for us conservatives...nice opinion piece..

[Soonerjeepman]

http://mychal-massie.com/premium/the-failure/

The Failure
By Dan Bubalo on February 24, 2014 in Foreign Policy

O-o-o-h. President Obama is weighing in on the civil disturbance in the Ukraine and admonishing all parties to calm down or else. Or else what? The only time there has been a break in the upheaval in Kiev and the rest of that country is when they all pause to laugh at his false bravado, or wonder why he’s even opening his mouth. After all, he only drew the red line in the sand for Syria a mere eight months ago and we all know how that turned out: Putin 1; Obama 0.

[FaninAma]

http://mychal-massie.com/premium/the-failure/

The Failure
By Dan Bubalo on February 24, 2014 in Foreign Policy

O-o-o-h. President Obama is weighing in on the civil disturbance in the Ukraine and admonishing all parties to calm down or else. Or else what? The only time there has been a break in the upheaval in Kiev and the rest of that country is when they all pause to laugh at his false bravado, or wonder why he’s even opening his mouth. After all, he only drew the red line in the sand for Syria a mere eight months ago and we all know how that turned out: Putin 1; Obama 0.

Obama is a life long politician with zero significant personal achievement or real life experience. He is the crowning glory of this country's current political system....the quest for power simply for its own sake.

Why should we expect anything other than what he is.....a hollow man in an empty suit surrounded by yes men and cultish followers and supporters. My disdain and disgust for the man knows no bounds

[8timechamps]

I heard someone a couple of days ago make a comment on Obama's "management" of the situation in the Ukraine, it went something like this:

"He's handling it exactly how you would expect a community organizer to handle it. That's kinda what it boils down to, a leader of a super power (Putin) versus a community organizer (Obama)".

I thought that hit the nail on the head.

[lexsooner]

I heard someone a couple of days ago make a comment on Obama's "management" of the situation in the Ukraine, it went something like this:

"He's handling it exactly how you would expect a community organizer to handle it. That's kinda what it boils down to, a leader of a super power (Putin) versus a community organizer (Obama)".

I thought that hit the nail on the head.

Out of curiousity, did this person seriously believe Russia is a superpower, or was he just trying to make a point?

[8timechamps]

Out of curiousity, did this person seriously believe Russia is a superpower, or was he just trying to make a point?

I really don't know, but I still consider Russia a near-superpower. I think the stockpile of nuclear weapons justifies that position.

[SoonerProphet]

So this hard hitting "conservative" thinks it's the US's responsibility to be the global hall monitor. Didn't notice any hard hitting solutions to the problems he lays at the executives feet.

[lexsooner]

There's waste and excess in all parts of government, whether it be entitlements or the military. If we are not in a conflict and there is no cold war, reductions seem like the right move as long as our national security is not threatened. As long as this is the case, I would think most on this board would be in favor, considering all the complaints about too much spending, too big government, deficit, intruding into other countries' affairs. If you are cutting, there should be no sacred cows.

[OU_Sooners75]

I would think most on this board would be in favor, considering all the complaints about too much spending, too big government, deficit, intruding into other countries' affairs. If you are cutting, there should be no sacred cows.

There should be one sacred cow and that is the actually men and women in Uniform (US Military).

The first place the should be gutted is Congress. Congress alone takes up a $45,000,000 annual salary. That is just those that currently are seating in Congress. There is a lot more when it comes to full pension ex-congressmen/women. Elected officials should not be a career. Those that are elected should only be granted a per diem. Any pay raise should be a majority vote of the people and can only be granted once every 12 years. Then there should a term limit. Anyway getting off subject.

Presidential vacations should be on his own dime, not the taxpayers.

95% of civilian workers in the Pentagon should be released. This should be the only cut to military personnel and pension.

Get rid of the US Department of Education. We have slipped in education over the last 20 years, so let the states educate our children.

Do away with special interest groups. Sure they are not on payroll, but they do have too much influence over government, which leads to pork spending.

Stop all foreign aid to Libya, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Egypt, the UN, and any other entity that threatens our national interests.

Cut all unnecessary agencies in the Federal Government (to numerous to mention).

