# Obama's Defense Policy



## tomahawk6 (13 Jun 2008)

http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/06/post_17.html

Barack Obama's defense policy plans threaten foreign policy consequences inimical to American interests, and would pose perilous problems for some of our key allies around the world, should he assume the Presidency.


Senator Obama has made quite clear that he intends to eviscerate our most advanced defense programs. In a message to Caucus 4 Priorities, a liberal pacifist organization, (available on YouTube), the Senator called for major cuts in defense spending, for slowing or suspending the development of future combat systems, for the abolition of spending on the "weaponizing of space" ("Star Wars") and the slashing of investment in our ballistic missile defense program. More broadly he promised to support the group's policies. These include: 


reducing the National Missile Defense program to a basic research program; cutting spending on platforms like the F-22 Raptor, the Virginia-class Submarine, the V-22 Osprey airplane/helicopter hybrid, the DDG-1000 destroyer, and the Army's Future Combat System. Also, the group advocates reducing America's force structure by eliminating two Air Force fighter wings and one aircraft carrier battle-group.


These savings would be spent on a variety of programs favored by Democratic special interest groups. These calls have been recently echoed by two other influential liberal groups that have called for him to cut support for defense programs  


While the desire to Beat Swords into Plowshares is an age old dream rooted in the Bible, the world remains a dangerous place, particularly in an era of a resurgent Russia and China, an Iran on the verge of becoming a nuclear power, the North Korean nuclear program, the Pakistani nuclear bazaar, the weakening of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, and threats of worldwide terrorism. These realities seem to escape many supporters of Barack Obama and the candidate himself.


Barack Obama styles himself a foreign policy expert, yet he has again failed another history lesson (other examples can be found). His plans reveal a naïve view of how the world works and the tools of foreign policy.  They do not bode well for protecting America's foreign policy interests should he become President.


By signaling his intention to unilaterally halt development of advanced defense systems he will reduce our bargaining strength against our adversaries while gaining absolutely nothing, geopolitically speaking, from them. Our defense programs are inextricably linked to our diplomacy -- a lesson that Barack Obama seems never to have learned.


Reductions in our defense programs were bargained for during the Nixon era (SALT I, SALT II) and were a prime instrument that led to détente; conversely, Jimmy Carter's apathetic attitudes toward defense spending and technology encouraged Soviet aggression throughout the world (Africa, Afghanistan). Ronald Reagan's defense buildup and the threat of developing his often-derided Star Wars program (to defend America from nuclear missiles) were deliberately designed -- we subsequently learned -- to bankrupt the Soviet Union and lead to its demise. Indeed, the Soviet leaders were so anxiety-ridden about Star Wars that it ushered in changes within their government that brought about the collapse of the Communist dictatorship and the freeing of millions of East European nations from Soviet hegemony. Star Wars was an effective weapon even before it was developed, as its mere prospect helped to bring millions their freedom.  


That is the best sort of weapon: one that remains sheathed while winning  victory. Nixon and Reagan offer two prominent examples of the relationship between our defense programs and our foreign policy, and how defense plans can be used to promote the foreign policy objectives of America. 


How might Obama's bargaining strategy play out now? China and Russia are both massively increasing their defense budgets and adopting more aggressive policies (Russia's approach towards Georgia and Ukraine). Iran has stepped up its nuclear programs. Slashing such programs as ballistic missile defense would be an open invitation to Iran, in particular, to continue its aggressiveness. Barack Obama uses the agitprop like word "weaponizing of space" to refer to using satellites to defend our nation and our allies from nuclear missiles. 


A failure to understand the ties between defense policy and diplomacy is a fundamental flaw in a potential commander-in-chief.


Beyond these considerations are there other risks to such a unilaterally slashing of our defense programs (especially the most technologically advanced systems)? Yes.


Defense sales are a key to building alliances that serve American interests. Weapons exports and licensing can often be used to help strengthen our allies and used as leverage with nations that may follow policies contrary to our interests. Nations such as South Korea, Taiwan, and Israel face threats arrayed against them that are overwhelming and that constitute existential threats. The qualitative edge that leading edge weapons provide them compensates for quantitative advantages enjoyed by their potential adversaries. In this manner, supplying advanced weapons serves as a deterrent that reduces the risk of war. 


Last year, for example, Israel took advantage of technology (undoubtedly enriched by American technology transfer) that allowed it to evade Russian-supplied Syrian radar to destroy a Syrian nuclear facility (built with North Korean and Iranian help) that was close to going "hot".  Senator Obama has voted against the production of cluster bombs -- advanced versions of which are supplied to Israel to deter massed attacks from infantry or terrorists (a sadly necessary tool on her arsenal given the relatively small size of her army relative to those of her enemies; a type of cluster bomb is widely used, by the way, by Israel's adversaries). Our ally also benefits from having access to American satellite and early warning systems (the "Eye in the Sky") that keep a perpetually wary eye on Iran and other enemies that surround Israel. 


