Defense spending is at least constitutional so it's less onerous than virtually all the rest of the money they spend on everything.

Still though, I do love words like "disasterous" getting chucked around because bureaucrats (military or civilian) seem to think 3% less means the end of the world.

Split our defense budge in twain and it will still be more than double the runner up.

(*Full disclosure: The American Legion invited me out to the convention and covered my travel and lodging expenses.

Sell out!

Posted by: Nevergiveup at August 28, 2012 09:03 AM (05RcU)

I think the Cordoba House Mosque construction was stopped because they couldn't come up with the cash, and the landowners told them to pony up or piss off.  They're probably involved in in some Civil Rights Violation Lawsuit which Holder can't attend to, because his plate is full at the moment.

Nevergiveup you're hillarious. You remind me of Sir Humphrey from Yes, Prime Minister.

The thin end of the wedge! A Bennite solution! End of civilization!

We spend 5-10 times as much as our enemies do, and thats "That's not the point"?

Defense wasn't the only department that was supposed to make the sequestration cuts; it is, however, the only department that actually is making the cuts.

Everyone else is too important, I guess.

and we fight under about 200 times the restrictions....

Then cut the restrictions. Or better still, stop the fighting.

tell you waht let's cut it to zero

No, that's not remotely a false dichotomy. Totally serious.

so let's be sure to remove our tech advantages

Again, jesus, what the fuck do the Arabs spend on defense? $340.72? Half of them buy all their shit from us.

10% defense cuts and the soldier is gonna have a stick in his hand, outgunned and out-teched by the fucking nomadic goat farmers? How is a little less money to develop more NEW stuff going to cause us to lose EVERYTHING (as it's commonly portrayed by every agency or department that's ever faced a decrease to the increase in spending)?

Goddamn North Korea is really catching up and closing that tech gap I guess.

Posted by: Oldsailors Poet, Wonders what Dagny thinks at August 28, 2012 09:23 AM (9TTOe)

THE HORROR!!!!

Quick, call the govt, call the natl guard, call Shep Smith!! Call everybody!!!!!!

Additionally, we create a "defense welfare world" where our allies assume we'll cover them, and they don't pay squat toward their own defense obligations.

I think that is the way they like it, because it makes them dependent and prevents them from securing their own goddamn defense. Probably because they don't trust our allies and see them as imminent threats too.  Why not, everyone else is.

I was FOR enforcing  (with gusto)  the terms Saddams surrender agreement. Was pretty disappointed that the US felt the need to pay a single dime to help rebuild. Turns out I was right since we can't even use Iraqi air space to enforce Iran's prior agreements.

The miliary is there to kill our enemy quickly and as cheaply as possible. Nothing more - and I'm pretty sure they could still do it with a budget cut in half.

We have to maintain our edge both in equipment/technology and training/personnel. If we don't we will take higher casualties to achieve the result desired by the CinC or we will have to retreat from some parts of the world stage.

Quelle Horreur, we might have to leave Korea and Germany.

Bottom line, defense is in the constitution, SS and medicare aren't.

US defense is. Korea's defense and Germany's defense and South America's defense aren't.

US defense of its interests is absolutely in the US constitution old boy....

You're gonna play that game, you have to basically admit that "interest" is open ended. It's unlimited. No check or balance at all.

To say "we must defend our interests" is to say "we just do whatever" because we can take an "interest" in goddamn anything at all.

Posted by: General Zod at August 28, 2012 09:30 AM (2+bRt)

   Gotta agree with Zod here.  Don't get me wrong - I would love for the US to have a military force of huge size, massive and incalculable technical superiority, able to fight unlimited war against the entire world.  Because, of course, every other people on earth is, in some way, or enemy.  But really, what good is it?  When was the last time we showed that we had the balls to really end a conflict and solve the problem?  Pacific theater, WW2 was the last time.  We even gave away half the West to the commies. 

   We need to withdraw to our own hemisphere to the extent practical.  We need to maintain the strategic forces, especially the nuclear arsenal.  It's long past time to say to the Koreans, Japanese, and Western Europeans - "stand up like men and bear your own burden."  Let them get a little fear - that is usually the best way to put the socialists/communists in their place - remind people that the world is dangerous and mommy isn't there to pull your ass out of the fire.

