Isolationists and Libertarians; pony up.

[cpwill]

As the US military swings into Japan to help save hundreds of thousands of lives, I would like to reflect that our ability to do this is only because we maintain a global presence. Only because we already built, sent, and supported the 7th Fleet, troops in Korea, and troops in Japan are we able to respond. Only because we build, equip, train, and then deploy and sustain the MEU's are we able to respond to disasters like earthquakes in Haiti, flooding in Pakistan, tsunamis in Indonesia and Japan. the proper use of the US military could have seen Ghaddafi swept out of power and one of the worlds' most odious regimes removed. It will help save hundreds of thousands of lives in the coming weeks.


so i would like to know. given that those of a more libertarian/isolationist/leftist bent have often advocated deep cuts to the military and ceasing to maintain a presence overseas, how much are we willing to sacrifice for this? Is it truly not cost effective to keep a major trading partner from sliding into obscurity and horror? How many Japanese lives are you willing to trade for not spending on defense?

 

[spud_meister]

:shrug: How many lives would have been saved if they pursued a non-interventionist policy? How many people died in Korea and Vietnam, and how many continue to die in Iraq and Afghanistan? The hypothetical numbers game can go both ways.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not a non-interventionist, it's just that an argument based on a hypothetical isn't very strong.

 

[LimeLight]

so i would like to know. given that those of a more libertarian/isolationist/leftist bent have often advocated deep cuts to the military and ceasing to maintain a presence overseas, how much are we willing to sacrifice for this? Is it truly not cost effective to keep a major trading partner from sliding into obscurity and horror? How many Japanese lives are you willing to trade for not spending on defense?

Whether it's cost effective is debatable. In this case I believe it can be argued that it was. But how often does a catastrophe like this hit one of our major trading partners? Where would the state of Japans economy be if we hadn't been able to aid them so swiftly?

As for trading lives for defense, I'm not sure where you're going. I suppose it's our obligation to aid everyone who runs into misfortune or catastrophe?

 

[ThePlayDrive]

As the US military swings into Japan to help save hundreds of thousands of lives, I would like to reflect that our ability to do this is only because we maintain a global presence. Only because we already built, sent, and supported the 7th Fleet, troops in Korea, and troops in Japan are we able to respond. Only because we build, equip, train, and then deploy and sustain the MEU's are we able to respond to disasters like earthquakes in Haiti, flooding in Pakistan, tsunamis in Indonesia and Japan. the proper use of the US military could have seen Ghaddafi swept out of power and one of the worlds' most odious regimes removed. It will help save hundreds of thousands of lives in the coming weeks.


so i would like to know. given that those of a more libertarian/isolationist/leftist bent have often advocated deep cuts to the military and ceasing to maintain a presence overseas, how much are we willing to sacrifice for this? Is it truly not cost effective to keep a major trading partner from sliding into obscurity and horror? How many Japanese lives are you willing to trade for not spending on defense?

The United States spends a lot of its defense money on providing military protection for other countries. If the United States spent the same amount of money teaching them how to fish rather then giving them fish then it wouldn't need to be there in order to provide military support in situations like the current one in Japan.

At the same time some forms of isolationism do not stop the United States from offering help in humanitarian cases nor does do they stop the United States from participating in international humanitarian organizations and efforts. One the main isolationist arguments is that we are not the "world's police". Although I am not an isolationist, I tend to agree with that particular claim and the sentiment that we need to decrease our efforts to save the world when many in our own country could use an intervention.

 

[cpwill]

:shrug: How many lives would have been saved if they pursued a non-interventionist policy? How many people died in Korea and Vietnam, and how many continue to die in Iraq and Afghanistan? The hypothetical numbers game can go both ways.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not a non-interventionist, it's just that an argument based on a hypothetical isn't very strong.

i'm not sure i see this as a hypothetical. that fleet is supporting ops in Japan now.

and the answer to your question on Korea is "more" and in Vietnam is "would have been fewer if we'd stayed"

 

[Kandahar]

As the US military swings into Japan to help save hundreds of thousands of lives, I would like to reflect that our ability to do this is only because we maintain a global presence. Only because we already built, sent, and supported the 7th Fleet, troops in Korea, and troops in Japan are we able to respond. Only because we build, equip, train, and then deploy and sustain the MEU's are we able to respond to disasters like earthquakes in Haiti, flooding in Pakistan, tsunamis in Indonesia and Japan. the proper use of the US military could have seen Ghaddafi swept out of power and one of the worlds' most odious regimes removed. It will help save hundreds of thousands of lives in the coming weeks.


so i would like to know. given that those of a more libertarian/isolationist/leftist bent have often advocated deep cuts to the military and ceasing to maintain a presence overseas, how much are we willing to sacrifice for this? Is it truly not cost effective to keep a major trading partner from sliding into obscurity and horror? How many Japanese lives are you willing to trade for not spending on defense?

