Rather than going to other countries for troops (which are great, when available without excessive strings attached, but…), a radical restructing of our armed forces (army, mostly), would all us more flexibility in taking down and ‘occupying’ countries on our own.
The idea isn’t my own, but I can’t remember where I read it originally. Dunnigan, maybe? But a thumbnail sketch: you begin by stripping out all/most of the least used portions of the military: air defense (reduce, not eliminate), nuclear forces (reduce even further), and source as many civilian stateside jobs as possible to civilians. Take the savings, and roll them into Stryker brigades and special forces. Stryker brigades are medium unitsthat have a much higher proportion of engineers and civil affair troops, the sort you want when rebuilding/policing a country, and cost less to deploy than do heavy mechanized brigades.
You can’t get rid of the mechs, but you want to use those as little as possible. Leave them for the job at which they excel: Knocking them down. The mediums can go in and set them up after.
Basically: Start planning now for making occupations more efficient and effective. Sure, we can occupy with our current force structure, but it can never hurt to be more efficient. It would give us more flexibility in dealing with issues like, say, Iran.
(Probably not what Kimtsu had in mind, but anyday I can trigger the Apocalypse is a good one!)
P.S. We are doing the above right now, but the author was arguing for an accelerated rate of restructuring, and going even further in civilian outsourcing than we are currently doing.
:dubious: No, I think not. Kimstu was complaining that “We do not have a good, effective strategy—other than unilateral military aggression—for international humanitarian intervention in nations suffering under brutal regimes.” Got any ideas to contribute on that?
Brutus: *a radical restructing of our armed forces (army, mostly), would all us more flexibility in taking down and ‘occupying’ countries on our own. *
Which is precisely the option of “unilateral military aggression” that I wasn’t suggesting as a candidate for this thread. You’re right that this is much more a strictly American policy question, but it is definitely not one that we can agree upon, so quit hijacking my suggested topic, 'mkay?
What I was talking about was alternatives to that option, which as John notes is not a specifically American political issue. (Still seems to me at least as legitimate an issue for this thread as “the Middle East needs modernization”, but what do I know.)
Perhaps we shouild propose: Brazil, or South America, needs modernization. Is the average standard of living in the Middle East significanly worse than the average standard of living in South America?
Educational reform is desperately needed including higher standards for teachers entering the teaching profession and higher standards for students receiving high school diplomas.
Our country is badly in need of judicial and prison reform.
Brazil seems to be one of the few countries that is doing quite well modernizing itself, as well as gaining international standing due to a variety of things. Hopefully, they will use this for the good of stabilizing the governments of the surrounding South American nations.
I’m frankly more concerned about Africa and ME/Central Asia than elsewhere. ME/CA have very shallow economies reliant on one (sometimes 2) industries that are largely owned and operated by foreign investors. Africa is even worse off.
Then you have China and India, which we need to drastically redefine our relations with, because both are growing rapidly in population and industry (Brazil is the third in this trio, but I already talked about it). These countries are going to be the next to explore space and formulate deeper nuclear strategies while “going global.” India is the larger threat, with a large Muslim population and ties to Iran against Pakistan, which is tied to Bush, which makes for a nice nuclear standoff.
Basically, I think we can all agree that US foreign policy needs to shift from “we are the superpower and you will live with that” to a bit more of a humble position at the table when dealing with other countries, and especially in making friends in the developing world. We’ve thus far been working AGAINST these goals with the Bush Admin, but that is not a topic for this thread.
Sure. Get the UNSC to agree to agressively intervene. BWAHAHAHAHAHAH! I will then gladly donate the monkeys that will fly out of my ass when that happens.
First, drop the ‘unilateral’ bit. We have not acted ‘unilateraly’ since perhaps Panama or Grenada. Second, I misread Kimstu’s post.
What you’re saying is that basically you think everyone can agree with the left’s position on foreign policy. What we’re trying to discover here, are things that BOTH sides can agree on. I’m not necessarily saying I disagree with your statement, but it’s pretty naive to think that our friends here on the right will agree with you.
Man, the irenic nature of this thread is starting to crack a little round the edges, huh? It’s interesting to come up with statements that we all pretty much agree on, but it’s just so tempting to start debating the side issues that we don’t.
Higher standards for students (especially high school grads) is what we need to work towards, but it’s important not to lose sight of the fact that we are aiming toward universal education.
Subsequently, any gloomy comparisons of test results from 1910 (when most ‘problem students’ were steered into trades and jobs by their early teens) are from a different playing field. (The same demographics apply to teachers: grade school teachers do not need to understand differential equations, Latin and queueing theory).
I completely agree that our judicial and prison system are in need of reform, but I’m not sure that’s defined enough for 80% to say we agree.
Here’s one I ain’t seen yet: we (USA) need an to put together an adequate vocational educational system.
Perhaps… I suspect that 80% of us have got this inner working that defines “smart” as anyone who’s wise enough to agree with us, and “unbelievably gullible” (or worse) as anyone who’s not.
I’d stick to basics, like “ignorance is bad.” Anyone disagree?
I, personally, agree with this statement. But I’m not sure about whether we can say we’ve got a consensus on the issue because it seems that historically the first 2 things that have been tried have been sanctions against the brutal regime and humanitarian aid to the needy (See e.g. Iraq, South Africa, the Balkans).
My (hopeful) additions –
In times of peace and prosperity, the government should not run a budget deficit.
Improving an individual’s education is one way to reduce the chances that that individual will turn to crime.
Both sides of American politics need to dial back the partisanship.
The prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib was terrible, and the government and military should take steps to ensure it never happens again.
One of the problems of American politics and international affairs is it has a hard time differentiating between ‘making good use of modern technology and social developments’ and ‘being modern, just like America’. Whether they are one and the same thing is very much a matter of opinion, even among “smart people”
And is it universally accepted by “most smart people” that everything modern is naturally an improvement?