This is a start.

[lexsooner]

What would you not cut regarding the military? I definitely would not want veterans benefits or pay cut, or housing. However, when you look at the monsterous industrial military complex which eats up billions, you have many unnecessary weapons systems and other expenditures.

Also, would you keep military personnel levels high even if there is no military need for their positions, just for the sake of keeping soldiers employed? I am certain the military suffers from duplication of jobs and inefficiency just like the rest of government. The whole point is we all want the best for our troops, but so much in the area of defense is rightfully subject to cuts, and some of the trimming will inevitably affect our troops.

[BigTip]

I am confindent that Obama will be rated by history as our worst president.
That's if he ever leaves office. I am hoping he does not proclaim himself emperor.

[Sooner in Tampa]

So this hard hitting "conservative" thinks it's the US's responsibility to be the global hall monitor. Didn't notice any hard hitting solutions to the problems he lays at the executives feet.

No, really...Oblamer should just keep his ****ing mouth shut...he is looking like a king sized dickhead...AGAIN, because he won't do **** about the Ukraine.

So, just shut the **** up and go color in the corner...cuz Putin owns your ***.

[OU_Sooners75]

What would you not cut regarding the military? I definitely would not want veterans benefits or pay cut, or housing. However, when you look at the monsterous industrial military complex which eats up billions, you have many unnecessary weapons systems and other expenditures.

Also, would you keep military personnel levels high even if there is no military need for their positions, just for the sake of keeping soldiers employed? I am certain the military suffers from duplication of jobs and inefficiency just like the rest of government. The whole point is we all want the best for our troops, but so much in the area of defense is rightfully subject to cuts, and some of the trimming will inevitably affect our troops.

Name some "useless" weapon systems?

I guess we could always fall behind technology wise compared other nations so we can become like Russia and have run down equipment.

And yes, keep it high. You start laying off military personnel right now, then it will hurt the economy even worse. We cannot even get our civilians to work, what makes you think cutting back the military personnel will make it better?

There is nothing wrong with a large standing army. We had one in the Cold War years. Why not now?

Like i mentioned, I am in agreement there needs to be cuts...but Military needs to be the absolute final thing on the table...if at all!

[sappstuf]

So this hard hitting "conservative" thinks it's the US's responsibility to be the global hall monitor. Didn't notice any hard hitting solutions to the problems he lays at the executives feet.

If we should not be the global hall monitor then why is Obama drawing red lines to not be crossed?

Ah, yes. Incompetence.

[BigTip]

After his Syria debacle it is asinine for him to make these empty threats about Ukraine. I would bet big money that Putin just chuckled when presented with them.

[SoonerProphet]

I get all the animus towards the president, it's akin to the code pink type hostility to W. However, it does fail to address the issue at hand. Hear a lot of detractors b!tch about it but don't see many offers of policy that would be different.

[SoonerProphet]

If we should not be the global hall monitor then why is Obama drawing red lines to not be crossed?

Ah, yes. Incompetence.

So this level of foreign policy incompetence is different than the previous 20 years of US foreign policy disasters how?

[lexsooner]

Name some "useless" weapon systems?

I guess we could always fall behind technology wise compared other nations so we can become like Russia and have run down equipment.

And yes, keep it high. You start laying off military personnel right now, then it will hurt the economy even worse. We cannot even get our civilians to work, what makes you think cutting back the military personnel will make it better?

There is nothing wrong with a large standing army. We had one in the Cold War years. Why not now?

Like i mentioned, I am in agreement there needs to be cuts...but Military needs to be the absolute final thing on the table...if at all!

There's a number of weapons and other military items which Congress has forced upon the military even though the Pentagon made it clear they did not need or want them. But the Congressmen pushed for them because the items are built in their home districts and the defense lobbyists were able to get their way with the politicians. Ike, one of our greatest military heroes, warned of the industrial military complex when he was leaving office and could be honest, and he was so right. This is just one example and it goes on and on, wasting our tax money.