You seem to be sneakily conflating a standard humanitarian mission in Japan, where our presence is welcome, with a war of choice in Libya, where our presence would be (at the very least) resented, if not outright condemned. I'm going to assume that the bolded sentence in the paragraph above is what you REALLY want to talk about, as I haven't heard anyone arguing against helping out Japan. The stuff about Japan sounds suspiciously like a strawman intended to beat the Libyan war drums.

Suffice it to say that a permanent presence in a country with a democratically-elected government where we are welcomed is FAR different than engaging in hostile activity against a government that does not threaten us, where the rebels seem at best lukewarm to the idea of our involvement, which carries substantial risks, and in which we might not even be able to accomplish our goal.

I have no problem with humanitarian missions; in fact, I think we should be doing far more of them. Aside from merely being the right thing to do, these are the types of things that advance America's "soft power." For example, I saw a study that showed that whenever the USS Mercy visited the coast of Pakistan and Bangladesh, the people in those areas had a much more positive view of the United States. A lot of our military spending should be geared more toward these types of missions, as they tend to be far more effective at reducing terrorism than what we're doing in Afghanistan.

Where we have to be careful is with hostile military action. I'm not saying we should never engage in it, but we have to pick our battles wisely unless we're actually attacked. And Libya seems like a remarkably poor choice, for many of the same reasons that Iraq and Somalia were.

 

[spud_meister]

i'm not sure i see this as a hypothetical. that fleet is supporting ops in Japan now.

But you're presuming that the lives saved by Americans couldn't have been saved otherwise

and the answer to your question on Korea is "more" and in Vietnam is "would have been fewer if we'd stayed"

Really, you think that by US intervention, and thus, in response PRC intervention in Korea would have saved more lives than a quick war between the two nations? And that if the US had let the communists be elected in South Vietnam, it would have costs more lives than a 20 year war?

 

[Seitz]

We are able to afford a global military only because China and Japan buy our debt for the moment. The military is picking up bodies, not saving lives. I hope you aren't expecting gratitude. Someerset Maughm wrote something like "He was so young he did not realize how much greater the sense of obligation is for those who give than for those who receive." A fact of human nature.

 

[Manc Skipper]

The worst damage appears to be centred on the melting nuclear reactors which Americans have been ordered not to go within 50 miles of. What are the troops doing to help?

 

[cpwill]

You seem to be sneakily conflating a standard humanitarian mission in Japan,

there is very little standard about this humanitarian mission.

here our presence is welcome, with a war of choice in Libya

no, what i am doing is pointing out that A) only we have the resources to maintain a global presence and B) the costs of us not doing so are - without hyperbole - catastrophic.

I have no problem with humanitarian missions; in fact, I think we should be doing far more of them. Aside from merely being the right thing to do, these are the types of things that advance America's "soft power." For example, I saw a study that showed that whenever the USS Mercy visited the coast of Pakistan and Bangladesh, the people in those areas had a much more positive view of the United States. A lot of our military spending should be geared more toward these types of missions, as they tend to be far more effective at reducing terrorism than what we're doing in Afghanistan.

you seem not to be very up on our current strategy in Afghanistan; may I suggest that you read Patraeus Counterinsurgency Manual?

 

[cpwill]

The worst damage appears to be centred on the melting nuclear reactors which Americans have been ordered not to go within 50 miles of. What are the troops doing to help?

troops are going within that 50 mile limit, hell, we're mantaining a constant presence in Sendai which is right outside. we've told all American citizens to get 50 miles out and we're not keeping a presence inside of 50 miles.

 

[cpwill]

But you're presuming that the lives saved by Americans couldn't have been saved otherwise

i'm not presuming, i'm telling you that it is so. the "oh if we pulled back our allies would fill the gap theory" forgets that the US is the only one with the resources to project and sustain a deployment of this size this kind of distance. Just as we went into Bosnia, when we went into Pakistan, when we went into Haiti, when we went into Iraq, etc; everyone else was largely along for the ride.

Really, you think that by US intervention, and thus, in response PRC intervention in Korea would have saved more lives than a quick war between the two nations?

Yes. In case you haven't noticed North Korean citizens have spend the last 6 decades starving to death under a regime that keeps them imprisoned.

And that if the US had let the communists be elected in South Vietnam, it would have costs more lives than a 20 year war?

Absolutely we could have fought vietnam in such a manner as to minimize casualties among the vietnamese while denying another rather murderous regime control over the populous. The Marine Corps tried to do this but the Army nixed the idea. I would strongly suggest to you Bing West's "The Village" and "Learning to Eat Soup with a Knife" on this subject.

 

[Wiseone]

The question of how many lives are we willing to let go, whether they are US military, American civilians, or friendly nationals/military, is a far question. Its impossible to think we could ever save everyone however, there's always a way to better improve response time, training, equipment, etc etc its just a matter of how much we can afford. And a decision has to be made on what the is the most effective us of our money, and quite frankly I think its not an effective use nor a reasonable use especially considering our current budget problems, to expect to not suffer any cut back in our global presence or military capacity.

Sorry to say that means sometimes people like Gaddaffi or Saddam will get away with things they may not have otherwise, or that we will have less support available when allies need it.