The advanced capabilities of the Arrow antiballistic missile that could protect America, our European allies, and Israel from Iranian nuclear attack, are precisely due to the type of programs that Barack Obama promises to halt. Recent news reports indicate that Israel might be able to receive the newest jet fighter in the American fleet-the F-22 Raptor that utilizes advanced stealth technology that would allow it to fly an undetectable route to Iran -- a legitimate goal given Iran's pledge to destroy Israel and its designation as the number one terror-supporting nation in the world (with sway over  Hezb'allah and Hamas). Yet Senator Obama appears to have that program on the chopping block, too.


These plans to slash the development of leading edge defense technology are very hard to square with Senator Obama's recent campaign pledge before a pro-Israel crowd to maintain Israel's "qualitative edge" in the region. Former Israeli Ambassador to America Danny Ayalon has noted that Barack Obama's pledge is suspect. He wrote: 


"As far as Israel is concerned, Obama has yet to suggest specific measures he would enact regarding the Jewish State's Qualitative Military Edge that allows us to defend ourselves against our current and future enemies. Given the increasingly tense security environment Israel is confronting on all sides, now is not the time for American leaders to shy away from such fundamental questions. The four years ahead are far too critical for global security to place the presidency of the United States in the hands of a leader whose campaign is leaving us with more questions than answers." 


Ambassador Ayalon presaged concerns expressed about Senator Obama's advisers, particularly Samantha Power, who advocated the ending of all military aid to Israel; chief military adviser and campaign co-chair "Tony" McPeak, who places the blame on Israel for problems in the region ; and his nuclear adviser Joseph Cirincione who seeks to strip Israel of its rumored nuclear deterrent (the threat which helped save Israel in the 1973 War) .


This contradiction is not an anomaly. One day Barack Obama can dismiss Iran as a threat; the next day, before a different crowd, he can call it a grave danger. He promises to maintain the qualitative military edge that our ally enjoys over its potential adversaries, but then endorsing policies and making promises to gut the very programs that ensure that edge. We all may as well get used to the phrase "there you go again".


Access to advanced American defense equipment is also a big carrot to influence foreign governments that are not close allies, as well. Egypt signed a peace agreement with Israel in 1979. A cold peace has existed, with its ups and downs. But a key lever that has been used to influence Egyptian behavior has been arm sales. Indeed, disappointment with the quality and technological sophistication of some of the Soviet weapons led the Egyptians to seek American arms. Similar arms deals have been made with numerous Arab nations that have helped them resist Iranian (and before that Iraqi) hegemony. Our access to a naval base in Bahrain is key to projecting American power in the region. AWACS planes sold to Saudi Arabia were later employed in the successful effort to force Saddam Hussein from Kuwait.


A little-appreciated fringe benefit behind the sales of advanced equipment is not just the personal alliances that may develop but also a dependency relationship that develops between those nations and America. As these nations convert their arsenals to American equipment (as opposed to Russian or Chinese equipment -- they prefer top of the line, advanced equipment, the kind President Obama would slash), it gives America leverage should potential war break out in the region. Wars use up equipment, spare parts, ammunition at a rapid clip.* If nations such as Egypt (whose forces have converted from Russian to American weapons) go to war, America can facilitate peace by threatening to hold up resupply efforts. We see a civilian application of this dynamic with Iranian airlines: their fleets were to a great extent American-made. Our supply of spare parts was a lever that had been used up to 2006. . The dependency of Egypt on US military supplies makes war less likely between that nation and Israel. 


Should America step back from developing these leading defense technologies, Russia and China would step forward to supply these nations.** They would enjoy foreign policy benefits that would otherwise have accrued to America. As we have seen regarding their sales to Syria and Iran, their foreign policies serve their interests and not America's interests.


While this may not go down well with Barack Obama's leftist pals in Hyde Park and with Pastor Jeremiah Wright, Jr. (in Barack Obama's words, his "sounding board", "moral compass" and "confidant"), defense programs and related sales are inextricably intertwined in the real world with our foreign policy objectives. These programs help to secure America and our allies from hostile forces; help to cement alliances; and help to preserve a Pax Americana (the qualitative edge that derive from advanced defense technology serve as a deterrence to violence and to war) that is key to international order. 


They are a vital tool in our foreign policy toolkit. Franklin Delano Roosevelt looked upon America as an "arsenal of democracy". 