Posted by: HoboJerky, profit of DOOM! at August 28, 2012 09:54 AM (MrM2k)

    Well, like where?  What around them is worth taking, and for what?  Easier to just buy what they need.

Well, like where? What around them is worth taking, and for what? Easier to just buy what they need.

-----

They need Siberia for the water. So with Russia pretty much on the way out and needing cash, China will probably strike a purchase deal of Siberia, or just take it.

You can't say you believe in limited government and then immediately say "But we can never cut DoD spending".   You just can't.  DoD is subject to the same bloat as every single other federal agency, only even more so.  Every veteran, if he's honest, can think of examples of ridiculous waste.  Case in point - being the pogue that I was, I could eat every meal at the DFAC on Al-Asad, yet we had a connex full of MRE crates.  The boys in the det used to bring in boxes of them and tear through them to get the candy, combos, pound cake, etc, and throw the rest back in the box.  We used to have stacks of these boxes until it caused a rat problem so noticeable that our Top ordered us to clean up the place and throw all food away that wasn't going to be eaten.  Silly little anecdote?  Sure, but it illustrates on a tiny scale what goes on a massive scale.  There's no reason on earth to have bases in Europe, Japan or Korea anymore.  Let those fuckers stand their own posts at long last. 

We all laugh at that Paul Ryan "MATH" meme that's started, but that math applies to everything, you know?  We can't afford to play world cop anymore, and the hysterical reaction to the suggestion of cuts tells me more about politicians fearing the end of the gravy train than about any actual impact on force readiness. 

And you know what, I absolutely agree that there's a reason why lefties are willing to ax defense spending at the expense of everthing else, but that's not a reason to reflexively dig in and argue that we should actually be spending more.  Slaughter all the fucking pigs at the trough in every agency of the federal government.  Start being intellectually consistant for once.  There's massive room in between the status quo and the neutered military of Ron Paul or Dennis Kucinich's dreams, and somewhere in there is where we should be focused.

The problem with sequestration isn't the cuts, or the randomness, it's the irresponsibility of the Democrats in congress to get off their duffs and do their jobs, pass an actual goddamn budget.

People who are ranting about the impending Chinese domination are going to feel just as silly as those who ranted about impending Japanese domination in the late '80s.  China's headed for a pretty big fall, in case you haven't noticed.  Major demographic problems and a real estate bubble that makes ours look tiny.

The defense budget needs to be cut by at least 30%.

The way the military is organized, with separate Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines, each wanting (and getting) everything they can think of is a ridiculous system.  Not only do we need to get politics out of the miltary, we need to eliminate the intra-service rivalry.

We're to the point where one drone can do more than 10 platoons. So technically we could cut about 9 platoons per drone, and insure the bet  by   keeping  the one platoon on standby. Is my expert opinion.

goddamn, wrote a long post that evaporated in our shitty IT system.  Not writing all that again.  Suffice to say, fighting for DoD's budget because "domestic cuts never come" is pretty much the surest way to guarantee that NOTHING gets cut and that we continue to speed our way to fiscal doom. 

Eventually you have to take a stand, and I choose to take mine now.  This country cannot continue on its current course, and Paul Ryan's plan, while better than anything else being promoted, ain't gonna do it.  I don't believe in a big sinister conspiracy of the "military-industrial complex", but is it really such a stretch to suggest that huge defense contractors have a rather major interest in fighting against defense budget cuts, and that such cuts probably aren't the apocalyptic disaster they're being pimped as.

And just for the record, I'm not a Paulite because I'm not a pacifist, and quite frankly the kind of rebranded hippie peacenik fucks who make up his fan base turn my stomach.  Doesn't mean he's wrong about everything.

Posted by: Paladin at August 28, 2012 09:01 AM (4kpbt)

Sounds like a myth.  From what I understand, it was a money issue.

Oh, gee. Maybe the officers will stop authorizing themselves TDY and Per Diem rates and be forced into Permissive TDY and pay for their vacations themselves.

we lack the ability evidently to force the federal government to give us access to the resources we'd need to get US manufacturing back on line in an isolationist American defense posture....

Jesus. Again with the 'isolationist'. Talk about false dichotomy. If you're not a neocon, you're an isolationist.

Fuck those open borders, globalizing isolationists.

Also, fuck the English language.