Since when does cutting fat equate to falling behind technologically or a weak military? Nobody wants that, but you can make cuts without jeopardizing our fighting ability. Military personnel numbers should and have usually been based upon the need or perceived need. The Cold War military was large because, well, there was a Cold War and we very much envisioned a large scale conflict with the Soviet Union. This is not the Pentagon's thinking today and so many conflicts or envisioned ones are smaller scale against the Taliban or the like instead of large scale traditional war fighting. Having a large standing military when there is no perceived need is wasteful.

Finally, if you are concerned about economic impact of troop reductions, the other personnel cuts you advocated of non-military government personnel would also presumably hinder economic growth too, correct?

[diverdog]

There should be one sacred cow and that is the actually men and women in Uniform (US Military).

The first place the should be gutted is Congress. Congress alone takes up a $45,000,000 annual salary. That is just those that currently are seating in Congress. There is a lot more when it comes to full pension ex-congressmen/women. Elected officials should not be a career. Those that are elected should only be granted a per diem. Any pay raise should be a majority vote of the people and can only be granted once every 12 years. Then there should a term limit. Anyway getting off subject.

Presidential vacations should be on his own dime, not the taxpayers.

95% of civilian workers in the Pentagon should be released. This should be the only cut to military personnel and pension.

Get rid of the US Department of Education. We have slipped in education over the last 20 years, so let the states educate our children.

Do away with special interest groups. Sure they are not on payroll, but they do have too much influence over government, which leads to pork spending.

Stop all foreign aid to Libya, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Egypt, the UN, and any other entity that threatens our national interests.

Cut all unnecessary agencies in the Federal Government (to numerous to mention).

This is a start.

If you get rid of 95% of the civilians in the Pentagon you shut down the military.

[sappstuf]

So this level of foreign policy incompetence is different than the previous 20 years of US foreign policy disasters how?

It is difficult to defend Obama.. Better not to try.

[diverdog]

It is difficult to defend Obama.. Better not to try.

Gulp, For the most part I have to agree with you.

[SoonerProphet]

It is difficult to defend Obama.. Better not to try.

Difficult to defend any of the governing elite in defense and foreign policy establishments, whether it be Victoria Nuland, John Bolton, or Maggie Albright. It has been an epic waste of treasure and lives.

[SoonerStormchaser]

Obama is a life long politician with zero significant personal achievement or real life experience.
Now now, he did get the Nobel Peace prize his first year in office!

[FaninAma]

I must admit that the Democrats have done a tremendous job of staying in power by dividing this country along racial, sexual and income differences. And they will continue to do it until the country implodes from all of the deepening divisions.

[OU_Sooners75]

There's a number of weapons and other military items which Congress has forced upon the military even though the Pentagon made it clear they did not need or want them. But the Congressmen pushed for them because the items are built in their home districts and the defense lobbyists were able to get their way with the politicians. Ike, one of our greatest military heroes, warned of the industrial military complex when he was leaving office and could be honest, and he was so right. This is just one example and it goes on and on, wasting our tax money.

Since when does cutting fat equate to falling behind technologically or a weak military? Nobody wants that, but you can make cuts without jeopardizing our fighting ability. Military personnel numbers should and have usually been based upon the need or perceived need. The Cold War military was large because, well, there was a Cold War and we very much envisioned a large scale conflict with the Soviet Union. This is not the Pentagon's thinking today and so many conflicts or envisioned ones are smaller scale against the Taliban or the like instead of large scale traditional war fighting. Having a large standing military when there is no perceived need is wasteful.

Finally, if you are concerned about economic impact of troop reductions, the other personnel cuts you advocated of non-military government personnel would also presumably hinder economic growth too, correct?

Still waiting on some of the useless weapon systems.

[lexsooner]

Still waiting on some of the useless weapon systems.

First, you called them "useless" in your post, which suggests these military items have no use whatsoever. However, this is not the same as unnecessary or wasteful military hardware or systems. In my post I termed them "unncessary," just as the military considers them unnecessary and costly in terms of their military planning and future budgetary projections and goals.