Will we remain so after President Obama goes to work on our defense programs?


Barack Obama's failure to appreciate the importance of defense research and development in serving American foreign policy goals and understand the implications of his plans are yet another reason to have qualms regarding his readiness to serve as Commander-in-Chief. 

* Indeed, had America not had a vast inventory to draw upon, she would not have been able to supply Israel with weapons as it faced destruction in 1973. A massive airlift ordered by Richard Nixon saved Israel. Barack Obama defense plans would clearly not include any such "buffer".

** A pause in such programs would set back America's efforts to maintain our technological superiority in the future to meet risks. 

Ed Lasky is news editor of American Thinker.


----------



## GAP (14 Jun 2008)

That's the equivalent of the NDP (aka: Not Destined for Power) becoming the government in Canada, with the exception that O'Bamma has a realistic chance of being president......Jack Layton....never


----------



## CougarKing (14 Jun 2008)

GAP said:
			
		

> That's the equivalent of the NDP (aka: Not Destined for Power) becoming the government in Canada, with the exception that O'Bamma has a realistic chance of being president......Jack Layton....never



You should never say never. CNN places Obama's current lead in the polls as 48% vs. McCain's 43%, but of course you'd always take CNN with a grain of salt. We'll see come November.


----------



## adaminc (14 Jun 2008)

I personally don't think that space should be weaponized. In that they shouldn't have actual weapons in space. Tracking Systems sure, but not actual weapons. However, if someone else puts weapons up there, the only choice would be to respond with equal or superior space weapons, because knocking other peoples space weapons out of space would probably start some sort of war.

I also think that the US should cut back on it's defense spending, not by cutting programs, but by closing some of it's ~737+ Foreign Military bases. Unless you have some imperialistic intentions, there is no need for so many bases not on your own soil. Don't get me wrong, it's good to have some in "hot zones". But I mean, Greenland? Spain and Portugal? The Philippines and Guam? Cuba? Bahrain and Turkey? Why do they have some of these bases so close to each other? Seems illogical to me. But who am I to talk about foreign policy, I have only been around 25 years, and I don't know the intricacies of why some of these bases exist. But it does seem like overkill, almost imperialistic conquest of sorts without the actual conquest of nations.

I know I will probably be verbally attacked for saying this, but they should also cut funding to Israel. I mean, the US gives Israel billions of dollars, then Israel uses that money to buy weapons, why can't they use their own money?

I'll stop ranting now before I say something I regret.


----------



## JasonSkald (14 Jun 2008)

adaminc, I don't think you're ranting at all. The hard truth is that government spending in the United States is out of control - if either Obama or McCain want to balance the budget and put America back on the path to fiscal sanity, spending cuts are going to be required, and America's bloated defence budget is inevitably going to be first in line. With both candidates promising further tax cuts (even when the country is already running massive deficits!), increased revenue certainly isn't going to solve the problem.


----------



## observor 69 (14 Jun 2008)

NEW YORK TIMES

June 14, 2008
Editorial
A Moment of Clarity in Baghdad 
The disconnect between Washington’s stay-the-course Republicans — President Bush and Senator John McCain, in particular — and the Iraqi government has grown too wide to ignore. As the administration pushes for a legal agreement to extend the American military presence in Iraq, the Iraqis are pushing back. That is a positive sign.

The United Nations resolution authorizing the American role in Iraq expires at the end of this year. Since December, the two governments have been quietly negotiating their own deal.

Despite the importance of this issue, the White House is refusing to divulge details of its position. But according to Iraqi leaders, who went public with their complaints this week, Washington has been insisting on keeping more than 50 long-term bases in Iraq. The Iraqis also say that Washington is insisting that American forces have a free hand in launching military operations when and wherever they want.

If true — and a lot of this sounds disturbingly plausible — the Iraqis are right to object, and so should Congress and the American public. 

These steps appear calculated to keep American troops in Iraq indefinitely — exactly the wrong course for both countries. Any talk of long-term basing rights, in particular, will only feed popular resentments. And the suggestion that America is prepared to continue the war indefinitely will, once again, relieve Iraq’s leaders of any pressure to take responsibility for their own security or their political future. 

President Bush has made clear that he plans to keep American troops in Iraq for as long as he is in office. But this deal appears to be an especially cynical attempt to tie his successor to his failed Iraq policy. 

Oddly, by pushing so hard, Mr. Bush may achieve that which seemed impossible: unity among Iraq’s disparate ethnic and political groups. But the last thing the United States needs is another country held together by its fury with the United States.

Like Mr. Bush, Senator McCain is clearly not listening to the Iraqis any more than he is listening to the American people. 

