His entire defense and foreign policy strategy is attacking Obama for being weak on defense. This will be forgotten a day after the election.Originally Posted by wiggin
His entire defense and foreign policy strategy is attacking Obama for being weak on defense. This will be forgotten a day after the election.
Hope is the denial of reality
YeahPlenty of Americans are living in a fantasy world, with a romanticism for the 1950's or 1980's, and fear of the future. I'd include Romney/Ryan in that category. It's a pretty easy political strategy, though....to paint our national defense as something waning against Commies like China.
It's all intertwined, but I do think that if we are going to spend 50% of the world's costs on defense, we might as well start enacting some damn tribute payments. Oh, other countries are letting us borrow our constantly depreciating currency for nothing? Sorry then, mission accomplished.
Quite. I do think there are some valid concerns about procurement of certain classes of ships - our new supercarrier class is wildly overbudget (though they are also developing a boatload of new technologies for it, which increases development risk/costs significantly), we have yet to develop a workable new class of destroyers, our LCS ships appear to be poorly protected and may be largely useless (not to mention pricey), and our plans to replace the aging fleet of 688-class attack subs is ridiculously expensive ($2.5 billion per boat for the Virginia class?). The only upside I can see for naval procurement is that newer classes of ships will probably be able to go for longer between refits (essentially increasing our effective strength; similar to increasing an aircraft's mission-ready rate) and they will be able to do the same tasks with fewer crewmen (greatly decreasing the personnel/variable costs).
I do think that plans to add laser weapons to large naval ships is wicked cool, though.
I don't think so. This has been a consistent position of his - particularly wrt naval procurement - for a very long time, way before the primaries (his book talks about investment in projection power as a central plank of his plan to restore American greatness or somesuch). I think some of his rhetoric is obviously intended as an idiotic swipe at Obama (bullshit like "we had 80-odd squadrons of planes in WWII and now only 30-odd! Oh noes" while ignoring that those 30-odd squadrons are infinitely more capable), no question, but I'm pretty sure he has every intention of trying to increase procurement and base personnel levels as outlined in his policies.
You think restoring America's greatness is anything but a gimmick? You think Romney actually cares about foreign policy? The guy is repeating the talking points of his foreign policy advisors, much like Obama was in 2008. He'll get far better help if elected.
Hope is the denial of reality
You read Romney's book? Did you pay for that?
I think that Obama's 'Audacity of Hope' and 'Change we can Believe In', while including plenty of election-winning nonsense, does give an insight into how he wanted to govern. I think that 'No Apology' does also. I have no idea what will get through Congress at the end of the day wrt defense spending - if, as seems likely, the Democrats hold a thin majority in the Senate, I doubt he'll be able to expand it as much as he'd like. Nevertheless, I do think he believes that a significant expansion in core DoD spending is a good idea.
Not all of it, and no. There's such a thing as a library. Regardless, most of it is just a regurgitation of other position papers he has, albeit put in slightly more readable form.You read Romney's book? Did you pay for that?
Both Obama and Romney had a track record before running for the presidency. I see no interest in foreign policy from either of them (it certainly explains Obama's inability to fully appreciate the nuances of diplomacy). It stands to reason that any foreign policy stuff mentioned in their books are meant to create a certain image of themselves. If you want to know what candidates care about, see what they emphasized before they started their campaigns. It's pretty clear that Romney is mainly concerned with the economy; look no further than his Massachusetts record.
Hope is the denial of reality
When was that for Romney? 2006?
Look I honestly don't know what will happen - this is just my impression. There's plenty of Romney bullshit he's said to get elected, and this just doesn't sound like it to me. *shrugs*
When he was governor, and when he was a CEO before that.
Where was his foreign policy interest as MA governor? Where was the foreign policy interest in the 2008 campaign? Where was the foreign policy interest in this campaign before Libya? Foreign policy isn't his strong point and he knows it. It's why he only sticks to a few simplistic talking points. I should also note that you didn't think this was a problem for Obama in '08.
Hope is the denial of reality
Neither of which will give you a clue about defense spending since that's not the job of a governor of CEO.
Also, does that mean that I should assume he won't try to repeal PPACA?
Obama has at least lived the last four years entrenched in the reality of foreign policy and IR, with a real record.
Romney's previous positions don't matter much, beyond his own ambitions. He's flipped on practically every issue since his run for governorship, then in the (R) primaries, and again for general election.
This third debate should be very interesting.
Plenty of governors dabble in foreign policy. He did not.Neither of which will give you a clue about defense spending since that's not the job of a governor of CEO.
Also, does that mean that I should assume he won't try to repeal PPACA?
His base would kill him if he didn't try, just like Obama had to try to close Guantanamo. Remind me what happened to the latter.
And yet you viewed Obama's lack of foreign policy experience as a positive in '08...
Hope is the denial of reality
I did not. I just didn't agree with McCain's foreign policy and hawkish military approach. Don't revise my opinions to fit yours, thank you very much.
I'm pretty sure you said his lack of experience was a good thing.
Hope is the denial of reality
Of course. Defense is one of the key parts of government I actually support. The whole idea of government is to keep us safe from internal and external threats. Wasteful spending on public transportation is pork. While defense can be pork at least it fulfills one of the core purposes of the government.
That being said... I'm actually in favor of some defense cuts. If we weren't in such a horrific debt crisis I might have a different opinion but right now we just can't afford to keep going like we are. Everything needs to be cut at least a little bit.
