Asked this week about his faltering efforts to advance the Middle East peace process, President Obama did something remarkable. In front of some 47 foreign leaders and hundreds of reporters from all over the world, President Obama said that “whether we like it or not, we remain a dominant military superpower.”Whether we like it or not? Most Americans do like it. America’s military may be one of the greatest forces for good the world has ever seen, liberating countless millions from tyranny, slavery, and oppression over the last 234 years. As a dominant superpower, the United States has won wars hot and cold; our military has advanced the cause of freedom in Iraq and Afghanistan and kept authoritarian powers like Russia and China in check.
It is in America’s and the world’s interests for our country to remain a dominant military superpower, but under our great country’s new leadership that dominance seems to be slipping away. President Obama has ended production of the F-22, the most advanced fighter jet this country has ever built. He’s gutted our missile defense program by eliminating shield resources in strategic places including Alaska. And he’s ended the program to build a new generation of nuclear weapons that would have ensured the reliability of our nuclear deterrent well into the future. All this is in the context of the country’s unsustainable debt that could further limit defense spending. As one defense expert recently explained:
The president is looking to eliminate the last vestiges of the Reagan-era buildup. Once the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are “ended” (not “won”), the arms control treaties signed, and defense budgets held at historic lows while social entitlements and debt service rise to near-European levels, the era of American superpower will have passed.
The truth is this: by his actions we see a president who seems to be much more comfortable with an American military that isn’t quite so dominant and who feels the need to apologize for America when he travels overseas. Could it be a lack of faith in American exceptionalism? The fact is that America and our allies are safer when we are a dominant military superpower – whether President Obama likes it or not.
- Sarah Palin
10 comments:
Tom, I'm an American taxpayer and I'm sick to death of having to pay year after year and decade after decade so we can retain our status as the dominant military superpower. I suppose in the future the right-wing will demand we have the dominant military in outer space as well.
Marquis, do we use that status of dominant military superpower for evil?
Our military has always been a tool for freedom. It has served to protect and defend our nation and its people, including those that speak out against their own country.
It has liberated millions of people from communism, facism, totalitarianism, and depotism so that they too could have freedom.
We have not used that military dominance to conquer other countries or build an empire. We have liberated and then turned over the governance of those countries to their own people.
We have used the military for defending our nation and its vital interests in the world. It has been a tool for justice.
It is one of the few things that the government is Constitutionally allowed to spend money upon, and frankly one of the very few departments of government where we derive a far greater good for that investment than what we spent.
If only we could say that for the rest of our federal government, sir.
I'm not disputing the fact our military has done a lot of good around the world. But the Founding Fathers (those fellows you on the Right seem to think you own) never intended that the people of this country be required to act as the planet's beat cop forever. A good deal of the time other countries do little to help themselves because they know we'll take care of whatever situation has come up.
Jim, your points are very well taken, and I cannot dispute them.
That being said, we still need to looks out for our nation's safety and interests, even if that does take us into other nations domain as required.
Iraq, under Saddam Hussein, with the U.S. and international intelligence that we had at the time was a good case and point of this... for both Gulf Wars.
Sorry, but until Sarah Palin and teabaggers address our exploding military budget, they cannot be taken seriously on the issue of either national security or debts and deficits. We spend more than the rest of the top 15 military countries - combined - to maintain our empire. And that is, of course, what it is, an empire.
And, seriously, who gives a crap what someone thinks who couldn't even handle the job of governor of Alaska?
Dave, I'll believe that you are concerned about debts and deficits when you and your beloved administration in power actually propose a budget that doesn't spend more than the previous 43 presidential administrations combined.
Further, under what definition does the United States maintain an empire? Further, if such a phantom empire exists, who are the countries that comprise this empire and how is it that we administer the workings of government of these puppet states?
Sorry Dave but you are being silly.
As for Palin, again I would far rather have the much-more qualified Palin as president than the egregiously unqualified man-child currently at the helm of the ship of state of our nation, sir.
Explain why we have troops in 135 countries at the moment if not empire? Our roads and bridges are crumbling, but we can't possibly spend money on that - that's socialism, of course - but we can spend trillions "helping" other countries. Most of the troop deployments have never been changed since the Cold War. Since there is no more USSR, explain why we refuse to leave. It is an empire by any definition of the term, despite what the right thinks. And don't assume that all of the 135 nations want us there.
Why do you support putting troops in Germany and leaving us without any to, I don't know...patrol our border?!
And your Palin worship casts your claim that you are not a Republican partisan hack in serious doubt. Sorry, but there is not a measurement on this earth that would put the half-term governor of Alaska and full-time Facebooker in the same league as President Obama. Most Republicans agree as well, as she has come in a distant third or fourth in every single straw poll conducted in the last two years of conservatives.
Dave, you are correct that we need to look at the redeployment of troops as the Cold-War-needs no longer apply. That being said, Russia and rogue nations are still a threat to us and our allies in various regions.
Should we pull back our troops from some of those nations and allow the countries there to protect themselves? Yes, where it is prudent to do so and where those countries are able to do so.
Our troops are not deployed anywhere where they are not asked by the government in charge to be there. They are there as protectors of liberty and our national interests. They are NOT there to dictate to other nations or maintain some non-existent U.S. empire.
We will always use our influence with allies and enemies alike. That doesn't mean that we give them marching orders that they must follow in the governance of their respective nations.
Further, I am shocked that you would say something so "racist" as wanting to put our troops on our borders to actually ENFORCE our immigration laws. You are being contradictory from previous comments, Dave.
Not a contradiction at all. I want our borders enforced, as do all Americans. But rather than deal with the problem of illegal immigration, the right tends to demonize the immigrant and all of those people who look like him.
The new law in AZ will not stop illegal immigration one tiny bit, but it will make life so unpleasant and oppressive to Latinos here legally (including US citizens who have all the same rights as you and I), that they will likely leave the state. That might be the real reason behind the law anyway.
I have never heard a main-stream right-winger demonize LEGAL immigrants of any color.
It is illegal immigrants that burden our nation and bring small percentages of people in their midst that are dangerous in their criminal actions of which most Americans on the right reject.
Post a Comment