When asked on NBC’s “Today” show this week if he knew when American troops could start retuning home, he replied: “No, but that’s not too important. What’s important is the casualties in Iraq.”

His preference for a never-ending military deployment is also well known, but his words must have stung all those service members and their families, who have endured three and even four tours in Iraq. 

It is anyone’s guess how Mr. McCain would continue to pay the multibillion-dollar bill for the war (Mr. Bush has borrowed tremendously from future generations) or deal with the other security challenges facing the United States, including the resurgence of Al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan.

What makes this all the more confusing is that in recent months there has been some tentative progress in Iraq. American and Iraqi casualties have declined, and there are signs that the central government is beginning to assert its authority against Shiite militias in Basra and Sadr City and against allies of Al Qaeda in Mosul. Mr. Bush and Mr. McCain cannot have it both ways: insisting that American troops must stay if things go badly, and that they must stay if they go well. 

Mr. Bush should start preparing now for an orderly withdrawal — and for a strategic review of America’s relationship with Iraq. Since he stubbornly refuses to do that, he should negotiate an extension of the United Nations mandate and leave any deal on future American-Iraqi relations to his successor. 

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/14/opinion/14sat1.html?hp=&pagewanted=print


----------



## GAP (14 Jun 2008)

The New York Times is not exactly the paradime of virtue and unbiased reporting I would be basing my judgements on......


----------



## a_majoor (14 Jun 2008)

adaminc said:
			
		

> I personally don't think that space should be weaponized. In that they shouldn't have actual weapons in space. Tracking Systems sure, but not actual weapons. However, if someone else puts weapons up there, the only choice would be to respond with equal or superior space weapons, because knocking other peoples space weapons out of space would probably start some sort of war.



You've missed the boat on this one by a wide margin. The former USSR launched and tested many sorts of space weapons, from space stations armed with automatic cannon adapted from fighter planes to ASAT weapons with considerably more range than anything the Americans or Chinese have tested to date. The USSR also tested nuclear delivery systems in orbit, and unconventional ICBM's which passed over the south pole to attack North America from the undefended flank. As the successor state, Russia still has access to these sorts of capabilities.



> I also think that the US should cut back on it's defense spending, not by cutting programs, but by closing some of it's ~737+ Foreign Military bases. Unless you have some imperialistic intentions, there is no need for so many bases not on your own soil. Don't get me wrong, it's good to have some in "hot zones". But I mean, Greenland? Spain and Portugal? The Philippines and Guam? Cuba? Bahrain and Turkey? Why do they have some of these bases so close to each other? Seems illogical to me. But who am I to talk about foreign policy, I have only been around 25 years, and I don't know the intricacies of why some of these bases exist. But it does seem like overkill, almost imperialistic conquest of sorts without the actual conquest of nations.



Many of these bases were created in WWII or the early post war period. Short ranged aircraft needed emergency landing and fueling facilities, and early radar and electronic listening posts had to be able to "see" their targets prior to the introduction of satellites. Operating and maintaining these bases is now mostly in the realm of political and bureaucratic power struggles; if you close this base; General "x" loses budget, promotion prospects and perques, especially in relation to General "y"...Congressman "b" also loses a chance to say he is bringing home the bacon to his state (or contractors and companies in that state). Politics will trump policy, and a Democratic administration will not disturb the status quo in order to maintain political power.



> I know I will probably be verbally attacked for saying this, but they should also cut funding to Israel. I mean, the US gives Israel billions of dollars, then Israel uses that money to buy weapons, why can't they use their own money?



I suppose if you were surrounded by deadly enemies who were sworn to kill you, you would turn down offers of help because you can "use your own money"?


----------



## evil drunken-fool (14 Jun 2008)

I have to admit, this is the first time I have read this much on Obama's defense policy, and to tell you the truth, I am a bit disappointed.  I thought their would be some cutbacks, but it seems to me from reading this that he means to go all out.  Anyway, I will take this with a grain of salt.
The unfortunate part for McCain and the Republicans is that a continuation of the Bush economic policy is probably not for the best, and the foreign policy and defense strategies will follow 2nd behind economic factors in deciding the election.
That said, I am not a huge fan of some of Obama's plans for the economy either, I think they go too far.  My thoughts are it is one of those elections you really wish you had a more central candidate.
I'm just glad I don't have to vote.


----------



## TrexLink (14 Jun 2008)

Keep in mind that the Senator was not speaking to a VFW luncheon or the workers at General Dynamics...


----------



## adaminc (14 Jun 2008)

Thucydides, when it comes to Israel, the US could still help if Israel asked, but the US doesn't have to keep constantly funding them. The least the US could do is stop aid until they stop the occupation of Gaza, the West Bank, and East Jerusalem. Also to force Israel to start treating the Palestinian people like humans and not 2nd class citizens.

