I just don't want to hear the full-throated whining that will most certainly emanate from the "international community" when we leave the region to it's destiny.

Same here. My guess is that many of the people in said "community" who are now criticizing the US mission there, will suddenly be shitting bricks when the Taliban gets into power if we ever decide to pack up and leave early.

If you make the decision to take on the AfPak mission (and we have), the answer is yes.

Our way of war entails the use of force-multiplier technologies and well-trained and compensated troops, the combination of which enables us to achieve very favorable kill-ratios (a critical metric in war) and eliminates the need for a large standing conscripted military.

If the determination is made that the AfPak "prize" is not worth the cost, I don't have a major problem with that. I just don't want to hear the full-throated whining that will most certainly emanate from the "international community" when we leave the region to it's destiny.

For obvious reasons, we can't do troops with any regularity in Pakistan. Predator is the best solution to the problem at hand, given the concerns and constraints under which the military operates.

Don't forget that the Predator is not a purpose designed strike platform; it does extremely cost-effective ISR, the mission for which it was designed and is principally employed.

"...(I)s the situation so desperate that a remote operator must take the instant decision and risk of killing another wedding party?"

The same mistake can be, and has been, made by pilots in manned aircraft. Your argument, I think, is really with the intel and targeting support which goes into the preparation of the strike missions.

I like the tech of the Predator, etc., but look at where it is being deployed: to one of the most remorte and poorest regions in the world. These are people who barely have two goats to rub together, on the other side of the world. Do we need a hundred billion dollar war machine directed at them? And is the situation so desperate that a remote operator must take the instant decision and risk of killing another wedding party?

Something has gone off the rails here.

Brett, did you set any limits to spending there?

Sure. You look at the possible commitment, then decide on a case-by-case basis whether or not it is worthwhile to spend the money to engage.

Now, if the only thing that the Predator did was fly strike missions ("blow up other people's houses") I might concede the point.

What the Predator actually does on most missions, provide commanders with persistent and relatively inexpensive (no at-risk aircrew, very fuel efficient) ISR, is conducted in a pretty cost efficient manner. Time-sensitive targeting and strike (when armed with Hellfires) is an added bonus.

The collateral damage problem is not inherent to the Predator per se, it is inherent to the strike mission area to which the Predators are tasked.

Fog, because we're doing the job non-Americans won't do protecting world?

Ohhhh...so now it is our responsibility to protect the whole world? Someone please tell me where that responsibility is written into the Constitution...

Anyway, if you can, find an instance where I complained about being the "world's policeman" when Democrats where doing it.

I do actually want somone who complains about us being world policeman, then and now. I want someone who sets limits.

I believe this article started out claiming that a 2% annual increase was necessary to maintain the military we have today. Where have I called for anything greater than this, much less a blank check for the military-industrial complex?

I never got the logic of that, as I say above, because "the military we have today" is fighting 1-2 unfunded wars ... part of that "world policeman" thing.

I was aware that they were on a ship when I wrote it, but I hoped that you would get what they were not on ... a strategic nuclear submarine, or a b2 bomber.

Do you think there is just one ship there? And that that ship doesn't have a very long logistics chain? And how do you think the riflemen got from wherever in the world they were to exactly there very, very quickly? You think you just charter a commercial jet to drop these guys into theater? You don't know how these riflemen got there. As it happens I do but to paraphrase Forrest Gump, that's all I have to say about that. Meanwhile you continue to embarrasss yourself about things you really don't seem to know very much about.

So basically you are making the same old argument, that if I want to be "safe" you need a blank check?

Do you always argue with "either agree with me or you must hold whatever extremist position I choose to give you?" I believe this article started out claiming that a 2% annual increase was necessary to maintain the military we have today. Where have I called for anything greater than this, much less a blank check for the military-industrial complex?

I just scanned back over this thread Charles, and looked for you to be setting any limits at all. I see none. Instead I see "protecting [the] world" .. what used to be called "world policeman" when Democrats where doing it.

I didn't know it was a requirement for me to read your mind in advance and come up with a limit to defense spending when I was responding to someone else's post regarding an issue that was something other than what the annual increase in the defense budget needs to be. Anyway, if you can, find an instance where I complained about being the "world's policeman" when Democrats where doing it. Try not to assign to me every opinion ever expressed by anyone who has disagreed with you.

Strawmen, false dichotomies, generalization, misattribution, you've really got quite a repertoire there.

Or is it "since we need to be off Somalia, we'll spend arbitrary amounts?"

Really you guys, we have been off Somalia for 100 years. That isn't where the money, the big bucks, goes.

Furthermore, while it’s reasonable to debate whether we need tanks or fighter aircraft to maintain our security, once we’ve decided that we do need them, we need to have companies that manufacture them and to have companies that manufacture them we’ve got to buy them. Or evaluate the security implications of purchasing them from foreign suppliers.

