the drawdown of U.S. forces except Romney would not negotiate even from a position of strength: We should not negotiate with the Taliban. We should defeat the Taliban. How could that be achieved in a second decade of war? What metrics would establish defeat? Details to come, perhaps.
The U.S. defense budget is about 43 percent of the worlds total military spending more than the combined defense spending of the next 17 nations, many of which are U.S. allies. Are Republicans really going to warn voters that America will be imperiled if the defense budget is cut 8 percent from projections over the next decade? In 2017, defense spending would still be more than that of the next 10 countries combined.
Do Republicans think it is premature to withdraw as many as 7,000 troops from Europe two decades after the Soviet Unions death? About 73,000 will remain, most of them in prosperous, pacific, largely unarmed and utterly unthreatened Germany. Why do so many remain?
*snip*
More at the link
By George F. Will, Published: February 8
Through 11 presidential elections, beginning with the Democrats nomination of George McGovern in 1972, Republicans have enjoyed a presumption of superiority regarding national security. This year, however, events and their rhetoric are dissipating their advantage.
Hours not months, not weeks, hours after the last U.S. troops left Iraq, vicious political factionalism and sectarian violence intensified. Many Republicans say Barack Obamas withdrawal accompanied by his administrations foolish praise of Iraqs stability has jeopardized what has been achieved there. But if it cannot survive a sunrise without fraying, how much of an achievement was it?
Few things so embitter a nation as squandered valor; hence Americans, with much valor spent there, want Iraq to master its fissures. But with America in the second decade of its longest war, the probable Republican nominee is promising to extend it indefinitely.
Mitt Romney opposes negotiations with the Taliban while they are killing our soldiers. Which means: No negotiations until the war ends, when there will be nothing about which to negotiate. We dont, he says, negotiate from a position of weakness as we are pulling our troops out. That would mean stopping the drawdown of U.S. forces except Romney would not negotiate even from a position of strength: We should not negotiate with the Taliban. We should defeat the Taliban. How could that be achieved in a second decade of war? What metrics would establish defeat? Details to come, perhaps.
The U.S. defense budget is about 43 percent of the worlds total military spending more than the combined defense spending of the next 17 nations, many of which are U.S. allies. Are Republicans really going to warn voters that America will be imperiled if the defense budget is cut 8 percent from projections over the next decade? In 2017, defense spending would still be more than that of the next 10 countries combined.
Do Republicans think it is premature to withdraw as many as 7,000 troops from Europe two decades after the Soviet Unions death? About 73,000 will remain, most of them in prosperous, pacific, largely unarmed and utterly unthreatened Germany. Why do so many remain?
*snip*
More at the link