Israel gets at least 1/3 of the US Foreign Aid, why? Why do they deserve it anymore than Sudan? Congo? Sumatra? Myanmar? More than likely it is political corruption, stemming from AIPAC.

Israel has a treaty with Egypt and Jordan. If the US stopped aid to Israel, but "vowed" to help out if anyone attacked Israel, I am sure this treaty would hold. As for Iran, I have only ever seen them threaten Israel in self-defense, or when Israel has threatened one of their allies (Syria or Lebanon). But you have to remember that Iran, when talking about attacking Israel, doesn't seem to have a problem with Israel as a state itself, but with the current ruling "Zionist regime". Along with all the saber rattling that Israel does, which I admit is necessary considering where they are located and their current situation. I am also sure that as soon as occupation of Gaza and the West Bank stops, Iran will lighten up .

I have been trying to keep this out of religion as much as possible, but when it comes down to it, I believe that is why the Jewish Israeli's are occupying Gaza, the West Bank and East Jerusalem. Because they have an ancient book that says that they are Yahweh's chosen people, and this is the land Yahweh gave to them. There is also the flip-side where the Arab Israeli's think it is their sacred land as well. Such a mess. This is why politics and the military need to be strictly secular.


----------



## tomahawk6 (14 Jun 2008)

You may not want to discuss religion but our way of life and culture is under attack at home and abroad. Muslim immigrants are demanding that their host country bend to their religion. Everytime we give in is a steady erosion of what makes our culture what it is.If they want to live in the west then they must accomodate the laws and culture of their host country or else I see a time when the muslim citizens are forcibly expelled from the west.


----------



## OldSolduer (14 Jun 2008)

Before we all go off on a tangent, just remember that Obama can say anything he wants to get elected, BUT, once he is the President of the USA, he will find it very difficult to keep all the promises he made. The President of the USA is not as powerful as we all think. 
Watch and shoot on this one.....he may not be able to stop anything. Congress has a lot to say about spending.


----------



## tomahawk6 (14 Jun 2008)

Obama may well have large majorities in both houses of Congress and together they can pass anything they like.


----------



## observor 69 (15 Jun 2008)

And now for a change some facts, not rumour, not innuendo:

FIGHT THE SMEAR  http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/factcheckactioncenter/

OBAMA HOME PAGE  http://www.barackobama.com/index.php


----------



## tomahawk6 (15 Jun 2008)

Obama has been pretty open about the policies he plans to pursue I think he actually believes that most Americans will vote for him because they want socialism. Time will tell.


----------



## lone bugler (15 Jun 2008)

a socialist America, em wait, that's just canada ;D


----------



## Kilo_302 (16 Jun 2008)

The Obama alarmists have their own agenda, that much should be clear. I will agree with other posters on this thread, that no matter who becomes President, life in America, as well as fundamental US foreign policy will not change. At this juncture, thats definitely unfortunate on both counts.


----------



## tomahawk6 (16 Jun 2008)

I am not an Obama alarmist,rather I feel that his policy positions are alarming. His association with weather underground terrorists and arab terrorist frontmen are alarming.His former black liberation church is alarming.His lack of experience is alarming.I am a fair open minded guy who is a conservative on most issues and if the democrats ever nominate another JFK or Truman I might vote democrat. Unfortunately the left wing of the democrat party has taken control of the national party. They wont get elected unless they go back to the center like Clinton was able to do.


----------



## FastEddy (20 Jun 2008)

What I would be interested in , is why your bothering or considering to join the Armed Forces.

Personally, I think you'd be better suited to some Prisoner Rights Group or something.


----------



## TrexLink (20 Jun 2008)

Again, Obama is on the stump.  He, like any other politician, speaks to the audience at hand. The Senator was speaking to a peace group, almost certainly with the intent of getting their support. Given that, did anybody think he was going to push for _more_ military spending?   Further, The American Thinker, which published the piece that started this thread off, is hardly one could call completely unbiased. We need to balance that off against what he says when he is speaking to veterans' groups or union workers at a company with regular defence contracts.

I am, I must confess, rather surprised at some of the personal cheapshots being taken here.  With the exception of support to Israel, I can agree with much of what adamic said. There is a lot of waste, a lot of duplication in their military. Much of their base and equipment spending is politically-driven vice militarily-requirement (LSVW, anyone?). Reducing waste does not automatically mean eviscerating _capability_. Indeed, it can, if done properly, lead to a better capability as some of the saved money can be used for useful projects.

So far as Obama goes, Democrats (particularly when seeking office) have historically been willing to talk cuts, but their support for the US military and navy has generally been pretty good.