 

[Guy Incognito]

As OP snarkily observed, there is a difference between global humanitarian aid and military adventurism, and one must take care to not to conflate the two. That being said, OP falls into this same mistake himself, he just does it the other way around.

The sort of defense budget needed to sustain an agenda of foreign military adventurism is far higher than that needed to support an agenda of global humanitarian relief. I don't think anybody is opposed to our military operating as a sort of international FEMA, and it is entirely disingenious to suggest that cutting the defense budget would necessitate "trading lives in Japan." That is absurd.

 

[Kandahar]

no, what i am doing is pointing out that A) only we have the resources to maintain a global presence and B) the costs of us not doing so are - without hyperbole - catastrophic.

You're saying we need to go to war with Libya so that we have permanent bases there that we can use to address future Japan-like humanitarian crises in the region?

you seem not to be very up on our current strategy in Afghanistan; may I suggest that you read Patraeus Counterinsurgency Manual?

Afghanistan is still primarily a military operation. To the extent that we have humanitarian goals at all, they're just incidental to the military goal. The fact that you cited a military document demonstrates this quite clearly.

 

[Cold Highway]

Your pathetic attempt at labeling us as communists/hypocrites fails more than one of Obama's speeches. I have no problems with people sending their own money to other countries, I have problems that the US tax payer has to pony up for the defense of other nations that have the ability to defend themselves. This policy is nothing but a global version of Welfare plain and simple.

How many Japanese lives are you willing to trade for not spending on defense?

I find it funny how you fashion yourself as the so called Mr. Conservative but use an appeal to emotion argument. Your double standard is more amusing than Ben Bernanke's economic policy.

As for Libya, this is a fight between Libya and it's people. Ol Muammar would love for another nation to go in because then he can spin it as people not wanting to change Libya but people who are working for a foreign invader. It's an old rule that you never butt in to someone else's fight because then you are the one who ends up with the black eye. If you wanna play Mercenary, I have no problem with that, I think its retarded that there is such a law on the books that prevents people from doing that.

Let me ask you this;

How many of you would be happy if the our country had it's only cluster**** of instability (DC destroyed, local governments in disarray, etc) and all of a sudden we see Mexican, Canadian, European Union, Chinese and Russian troops attempting maintain order? I'll tell you right now that in my neighborhood that wouldn't fly at all, Canadian and European troops would be shot at and justifiably so.

 

[Dezaad]

there is very little standard about this humanitarian mission.



no, what i am doing is pointing out that A) only we have the resources to maintain a global presence and B) the costs of us not doing so are - without hyperbole - catastrophic.



you seem not to be very up on our current strategy in Afghanistan; may I suggest that you read Patraeus Counterinsurgency Manual?

We have the resources to maintain a global presence? Really? So we don't have a budget problem, and we don't have a massive deficit? Good to hear, I won't worry about those things any more. America to the rescue, full steam ahead.

 

[Ahlevah]

so i would like to know. given that those of a more libertarian/isolationist/leftist bent have often advocated deep cuts to the military and ceasing to maintain a presence overseas, how much are we willing to sacrifice for this? Is it truly not cost effective to keep a major trading partner from sliding into obscurity and horror? How many Japanese lives are you willing to trade for not spending on defense?

Japan has the third largest economy in the world. It's a net creditor of the United States, holding almost $900 billion worth of U.S. Treasuries. So I have a hard time justifying to the American taxpayer the expense of basing 47,000 U.S. service men and women in Japan, more than half of whom are on Okinawa because the Japanese don't want them based on Japan proper.

Then there's this thought, which you voiced in another thread:

the government spends about a million dollars for every deployed servicemember per year. how many jobs would that million bucks create in the private sector?

Well, how many? And how much longer are we going to think we can afford to play Roman Empire, especially when we're broke and have basic infrastructure falling apart in our own country?

 

[solletica]

As the US military swings into Japan to help save hundreds of thousands of lives, I would like to reflect that our ability to do this is only because we maintain a global presence. Only because we already built, sent, and supported the 7th Fleet, troops in Korea, and troops in Japan are we able to respond. Only because we build, equip, train, and then deploy and sustain the MEU's are we able to respond to disasters like earthquakes in Haiti, flooding in Pakistan, tsunamis in Indonesia and Japan. the proper use of the US military could have seen Ghaddafi swept out of power and one of the worlds' most odious regimes removed. It will help save hundreds of thousands of lives in the coming weeks.


so i would like to know. given that those of a more libertarian/isolationist/leftist bent have often advocated deep cuts to the military and ceasing to maintain a presence overseas, how much are we willing to sacrifice for this? Is it truly not cost effective to keep a major trading partner from sliding into obscurity and horror? How many Japanese lives are you willing to trade for not spending on defense?

The cuts we're calling for are all the useless high-tech weapons, tanks, and planes (i. e. F-35s) and nukes that don't contribute to fighting wars against terrorists (who employ purely guerilla tactics) or to relief efforts, and those cuts, if taken 30 years ago, would have been deep enough to eliminate more than 1/2 the US debt.