Sean, fine.  What you're essentially arguing for, then, is the need to maintain high levels of defense spending as a jobs program.  I fail to see the difference between that and any other form of government employment or welfare, which supposedly we want to limit.

Posted by: Sean Bannion at August 28, 2012 10:32 AM (sbV1u)

------

OK, cut the personell budget in half, I'll take my chances on being accidentally killed by a hacked drone.

"Democrats defend the Federal worker apparatus; Republicans defend the military apparatus. Both are overpopulated, neither is likely to get the kind of cuts needed in the government workforce. We can do as well with less of both."

Wholeheartedly agree, although as a Virginian I'm not giving up on us yet.  I do fervently wish, however, that we could cede all of Fairfax County to Maryland so those fucks stop ruining our elections.

In order to know what to spend on defense, you first need to establish what the policy will be concerning how the next conflict will be fought.

Somewhere between WWII and now, we adopted a policy of holding the citizens of country blameless while targeting the leadership.  If true change is ever going to come, this needs to be reversed.

As was the case with Iraq and is the case with Iran, the U.S. needs to hold the citizens of countries accountable for the actions of their leaders.  They need to know that if they don't change the people at the top, they will suffer the consequences of a pissed-off superpower. 

As Captain Kirk once said, it's time to bring back the horror of war to show why it is something to be avoided.

Significant cuts could be made by forcing the USAF to focus on drones and not fighter jets.  The USAF is run by fighter jocks that do not like this.  They need to go.  The future is drones. 

That being said, drones are not a replacement for platoons.  There is no substitute for boots on the ground if you want to gain and keep land.

If you are not trying to keep land, and do not care what condition you leave it in, bomb the shit out of it.  That is all

runs away

Somewhere between WWII and now, we adopted a policy of holding the citizens of country blameless while targeting the leadership. If true change is ever going to come, this needs to be reversed.
------

Also newly adopted has been the revokation of the spoils of war doctrine which meant soldiers could get out with some serious scratch (legaly) if they were lucky.  Bring that back and I'll frickin sign up tomorrow.

Yeah you are a fucking isolationist if you allow DoD to be nuked without real non DoD discretionary cuts....you think team jackass will ever stop with the cuts?

Dude, you're just hysterical.

"nuked"? Allow DOD to be "nuked"?

Would a decrease to the rate of increase constitute unlimited nuclear warfare against the poor defense department?

'Yeah, you're an isolationist' if you want a smaller military budget? Like I said man, fuck English. English is for fags. The cool kids speak Humpty-Dumpty.

Posted by: Up with people!! at August 28, 2012 10:47 AM (kzFo5)

Yes, as a guy I knew found out when he tried to smuggle an AK home from Afghanistan.

Do we think that when Japan entered it's "isolation" period, it did so by cutting back on Samurai's and outsourcing arms production to the Dutch?

That is apparently what isolationism means.

Posted by: Oldsailors Poet, Wonders what Dagny thinks at August 28, 2012 10:33 AM (9TTOe)

;;;;

Hey, no fair putting the bar that low!

You give the donks DoD on a platter unilaterally it will never stop.

The same exact argument applies to every single item in the budget.

You give Republicans the ability to make cuts to welfare, when will it stop? It will never stop! They want us all back in indentured servitude with 0 firemen or police to save us!1!eleven!!

Thin end of the wedge!

We could double the DoD budget, triple Social Security benefits, provide cradle to grave healthcare for every citizen and have a myriad of other social programs while completely eliminating the national debt if we just adopted one policy...

Imperialism.

Cuts are a slippery slope, you know.

You do a little cutting here, a little cutting there, and pretty soon people start questioning whether the budget should go up every year.

It's a recipe for the unmaking of civilization I tell you.

Posted by: Oldsailors Poet, Wonders what Dagny thinks at August 28, 2012 10:56 AM (9TTOe)

The Chicoms have one goal. Sodomize America at every turn. Even if it means screwing themselves in the process.

Not remotely paranoid.

It isn't remotely paranoid to suggest the Chinese put sticking it to the US ahead of Chinese self-interest?

The hell it ain't.

Sequestration was meant to be a game of chicken.

Unfortunately, we're playing chicken with a brick wall, and we're determined that if we just press on, it  is BOUND to flinch.

When is the last time we worked with China on something that had a mutually beneficial outcome?

Who gives a shit?