----------



## OldSolduer (20 Jun 2008)

I confess all I hear from Obama is "change" "hope" "future of America" and not much else.

All cheescake and no vegetables.


----------



## George Wallace (20 Jun 2008)

TrexLink said:
			
		

> .........  With the exception of support to Israel, I can agree with much of what adamic said. There is a lot of waste, a lot of duplication in their military. Much of their base and equipment spending is politically-driven vice militarily-requirement (LSVW, anyone?). ........




 ???

LSVW ?


----------



## OldSolduer (20 Jun 2008)

LSVW aka Loud Squeaky Vehicle Wheeled.


----------



## George Wallace (20 Jun 2008)

OldSolduer said:
			
		

> LSVW aka Loud Squeaky Vehicle Wheeled.



Still doesn't explain how that has any relation to United States Defence procurement.


----------



## TrexLink (20 Jun 2008)

LSVW = Light Support Vehicle Wheeled.  A replacement for a 5/4Ton pickup truck purchased some years ago.  The selection process was.... interesting and I cannot speak more to that (perhaps others might want to). Of note is that the only other military to adopt it was the Italian Air Force.  It had a charming habit of catching fire, just sitting there with the engine off, which took three fleet-wide modifications to cure.  It has very short range, very little legroom for tall soldiers, is very noisy inside and came with steel-on-steel brakes that squealed very loudly whenever they were applied.  To say it is unpopular would be an understatement.


----------



## George Wallace (20 Jun 2008)

TrexLink said:
			
		

> LSVW = Light Support Vehicle Wheeled.  A replacement for a 5/4Ton pickup truck purchased some years ago.  The selection process was.... interesting and I cannot speak more to that (perhaps others might want to). Of note is that the only other military to adopt it was the Italian Air Force.  It had a charming habit of catching fire, just sitting there with the engine off, which took three fleet-wide modifications to cure.  It has very short range, very little legroom for tall soldiers, is very noisy inside and came with steel-on-steel brakes that squealed very loudly whenever they were applied.  To say it is unpopular would be an understatement.



I am quite familiar with the LSVW, the Canadianized version of the Italian Iveco, which is the Italian version of an excellent German vehicle the Unimog.

I still don't understand what this has to do with the American Military Procurement program.


----------



## Edward Campbell (20 Jun 2008)

If the comment is about the _"squeaky wheel getting the grease"_ then I understand and support it. In my experience the only military procurement system more riddled with mind numbing incompetence, unnecessary complexity, political pork-barrelling, bureaucratic infighting and downright graft and corruption than Canada's was that of he USA.

In the US the _squeaky wheels_ in the congress ensure that there is plenty of grease for their constituents - thanks to the US defence budget.


----------



## TrexLink (20 Jun 2008)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> I still don't understand what this has to do with the American Military Procurement program.


Given a number of things, I would prefer that somebody else explains the LSVW purchasing process. It's quite a story.


----------



## tomahawk6 (20 Jun 2008)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> If the comment is about the _"squeaky wheel getting the grease"_ then I understand and support it. In my experience the only military procurement system more riddled with mind numbing incompetence, unnecessary complexity, political pork-barrelling, bureaucratic infighting and downright graft and corruption than Canada's was that of he USA.
> 
> In the US the _squeaky wheels_ in the congress ensure that there is plenty of grease for their constituents - thanks to the US defence budget.



While off topic you are probably on track with regard to shaddy procurement practices.There is some discussion that the recent firing of the top USAF leadership may have been over the tanker contract as some evidence is emerging that the USAF may have slanted the bid toward Airbus. Who knows ?


----------



## CougarKing (4 Jul 2008)

So is Obama really just flip-flopping on this issue? Or is this another sign that he is just another typical politician according to the McCain camp or is this another sign that he has moved further to the center? Such a major policy change proposed by Obama might not sit well with the anti-Iraq war voters who form the core of his base. 

Still some of his advocates say that Obama will still increase the number of US troops in the Afghanistan even if he is not as eager to continue the war in Iraq.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25519279/



> *Obama opens door to altering his Iraq policy
> Democrat says coming trip could change his troop withdrawal plan
> The Associated Press
> updated 3:58 p.m. PT, Thurs., July. 3, 2008
> ...


----------



## aesop081 (4 Jul 2008)

adaminc said:
			
		

> Guam?



Guam being a US possesion, its natural that a US military facility exist there. I am puzzled as to why you would bring this base into your argument.



			
				adaminc said:
			
		

> Greenland?



If you had ever been there, you might understand why it exists.