This is a really good point, Dave. One of the things I remember reading in a news article a while back was that the current amount of F-22s, plus the amount on the production line (which is now almost negligible), weren't enough to make it profitable for the manufacturer to keep the production lines open for the various spare parts they need.

What that means is that instead of having the parts made, a significant number of the planes will probably need to be cannibalized at some point to keep the rest in flight. Happy hunting.

In order to cut personnel and operations and maintenance we’ve got to do less, have fewer or smaller permanent overseas bases, and smaller standing forces.

That's tough to do. For one thing, neither party really has a strong commitment to avoiding conventional and unconventional military operations if at all possible. The Republicans generally support the war on terror, and having a military that can do "flexible response" (meaning that it can use a certain level of military force to match a certain level of situation); the Democrats, while more skeptical of getting into wars, generally want to have a force that can do lots of nice peacekeeping operations, which drives up personnel, maintenance, and operations costs.

You'd basically need a commitment on the part of the US government to not deploy its own military forces short of anything other than an all-out regional and/or global war in an area of interest, like if the Norks went crazy and attacked South Korea (some exceptions might be things like carrier patrols in East Asia, and so forth). I'm guessing that you'd have to attach that to a policy of relying heavily on regional partners in a specific arena up to the point where the US is forced to intervene. This is more difficult than it sounds - take the Middle East, for example, where Israel would probably be our regional partner.

I would like to hear someone in a position of authority explain to me why we need to spend as much money on defense as the rest of the world put together. And then explain to me why it's a good (or bad) investment. What's the mission, really?

The mission, basically, is to secure and promote American interests, while preventing the rise of major regional conflicts that could affect or harm American interests. "Offshore balancing" and all that.

Looking at the actual amount of spending is putting the cart before the horse - you need to look at US commitments first, then decide if they are worth spending the money to do them. The US is the largest economy in the world (representing 25-30% of the World GDP), and we have worldwide interests that affect the livelihoods and security of American citizens (for example, after Canada, our second largest trading partner is China - and after Canada and Mexico, Saudi Arabia is the third-largest source of our oil). You have to spend money to protect your interests there, and the US is better positioned than almost anyone to spend that kind of money.

Why do you think so much of the developed world is able to not spend so much on defense?

There are definitely a couple of cases where other countries' defense budgets would be much higher without the implicit and explicit protection guarantee from the US military. Just look at Europe, where defense spending averages something like 1% of the budget (versus 5% in the US). Japan might be another example, although they are a high spender on defense (although not as high in proportion to their budget as the US) - their spending would almost certainly rise drastically in the wake of US drawback, particularly in areas like the Navy. Same with Australia, I think.

You are embarrassing yourself with an answer like that. Do you have any idea what it took to get those riflemen into a position to do what they were trained to do to, in your words, solve a pirate problem?

Good point. People tend to under-estimate what it takes to have what the US more or less has right now - worldwide force projection capabilities. This is one of the reasons why the Chinese are still significantly weaker in a military sense compared to us - they have weak force projection, a relatively weak navy in most areas, and lack the infrastructure to do force projection on anything like the scale of the US.

Consider the Predator, a hopelessly expensive way to blow up other people's houses on the other side of the world. Is there any way to show that actually makes me safer?

It's a more effective way for bombing and surveillance of targets - and has the advantage of not risking a pilot's life.

It's all based on trust in secret actions, that the moral mathematics of X guilty and Y innocent killed will blow back, 20 years from now, in our favor.

We just solved a pirate problem, with a few well trained riflemen.

You are embarrassing yourself with an answer like that. Do you have any idea what it took to get those riflemen into a position to do what they were trained to do to, in your words, solve a pirate problem? Do you think you can do that without the worldwide assets necessary to project force the United States maintains now?

I was aware that they were on a ship when I wrote it, but I hoped that you would get what they were not on ... a strategic nuclear submarine, or a b2 bomber.

I prefer to have superior forces supplied with superior weapons and superior training when it comes to defense, not merely as much as the other guy has.

So basically you are making the same old argument, that if I want to be "safe" you need a blank check?

Come on, I'm asking what is necessary and you are making the lazy (and ridiculous) argument that it is whatever the military-industrial complex asks for.

I just scanned back over this thread Charles, and looked for you to be setting any limits at all. I see none. Instead I see "protecting [the] world" .. what used to be called "world policeman" when Democrats where doing it.

If we don't have big-spending foes, why does big-spending solve our problems?

I prefer to have superior forces supplied with superior weapons and superior training when it comes to defense, not merely as much as the other guy has.

We just solved a pirate problem, with a few well trained riflemen.

You are embarrassing yourself with an answer like that. Do you have any idea what it took to get those riflemen into a position to do what they were trained to do to, in your words, solve a pirate problem? Do you think you can do that without the worldwide assets necessary to project force the United States maintains now?

Really, my position is that other people's governments are other people's responsibility.

Sounds like some prime Pat Buchanan philosophy there.