Just as one example, Ohio congressman (and defense lobbyists) successfully funded a number of military items the Pentagon did not want: upgrades on the MI Abrahms tank which was originally built for battle on the steppes vs. the USSR. The Army made it clear it did not need this, but got it anyway; some sort of east coast missle defense system which would benefit contractors in Ohio; a dated cargo plane, the C24 or something; and the development of a new drone system which would duplicate many of the functions of existing drone systems. This example represents wasteful governmental spending and fat which could easiily be cut without harming our national security.

So now that you got your answer, feel free to address the second and third paragraphs of my last post.

I'm also curious about your reasoning behind laying off 99 percent of civilian workers at the Pentagon. Maybe you meant nationwide also. If you recall, the DOD recalled a large number of furloughed DOD civilian workers during the furlough of 2013 because these workers provided either direct services to military servicemen, such as health care, commissary, benefits, or were critical to national security, including civilian staff involved in intelligence, logistics, and other crucial military functions. The Pentagon knew these civilian workers were essential for our troops and national security, so at the first opportunity they recalled them back to work.

[OU_Sooners75]

Where did I say 99%? I said 95%, but okay...

From FY 2001 to FY 2010 the civilian workforce within the pentagon grew over $240B.
From 2009-2010 it grew $6B along.

The largest was Contracts for Service. From 2001-2010 this area went from a ~$105B to ~$248B All these are civilian jobs.

Maybe the number I threw out where i said 95% is a tad high, but it was to start this very conversation.

[OU_Sooners75]

As for your 2nd paragraph,

To day we have over 2.2 million total military personnel. This includes Active, Reserves, and Paramilitary.
Compared to the Cold War that was around 3 million, we still have a smaller force.

If they want to downsize the military, then put them in the reserves or national guard units, instead of just cutting them altogether.

As far as your third paragraph, those civilian jobs can be outsourced if need be. And in doing so, those that lost their jobs could easily be hired doing the same, but not on the government payroll.

[sappstuf]

Difficult to defend any of the governing elite in defense and foreign policy establishments, whether it be Victoria Nuland, John Bolton, or Maggie Albright. It has been an epic waste of treasure and lives.

We were not talking about them. We were talking about Obama until you started deflecting and continue to deflect.

[SoonerProphet]

We were not talking about them. We were talking about Obama until you started deflecting and continue to deflect.

Yes, we are talking about Obama and his failure in Ukraine and Syria. I am not deflecting on anything. The continued default position of our foreign policy elite is to intervene. Time after time this position has proven to be less than successful and extremely expensive. I have been consistent in this position over the years, unlike others who seem to waffle when it's their team making the blunders.

The real deflection here, from the author of the article and many others, is avoiding the conversation about what exactly your policy would do. What is this "conservative" authors thoughts on what should be done? Is he gonna sortie the 6th through the Dardanelles? Destabilize the ruble? Put or shut up.

[OU_Sooners75]

Yes, we are talking about Obama and his failure in Ukraine and Syria. I am not deflecting on anything. The continued default position of our foreign policy elite is to intervene. Time after time this position has proven to be less than successful and extremely expensive. I have been consistent in this position over the years, unlike others who seem to waffle when it's their team making the blunders.

The real deflection here, from the author of the article and many others, is avoiding the conversation about what exactly your policy would do. What is this "conservative" authors thoughts on what should be done? Is he gonna sortie the 6th through the Dardanelles? Destabilize the ruble? Put or shut up.


The only time we should intervene is if the government is killing their own people.

That right there should give you my stance on Syria and Ukraine and anywhere else where their State government is killing their own citizens.

Who is going to defend the individuals from the Military and police?

[SoonerProphet]

The only time we should intervene is if the government is killing their own people.

That right there should give you my stance on Syria and Ukraine and anywhere else where their State government is killing their own citizens.


Who is going to defend the individuals from the Military and police?

Rather extensive list. Should we have done something about tiananmen? Should the Brits intervened in our civil conflict?

Ones defense against the State seems to be about legitimacy and sovereignty. I certainly don't think telling other governments what to do with their own internal affairs is wise. So we should send in the Corps everytime some tinpot dictator, or democratically elected grand poobah, shoots up a gathering of right minded revolutionaries or restless riff raff?