> Spain



 NAVSTA Rota isnt what it used to be and Torejon AB has been closed for years



> The Philippines



Clarke AFB and The Subic Bay Naval base were burried in Ash......so "closed"



> Portugal ?



If you are refering to NAF Lajes / Lajes AB well...i for one am glad its there.



> Bahrain



Humm...think about that one long and hard.........



> Turkey?



NATO.........and close to Iraq 



> Why do they have some of these bases so close to each other?



Politics combined with strategic  posture .



> Seems illogical to me.



Thats why you are not in charge of US defense policy

You will also note that the US has also rationalized its facilities facilities in some countries (the UK and Germany for example) and closed others completely (Iceland's Keflavik NAS).





> I'll stop ranting now before I say something I regret.



Too late


----------



## RangerRay (5 Jul 2008)

adaminc said:
			
		

> The least the US could do is stop aid until they stop the occupation of Gaza, the West Bank, and East Jerusalem.



Last I heard, Israel no longer "occupied"  Gaza.  I'm unsure of the West Bank...



> Also to force Israel to start treating the Palestinian people like humans and not 2nd class citizens.



They may do that when the Palestinians stop killing their citizens.



> Israel gets at least 1/3 of the US Foreign Aid, why? Why do they deserve it anymore than Sudan? Congo? Sumatra? Myanmar? More than likely it is political corruption, stemming from AIPAC.



Israel is a liberal democracy.  The others aren't.



> As for Iran, I have only ever seen them threaten Israel in self-defense, or when Israel has threatened one of their allies (Syria or Lebanon).



When has Israel ever threatened to invade Iran?  There are a few hostile nations between the two.  Up until recently, Lebanon was a Syrian puppet state (though Syrian influence in Lebanon remains high).  Hezbollah in Lebanon wages war on Israel by proxy for Iran.



> But you have to remember that Iran, when talking about attacking Israel, doesn't seem to have a problem with Israel as a state itself, but with the current ruling "Zionist regime".



Do you even know what "Zionist" means?  The Israeli government has been "Zionist" since it's inception.  You say "Zionist" like it's a dirty word.



> Along with all the saber rattling that Israel does, which I admit is necessary considering where they are located and their current situation. I am also sure that as soon as occupation of Gaza and the West Bank stops, Iran will lighten up .



As long as President I'm-A-Dinner-Jacket and the mad mullah's are in charge, I doubt it.


----------



## CougarKing (6 Jul 2008)

Interesting...



> *Obama calls on Americans to enlist*
> 
> Wednesday Jul 2, 2008
> 
> ...


----------



## Greymatters (6 Jul 2008)

RangerRay said:
			
		

> Do you even know what "Zionist" means?  The Israeli government has been "Zionist" since it's inception.  You say "Zionist" like it's a dirty word.



Many Middle East countries refer to Israel as Zion or Zionist so that they dont have to acknowledge the country by its actual name.  

Back to the start of this thread, seems to me people are making mountains out of moleholes.  He's a politician.  Just cause he says he's going to do something doesnt mean its actually going to happen...


----------



## a_majoor (7 Jul 2008)

The problem, of course, is there is a large constituency which will expect Senator Obama to implement his promises and will react negatively if he does not. As well, other nations will be making plans based on Senator Obama's positions: Alliance nations may feel it is prudent to get on with long lead time items to cover projected shortfalls in American power, while enemies may consider moves to exploit American retreats.

Internally, there are many vast bureaucratic and economic "empires" in and around DoD; a huge economic and political ecosystem if you will. Huge battles will be fought in the halls of the Congress, the MSM and various "back rooms" to preserve the budgets, power and prestige associated with these "empires"; look for some very nasty backlash against an Obama administration based on that.


----------



## tomahawk6 (13 Jul 2008)

Obama's version of Hugo Chavez's armed civilians ? A very dangerous proposal and one designed to overthrow the government as we know it. His proposals for national service where kids are forced to do community service is the first step toward an Obama Youth movement.Voluntary service has always been an option for national service.

Obama's civilian armed force would be as well equiped as the military ? We already spend a half trillion dollars on defense. My guess is that like Iran's IRG Obama's force would be paid for out of the defense budget at the expense of the active military.Obama as a leftist has a fear perhaps of the military.He has so far refused to appear before military audiences even when they are run by Phil Carter a pro-Obama reserve Captain.

http://bulletin.aarp.org/states/il/articles/obama_outlines_plan_for_national_service.html

[quote"[W]e are going to grow our foreign service, open consulates that have been shuttered and double the size of the Peace Corps by 2011 to renew our diplomacy," said Obama. *"We cannot to continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we have set. We have got to have a civilian national security force that is just as powerful, just as strong, just as well funded."*][/quote]


----------



## a_majoor (14 Jul 2008)

It is difficult to see how that one will play out. Traditional Socialist/Fascist/Marxists have been great fans of alternative forces (armed Civilians/Blackshirts/Ministry of the Interior etc.) in order to have a counterbalance against the professional Armed Forces which might decide to remove the offending regime. How well this works is debatable, and often the answer for these regimes is to place political control right inside the Armed Forces as well, the most notable example being the Commisars of the Red Army.