From the diary of Urho Kekkonen, translated by yours truly:
The public opinion in particular is I think poignant 50 years later. Lewkowski feels good (note: feels) about his country partly because he knows there are so many nuclear arms, so many ships, so many carriers, ready to answer his call. Noises have to be made to placate these feelings and desires. America is too big a nation to ever have learned the lessons of Paasikivi, and this is what you're left with. Hope you didn't want freeways or health care, bombs are what your fellow Americans are willing to pay for, nothing more.K(ennedy) seems like a very sensible and rational lad, knows what ought be done but cannot. The historical legacies (Berlin, Laos, etc.) are overwhelming for him, as are the general and press opinions of the USA. USA made her military pacts at a time when she had a strangle-hold on military issues, but now the tables are different and USA has advanced too far eg Laos and S-Vietnam. Cannot hold her positions, should get out, cannot, the whole system comes crashing down if backs down anywhere, and the national opinion won't stand for it either. Only here does one see the difficulty USA is in.
In the future, the Berlin wall will be a mile high, and made of steel. You too will be made to crawl, to lick children's blood from jackboots. There will be no creativity, only productivity. Instead of love there will be fear and distrust, instead of surrender there will be submission. Contact will be replaced with isolation, and joy with shame. Hope will cease to exist as a concept. The Earth will be covered with steel and concrete. There will be an electronic policeman in every head. Your children will be born in chains, live only to serve, and die in anguish and ignorance.
The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.
The "lesson" won't be a permanent one, but it's highly unlikely the US will occupy another country for the foreseeable future. There's too much resistance to the idea, even from the hawks. Remember that even Reagan didn't try to occupy anyone due to the legacy of Vietnam. It took nearly three decades from the end of Vietnam for the US to try to seriously occupy someone.
Hope is the denial of reality
Doesn't mean there won't be another Kosovo style action in Iran or elsewhere.
We could face whatever you want; there won't be any public support for an occupation.
Hope is the denial of reality
Kosovo wasn't an occupation.
It was, just not by the US.
Hope is the denial of reality
A question: does Romney have to take a very different position from Obama's in the matter of defense spending? I'd have thought the "do more with less but better tech" spin would sit well with most republicans as well as the undecided.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Well, he's getting attacked now for having a defense/foreign policy too similar to Obama's...
Hope is the denial of reality
Yeah but I thought that was only because some people imagine it's a bad thing to be seen as being similar to your opponent on any issue and that it may thus jeopardise his chances of winning; he could thumb his nose at the pundits and spin it in a more positive way.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
What would he gain from doing that?
Hope is the denial of reality
I guess that makes sense if you accept you have to spend every dollar you possibly can on defense. Do you know how much of GDP is spent on British military?
I think this hinges on how you define need, right? I think most Americans really like having a military that can spank any country we tangle with in the world, so we're happy to fund that with our tax dollars. But is that really what we are buying or do we have much more than that right now - like weapons systems we're never likely to use or intended for a style of warfare that just won't happen ever again? I recall a decade or so ago the idea of sizing our military to fight two smallish wars simultaneously, though I'm not sure that was intended to cover occupation/ nation building too. But do we need to be able to do that for defense?Defence needs are almost infinite since you're not just fighting today's battles but preparing for (and trying to avoid) tomorrows.
Sure but capable of finding a way to spend it isn't the same as needing it. Certainly the US military isn't just for defense, we use it to project power around the world to protect our national interests. And here we have another uncertain term - what are our national interests? Are the interests we protect really in the interests of our nation? That's a huge discussion all by itself I guess.The US could double its defence budget tomorrow and the Pentagon would find a way of spending it - and there'd probably be less soldier deaths in the next conflict as a result.
The Rules
Copper- behave toward others to elicit treatment you would like (the manipulative rule)
Gold- treat others how you would like them to treat you (the self regard rule)
Platinum - treat others the way they would like to be treated (the PC rule)
Yeah, its like saying Obama's doing a good job.... Differentiation is the key to election - what do we get by electing Romney that we don't currently get with Obama already? Romney should have come up with more ways to differentiate his policy from Obama's rather than agreeing so much.
The Rules
Copper- behave toward others to elicit treatment you would like (the manipulative rule)
Gold- treat others how you would like them to treat you (the self regard rule)
Platinum - treat others the way they would like to be treated (the PC rule)
Is there anyone in this country that's going to vote against Obama because of Obama's foreign policy?
Hope is the denial of reality
The Reagan administration appears to have been vastly more competant than the Bush Administration (not a difficult achievement, I know). I'm not sure you can fairly chalk it up to Vietnam syndrome. Not sure who the US might have occupied back then, but Reagan would not have gone out looking to make an example of a country the way the neocons thought they could with Iraq. The war of choice thing in Iraq was such a bad idea it boggles the mind - probably Afghanistan too though we'll never really know how that could have gone if it was handled better in the beginning. On the other hand both those wars went/ have gone much better than Vietnam did in every respect, excepting for the internal politics. If there is Vietnam syndrome, we've kicked it.
The Rules
Copper- behave toward others to elicit treatment you would like (the manipulative rule)
Gold- treat others how you would like them to treat you (the self regard rule)
Platinum - treat others the way they would like to be treated (the PC rule)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote