Jason Zimmerman
01-05-2012, 02:04 PM
Spurred from a C-Span debate I had with some guy from the root, Already sending out copies for various age groups and works of life for comments/suggestions.
So here's the debate unaltered(so yes there are typos) and i included every post from both of us.
David Swerdlick--TheRoot.com: @Dorian--agree--"horrific" is a thumb on the scale, but...absent a raise in taxes, where do you cut first to balance the budget according to the balanced budget amendment?
Comment From Jason Zimmerman
@ David Swerdlick How about some foreign aid or maybe ceasing to occupy countries across the globe. I can't see how any of these things benefit the citizens of the United States.
David Swerdlick--TheRoot.com: @Jason--on foreign aid, I think it's a small part of the budget. Very small. On U.S. military footprint, consider that the entire global system shifts if we cede military hegemony. Not saying we shouldn't do it, but I think it's a lot more complicated than closing some bases in Germany/Korea/Qatar and striking a line item on the budget.
Comment From Jason Zimmerman
@ David My view on National Defense is that it should be about defending our country, it's sovereignty, and the people who live within it . With Iran being considered a nuclear threat, which is not something to be ignored. We could be spending money on research and development of nuclear defense systems making the fact that whether or not they have nukes negligible. I feel like the line between nation defense and international policing is getting a little bit to fuzzy.
David Swerdlick--TheRoot.com: @Jason--well said. But consider this. If we pulled back mostly from Okinawa, South Korea, Germany, Qatar, Kuwait, Gitmo, etc. then we're like Germany, except without the manufacturing base. What's our rationale then for having seat on U.N. Security Council, controlling or partially controlling NATO, IMF, World Bank, etc. etc. At that point, we save money on DoD, but our ability to steer events in the Straits of Hormuz, in East Asia, Caribbean changes drastically. Maybe we want that, but I don't know if Americans en masse are ready to conceive of ourselves as just a power, not a superpower. This is my view, I know there's another way to look at it, which you articulated.
Comment From Jason Zimmerman
@ David Swerdlick It's not that we should completely pull all of your troops out of the rest of the world. I'd personally advocate having a few strong bases just as a staging area for potential threats as a method of deterring other nations from being militarily aggressive, the focus being the quality of our military not the quantity. Also America was a super power and we have the potential to become one again, but spending more then we can afford to and stretching our military out thin fighting wars that we literally can not win. These acts make us look overconfident and arrogant. I believe in leading by example and we are not setting a good example for the world.
David Swerdlick--TheRoot.com: @Jason--again, well said. Can't really argue with your appeal for spending within our means. But I just think that most of us aren't ready for the prospect of being a Germany-level or Japan-level power and not a China-level power. If you pull out of Korea, Okinawa, Kuwait, Rhein-Main, the cost to get back in later, theoretically, after our fiscal house is in order, is astronomical.
Comment From Jason Zimmerman @David Like I said earlier the battlefield is far different then it was 70 years ago and even 50 during the cold war era(Though more similar). We have technology that could level small states and so do other nations. Whats the point of having 50,000 thousand troops based somewhere If any strong enemy could drop one bomb and wipe out the entire force. Military superiority has become technological superiority. If the USA can make opposing WMDs ineffective whitest making our own harder to counter we would truly be a super power that no nation could militarily oppose or even dare to. I'm an advocate of military spending I just think our approach to National Defense is wasting valuable resources that could be better spent gaining true military superiority.
David Swerdlick--TheRoot.com: @Jason--again, compelling. Technology is paramount, I agree. But consider that one reason why so many U.S. casualties in Iraq were casualties, not combat deaths, was because we medevac to hospitals on bases in Germany. Consider the ease with which U.S. managed the Mediterranean during Libya war. That's because of carrier groups and air base in Aviano, Italy. Not arguing the moral aspect here. There are obviously reasons to oppose what we did in Iraq and Libya, but they would not have been possible without a big military footprint. Arguably, you couldn't have launched raid against bin Laden compound without Bagram and other installations in Afghanistan.
Comment From Jason Zimmerman @David if instead of having standing bases installed across the globe it would be far more effective to have agreements with allies to make staging grounds and train or even set up special military forces trained for creating mobile bases of opperation. Our focus should be swift and overwhelming to our enemies. Not only would this reduce causalities due to attrition of longstanding warfare, but it would make us appear like a world power so strong that opposing would be foolhardy and borderline suicidal. Just imagine the point of view of a hostile nation when It sees an attacking country fall in days, not years. If I was a world leader I would never attack a country that appears so in control and powerful.
David Swerdlick--TheRoot.com: @Jason--you've thought this through more than most. But tell me how does a Libya situation work without the preexisting bases/carriers/infrastructure. The model you're proposing makes us more like U.K./France. Major militaries but no where near U.S. capabilities. They ran out of missiles in the first couple of days. The war was their idea. What if the U.S. pilot who was shot down near Benghazi was hurt or captured? Without bases in Germany/Italy, how do we rescue, or worse, hospitalize?
Comment From Jason Zimmerman
@David Basically the easiest way to defeat an opponent is to be better then them.
David Swerdlick--TheRoot.com: @Jason--I don't think anyone, regardless of political stripe, disagrees that we've got the best military. But part of what makes it great is all the bases and infrastructure. You know, like the TV commercials: "logistics".
Comment From Jason Zimmerman
@David Yes, it's not that I'm saying infrastructure is bad (and I would personally vouch for having standing bases throughout the globe though not in the number and scale we currently have), but that we should specialize forces in handling situations quickly without needing large scale movements. In fact if we had just sent small, covert teams into Iraq and Afghanistan instead of tens of thousands of troops. The war would have taken weeks, not years with far fewer casualties of both our soldiers and the innocents of their countries
David Swerdlick--TheRoot.com: @Jason--now we're on the same page. Go back to 2002 and you clearly want to go into Afghanistan with a much lighter footprint, and not go into Iraq at all. But...you can't have special forces ops without bases and carriers to support them. And to roll in the libertarian discussion. You can't have bases and carriers without federal taxes.
Comment From Jason Zimmerman
@David Agreed, the military will always need funding. The issue is that wars aren't fought with massive forces going head to head in conflict. Our strategy needs to evolve with the times. We could easily have full military coverage of the planet with no more then 30 bases stationed near "hot-spots". The key to that strategy working however is mobility of our forces which the money from all the excess installations and standing forces could be used to train and equip our troops for this new age of warfare by doing things like increasing effective range of transports, putting more effort into gathering intelligence, and training our troops in "ghost" warfare (completing your mission before the enemy even knows your their, tactical invisibility).
David Swerdlick--TheRoot.com: @Jason--our strategy has evolved right before our eyes. W fought Iraq/Afghanistan with high tooth to tail ratio--brigades and semi-permanent bases. O's wars--Libya, Yemen, etc. are being fought with drones and sea-to-land missiles. The SEAL operation that killed bin Laden was the kind of special op that you're advocating.
I reply wasn't aired by the writers, but i essentially closed saying the SEAL team was exactly the correct choice and that the results of the different strategies speak for them selves. Success/failure, thousands of American soldiers dead/not a single lost cost trillions/cost millions(if even that).
A compacted strategy is in the works, more to come guys. Comments and suggestions are welcome as this is supposed to be a group effort.
So here's the debate unaltered(so yes there are typos) and i included every post from both of us.
David Swerdlick--TheRoot.com: @Dorian--agree--"horrific" is a thumb on the scale, but...absent a raise in taxes, where do you cut first to balance the budget according to the balanced budget amendment?
Comment From Jason Zimmerman
@ David Swerdlick How about some foreign aid or maybe ceasing to occupy countries across the globe. I can't see how any of these things benefit the citizens of the United States.
David Swerdlick--TheRoot.com: @Jason--on foreign aid, I think it's a small part of the budget. Very small. On U.S. military footprint, consider that the entire global system shifts if we cede military hegemony. Not saying we shouldn't do it, but I think it's a lot more complicated than closing some bases in Germany/Korea/Qatar and striking a line item on the budget.
Comment From Jason Zimmerman
@ David My view on National Defense is that it should be about defending our country, it's sovereignty, and the people who live within it . With Iran being considered a nuclear threat, which is not something to be ignored. We could be spending money on research and development of nuclear defense systems making the fact that whether or not they have nukes negligible. I feel like the line between nation defense and international policing is getting a little bit to fuzzy.
David Swerdlick--TheRoot.com: @Jason--well said. But consider this. If we pulled back mostly from Okinawa, South Korea, Germany, Qatar, Kuwait, Gitmo, etc. then we're like Germany, except without the manufacturing base. What's our rationale then for having seat on U.N. Security Council, controlling or partially controlling NATO, IMF, World Bank, etc. etc. At that point, we save money on DoD, but our ability to steer events in the Straits of Hormuz, in East Asia, Caribbean changes drastically. Maybe we want that, but I don't know if Americans en masse are ready to conceive of ourselves as just a power, not a superpower. This is my view, I know there's another way to look at it, which you articulated.
Comment From Jason Zimmerman
@ David Swerdlick It's not that we should completely pull all of your troops out of the rest of the world. I'd personally advocate having a few strong bases just as a staging area for potential threats as a method of deterring other nations from being militarily aggressive, the focus being the quality of our military not the quantity. Also America was a super power and we have the potential to become one again, but spending more then we can afford to and stretching our military out thin fighting wars that we literally can not win. These acts make us look overconfident and arrogant. I believe in leading by example and we are not setting a good example for the world.
David Swerdlick--TheRoot.com: @Jason--again, well said. Can't really argue with your appeal for spending within our means. But I just think that most of us aren't ready for the prospect of being a Germany-level or Japan-level power and not a China-level power. If you pull out of Korea, Okinawa, Kuwait, Rhein-Main, the cost to get back in later, theoretically, after our fiscal house is in order, is astronomical.
Comment From Jason Zimmerman @David Like I said earlier the battlefield is far different then it was 70 years ago and even 50 during the cold war era(Though more similar). We have technology that could level small states and so do other nations. Whats the point of having 50,000 thousand troops based somewhere If any strong enemy could drop one bomb and wipe out the entire force. Military superiority has become technological superiority. If the USA can make opposing WMDs ineffective whitest making our own harder to counter we would truly be a super power that no nation could militarily oppose or even dare to. I'm an advocate of military spending I just think our approach to National Defense is wasting valuable resources that could be better spent gaining true military superiority.
David Swerdlick--TheRoot.com: @Jason--again, compelling. Technology is paramount, I agree. But consider that one reason why so many U.S. casualties in Iraq were casualties, not combat deaths, was because we medevac to hospitals on bases in Germany. Consider the ease with which U.S. managed the Mediterranean during Libya war. That's because of carrier groups and air base in Aviano, Italy. Not arguing the moral aspect here. There are obviously reasons to oppose what we did in Iraq and Libya, but they would not have been possible without a big military footprint. Arguably, you couldn't have launched raid against bin Laden compound without Bagram and other installations in Afghanistan.
Comment From Jason Zimmerman @David if instead of having standing bases installed across the globe it would be far more effective to have agreements with allies to make staging grounds and train or even set up special military forces trained for creating mobile bases of opperation. Our focus should be swift and overwhelming to our enemies. Not only would this reduce causalities due to attrition of longstanding warfare, but it would make us appear like a world power so strong that opposing would be foolhardy and borderline suicidal. Just imagine the point of view of a hostile nation when It sees an attacking country fall in days, not years. If I was a world leader I would never attack a country that appears so in control and powerful.
David Swerdlick--TheRoot.com: @Jason--you've thought this through more than most. But tell me how does a Libya situation work without the preexisting bases/carriers/infrastructure. The model you're proposing makes us more like U.K./France. Major militaries but no where near U.S. capabilities. They ran out of missiles in the first couple of days. The war was their idea. What if the U.S. pilot who was shot down near Benghazi was hurt or captured? Without bases in Germany/Italy, how do we rescue, or worse, hospitalize?
Comment From Jason Zimmerman
@David Basically the easiest way to defeat an opponent is to be better then them.
David Swerdlick--TheRoot.com: @Jason--I don't think anyone, regardless of political stripe, disagrees that we've got the best military. But part of what makes it great is all the bases and infrastructure. You know, like the TV commercials: "logistics".
Comment From Jason Zimmerman
@David Yes, it's not that I'm saying infrastructure is bad (and I would personally vouch for having standing bases throughout the globe though not in the number and scale we currently have), but that we should specialize forces in handling situations quickly without needing large scale movements. In fact if we had just sent small, covert teams into Iraq and Afghanistan instead of tens of thousands of troops. The war would have taken weeks, not years with far fewer casualties of both our soldiers and the innocents of their countries
David Swerdlick--TheRoot.com: @Jason--now we're on the same page. Go back to 2002 and you clearly want to go into Afghanistan with a much lighter footprint, and not go into Iraq at all. But...you can't have special forces ops without bases and carriers to support them. And to roll in the libertarian discussion. You can't have bases and carriers without federal taxes.
Comment From Jason Zimmerman
@David Agreed, the military will always need funding. The issue is that wars aren't fought with massive forces going head to head in conflict. Our strategy needs to evolve with the times. We could easily have full military coverage of the planet with no more then 30 bases stationed near "hot-spots". The key to that strategy working however is mobility of our forces which the money from all the excess installations and standing forces could be used to train and equip our troops for this new age of warfare by doing things like increasing effective range of transports, putting more effort into gathering intelligence, and training our troops in "ghost" warfare (completing your mission before the enemy even knows your their, tactical invisibility).
David Swerdlick--TheRoot.com: @Jason--our strategy has evolved right before our eyes. W fought Iraq/Afghanistan with high tooth to tail ratio--brigades and semi-permanent bases. O's wars--Libya, Yemen, etc. are being fought with drones and sea-to-land missiles. The SEAL operation that killed bin Laden was the kind of special op that you're advocating.
I reply wasn't aired by the writers, but i essentially closed saying the SEAL team was exactly the correct choice and that the results of the different strategies speak for them selves. Success/failure, thousands of American soldiers dead/not a single lost cost trillions/cost millions(if even that).
A compacted strategy is in the works, more to come guys. Comments and suggestions are welcome as this is supposed to be a group effort.