OTOH, America is predicated on volunteerism. American national mythology revolves around such figures as the "Minutemen" and it is telling that volunteer fire departments outnumber professional ones. Americans in general volunteer for any sort of task at a far greater rate than Canadians or Europeans, and bitterly oppose conscription. 

It seems to me (as an outside observer), that the Obama plan is one of those "tricks" Progressives like to play. While he uses the language of volunteerism, this may turn out to be a form of conscription (the government "voluntold" you). Americans will flock to the coloours when needed, if they discover they are being conscripted there will be a negative backlash indeed.


----------



## H9711 (15 Jul 2008)

Obama's policy on fighting al qaeda is clear,he wants to kill them all and make sure they can't train anywhere by pro terrorist groups like the taliban.

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2007/07/31/obama_to.html

Establishing a democratic society in Iraq is fine,but it's not making us any safer,the situation going on in Pakistan needs attention now.

His plan to increase the Army and Marines are just what is needed.

That's my two cents.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (15 Jul 2008)

I hope Mr. Obama keeps his word better than you H9711.


			
				KLW said:
			
		

> Whatever,I can't argue with a bunch of stupid crazy fascist scumbags.
> 
> I'm outta here you pathetic vermin.


----------



## GAP (15 Jul 2008)

Is there a full moon tonight, or are the weirdo's just out in force?


----------



## CougarKing (19 Jul 2008)

Obama is visiting the Afghanistan front as we speak.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25745500



> *Obama visits Afghanistan to tour war zone *
> Campaign-season trip to include Iraq, Mideast and European countries
> The Associated Press
> updated 10:07 a.m. PT, Sat., July. 19, 2008
> ...


----------



## MarkOttawa (23 Jul 2008)

Bomb, bomb, bomb--bomb Pakistan!  I wonder what the great majority of Canadians who say they support Barack Obama think about this:
http://bourbonroom.blogs.foxnews.com/2008/07/20/obama-never-has-doubts-about-foreign-policy-experience/



> ...Well, what I’ve said is that if we had actionable intelligence against high-value Al Qaida targets and the Pakistani government was unwilling to go after those targets, that we should...



And, for the life of me, I cannot figure out why a surge in Iraq was not a Good Thing but a surge in Afstan is a Good Thing:



> ...I believe U.S. troop levels need to increase. And I for at least a year now have called for two additional brigades, perhaps three...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## tomahawk6 (24 Jul 2008)

Obama is simply restating the left's position on the GWOT Iraq = bad and Afghanistan is where we should have been all along.


----------



## MarkOttawa (24 Jul 2008)

tomahawk6: Yet the Canadian left doesn't even want us in Afstan!

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## OldSolduer (24 Jul 2008)

When Obama is the President of the USA and demands that the US military increases its presence in Afghanistan....what will Jack and the NDP say about that?
The left accuses Harper of being a puppet of the current administration....so will we be able to accuse Jack and his merry band of "good deed doers" puppets of Obama?

Let me re-phrase.....the NDP acutally haven't done any good deeds...maybe they should be called "Would like to do good deeds doers".


----------



## MarkOttawa (24 Jul 2008)

A _Torch_ post:

Obamalot
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2008/07/obamalot.html

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## a_majoor (25 Jan 2009)

Limiting the weaponization of space is closing the door long after the horse has left the barn, the USSR conducted military space experiments since the 1960's (including arming satellites and space stations with cannons and missiles, as well as conducting some of the first ASAT tests), and the American military has dreamed up  an amazing array of space born systems as well (although few systems have ever gone much beyond the concept or mockup stage) *Encyclopedia Astronautica * is a great on line resource to research these issues. 

Even if some sort of agreement could be worked out, the advantages to disrupting enemy space assets is far to great to ignore, so look for "hidden" systems on ostensibly civilian satellites, "pop-up" weapons and ground based systems like lasers or pulse microwave devices to redress the balance.

http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSTRE50O15X20090125?sp=true



> *Challenges loom as Obama seeks space weapons ban*
> Andrea Shalal-Esa - Analysis
> 
> WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Barack Obama's pledge to seek a worldwide ban on weapons in space marks a dramatic shift in U.S. policy while posing the tricky issue of defining whether a satellite can be a weapon.
> ...


----------

