A few days ago Obama and Panetta announced that the military will be cut back. Basically the number of soldiers and marines will be cut with the resources more focused on Iran and China. I agree with the strategy although I am not sure we need to tell the world that we are most worried about Iran and China. Even though not much has been heard from the Republican candidates so far, possibly because they are busy fighting each other, I am sure they will all be attacking Obama on this. But let's look at this logically. We spend more on defense than the next 10 countries combine. Even when Britain was colonizing the world, they only spent about as much as the next two countries combine. The old idea that we need an armed force to fight two land wars at the same time is outdated. Our challenges in the future will be terrorism for which we need special forces and better intelligence and keeping the shipping lanes open for which we need a big naval force. The shipping lanes of the Middle East and South China sea are crucial for economic and national security reasons. So I think this plan is reasonable.
As I said, the Republicans will be all over this. Take Iran, for example. Every Republican candidate except for Paul and Huntsman say they will attack Iran if it makes a nuclear weapon. Why is Iran a threat to us? Frankly they are not. Israel thinks Iran is a threat to it. So we are volunteering to attack Iran because Israel feels threatened? I say let Israel's great air force take care of Israel's interest. Even if Iran gets nuclear weapons they are not going to use it against us or Israel because they know it would be the end of them if they choose to attack. The truth is Iran is way more scare than we are. They are surrounded by countries who don't like them. Their economy is falling apart. If we attack them it would just arouse nationalism and give the regime more legitimacy.
This illustrates how lack of understanding of the world Rick Perry is: He is advocating that we go back to Iraq because of the increased in violence since we pulled out. He says that Iran has become more influential in Iraq. Well, if we were worried about Iran in Iraq, then maybe we should not have got rid of Hussein. Hussein was our "friend" because he was an enemy of Iran. By the way, Hussein was a Sunni, so when we got rid of him the Shiites took over. Shiites are the main sect in Iran so that is why Iraq and Iran are getting along better now. The violence recently is by Sunnis attacking Shiites. So if we go back in we would be helping the Shiites which would be welcomed by Iran. This is how little Perry understands the world!
I was watching one of the news shows this weekend and they talked about Iran. The "expert" that was brought in said that the reason we should be worried about Iran was because of its president's unpredictability. Also the fact that their religion glorifies the after life, so death is not a big deal to them.
ReplyDeleteI thought to myself, what a simplistic way of looking at things. I really don't know what to think when it comes to Iran. Has the relationship with Iraq and Iran become better or is it the same as it was before?
You would think that with the new leadership in Iraq that things would be better regarding Iran. But I guess we are almost forced to help Israel at every whim, so this sounds more like a political move.
I know I'm not adding much to this discussion but obviously the statements made by the "expert" on TV struck a chord.
Lastly, I have always thought that since the republicans want smaller government and spending cuts, that they would be in favor of cuts in defense. This never seems to be the case though. Kind of ironic since we all can agree that the budget needs to be trimmed.
I will assume that the republicans will use the old "we need to keep our defense strong, so Obama's cuts weaken the security of our nation" during the campaign.
-LBOAYM