Perhaps a bit awed by the USAF fiasco[s]!? A truly decent person taken aback?

Perhaps ADM King said it best.……“When the goin’ gets tough, they call on the sonsabitches.”

A lot of diplomacy has been tried over the years…and almost all of it failed when the threats are real, and looney-tune leaders are involved. Ask Chamberlain…and every U.S. President who has tried to resolve the Israeli/Palestenian problem. Could we negotiate our way out of Iran closing the Straits of Hormuz after an Israeli attack?

Can we allow Iran to gain nukes because of the belief that MAD will work against religious zealots and terrorists who get a hold of the technology?

I’m all for using military forces for peaceful purposes. Almost all military equipment is dual use in some manner. But can’t recall too many instances where the CIA or State Department has pulled us out of a sticky situation…while plenty of history involved effective Western Armed Forces preventing us from having to learn German, Japanese, Chinese, or Russian.…

And just as now, counterinsurgency, the building of good will, and nation-rebuilding is occurring by versatile military leaders…so has it occurred in the past under the Marshall Plan and in Japan under MacArthur. Contrast that with the fiasco that occurred when we first achieved victory in Iraq and an Ambassador was in charge.….

We can’t afford this empire any longer. There are more useful things to do than antagonize the bear.

Bambooviper…good comeback for LHA3_Rusty’s comments. It is because we are a free nation we can practice our religion without interference or prosecution. That’s why the colonies were formed, and especially why no preference was given to a particular religion in our Constituion…

Provincial Reconstruction Teams in Afghanistan would have a tough time without military protection. India sent their own military forces to help protect Indian highway construction workers. For the longest time in Iraq, we had to guard infrastructure from Al Qaeda.

Look at the capture of Bosnian Serb Radovan Karadzic and recall not too many years ago the ethnic cleansing and sniper attacks going on in the Balkans. It’s just hard to fathom that Sec of Def Gates would feel that events like this would not require military forces, and that current “nation-building under fire” is an isolated incident. Can you imagine going into Darfur without military protection?

Military funding does not require assets just to be used for hostility. That is the whole basis for Army doctrine of Stability and Civil Support Operations being on an even emphasis with combat operations. Helicopters, planes, and warships are a natural fit for resupplying disaster victims and being able to do it in a quasi Martial Law environment, like for instance Haiti. Look at the recent events in former Burma where the despot regime would not let us in to help…and might have messed with aid workers if the big stick had not been on hand nearby.

Sure you could separate roles like Cyber Warfare from the military. Let the CIA/FBI etc do that instead of having multiple services involved. But don’t assume that the past 20 years are a footnote in history with Islamic fundamentalism as strong as ever, and the competition for resources heating up in the final decades of the Oil Era.

I recall a Michael Yon article where a Battalion Commander suddenly disarmed and arrested a corrupt Police Chief while his forces overwatched Iraqi police outside with superior firepower. Just can’t fathom that happening through diplomacy. Or would you rather have Blackwater creating more international incidents while protecting the State Department…

I agree the military is being abused in many ways, one of which is to compensate for the lack of basic intelligence (I’m talking IQ here) on the part of the so-called civilian “leadership”.

Gen. Smedley Butler said it best: “War is a racket”. And a damn profitable one to boot.

Anyway, do you agree with Gates or not?

Then ask why negroponte is director of national intelligence.

This is not what Eisenhower cautioned us against (he spoke against a growing military/industrial complex) although there are linkages to this problem. What Gates is warning us about is a continuous migration of roles and responsibilities from the State Dept to the Defense Dept. He’s exactly right in trying to reverse this trend. While the military is extremely competent when used appropriately, it’s not US-AID, and shouldn’t be used in this way.

This was a major concern of Dwight D. Eisenhower in his biography as well.

That being said what is the solution? How do we change course?

As a future Congressman to be voting against keeping thousands of jobs in my constituency through a military related contract does not lead to being reelected.

Personally, I would like to see a balance. A strong able (flexible) military force with a strong able (flexible) economy.

Simply, because our engagements for these Rogue Nations as discussed has to be a dual pronged approach.

I would (initially) recommend that military (domestic) manufacturing would aspire and be rewarded accordingly if they develop into both military and civilian (alternative energy) products in conjunction to one another.

I would think incentives or even a mandate that by date (example: 2015), 20 percent of military related manufacturing is producing alternative energy products (solar, wind, hydrogen, etc) could be something feasible.

Energy Security is a direct threat to our National Security so who else is better to take on the challenge then the Defense Establishment.

“Teamwork Wins Wars” Dwight D. Eisenhower 1944

Where is the human intelligence?