I did not say they have our best interests at heart.

They have their own self-interest at heart. And they don't put sticking it to us, nor helping us, higher than helping themselves. China is not insane.

Hey Drew:

Any chance you'd be available for a meetup with some fellow Hotair'ians while in Indy?  Downtown has some really awesome brewpubs (Sun King, Rock Bottom, etc.) not to mention several very fine eating establishments (you have to visit St. Elmo's at least once).  Let us know if you're game and welcome to our fine city. 

"It frequently involved them doing something which would screw themselves in the short-term with a longer-term strategic gain for them."

Wasn't this the plan the Russians had in the Cold War?  Spend every last damn ruble  they have,  try to keep looking strong,  and hope that eventually  they will exhaust the Americans or convince us that they are indeed strong?

Granted, outspending and outlasting the Russians in the 1980's  !=  outspending and outlasting the Chinese  in the 2010's. 

To their way of thinking, which has always been patient (they are a long-suffering people) it is not illogical.

BS.

China persues China's interest. They are not out to get us just for the sake of getting us even if it hurts them.

Defense hawks worry about China because they have nothing else to worry over. It's simply the only half credible conventional threat left on the globe. And it's still only half credible at best as a direct threat to us, one that can and will be settled diplomatically because the Chinese are not going to start WWIII.

"but the IRR is not supposed to be slave labor."

*hyperventilates and passes out*

if we're all about "true cost" and "financial freedom" just don't holer when a lot of troops laugh at the next "oh no!" that doesn't involve foreign boots on US soil....

Are you suggesting that the next time a politician thinks he can carve out his niche in the history books by invading the next Somalia or Libya, the military will caution against it because they can't afford it?

You think I'm going to be complaining? I'll throw them a ticker-tape parade.

They do pursue their self-interest - on 50 and 100-year time horizons. Not on the time horizon you'd prefer.

OK.... so maybe in 25 years we can determine that they might become a real threat in another 25 years and up defense spending again.

If we can't keep them from outpacing us when we're spending 5 times more than them and they're a corrupt autocracy and half their country has no toilets, we fucking suck and some people deserve to be fired anyway.

"the Chinese are not going to start WWIII."

They don't need to.  They've got neighbors perfectly willing to start it,  but  can't due to a lack of adequate technology.

China will not start WW3.  But they will be the middleman.  The underwriter.

I hate using movie plots as legitimate analogies  for serious stuff.  Hate it.  But I will do so here.  Did you see the 2nd Sherlock Holmes movie, Game of  Shadows or whatever?  Moriarti's  goal  was to become insanely  wealthy  by goading on a World War, because he had already  bought  weapons manufacturing companies, and positioned himself  as the supplier for both sides.

China might not be starting the war, but they already have positioned themselves as a major creditor  to the US.  They make money off of us, and they have become one of the few people we can turn to to give us more in a pinch.

They  have also positioned themselves as allies (formally or otherwise) with Russia  and Iran.  Iran and Cuba are about as friendly with each other as either country can stand.

Oh, you want some new toys, Iran?  Here you go.

Oh, you need more money to fight Iran, America?  Here you go.

*cash-register  bell*

OK, that's a better argument than you were giving before.

No, it's the same argument. To wit: when we are spending multiples of what 2nd place spends and already milking an astronomic lead, 5%, 10%, 15% cuts to defense spending is not "isolationism". Certainly not the apocalypse some are making it out to be where we are all about to be gutted by evil chinese communists. 

The Chinese 100 year strategy is not foolish and quite simply rests on trying to become economic "guardian" of the third world in Africa and Asia.

Are you trying to make me feel sorry for Africa and Asia?

China might not be starting the war, but they already have positioned themselves as a major creditor to the US. They make money off of us, and they have become one of the few people we can turn to to give us more in a pinch.

Not for long, dude.

The autocratic chinese society has allowed the chinese government to blow up a bubble so large our technocrats can scarely fathom it.

China in it's current incarnation is completely unsustainable. You can't just go around building highspeed rail and whole towns without any people to put in them.

For decades the Chinese have far more concerned with creating the appearance of prosperity then with actual prosperity.

but the precedent has been set that you will happily throw DoD under the bus for no gain.

We don't get "no gain", we get cuts. That is almost like the holy grail. I'm not even sure if it exists.

Look at it this way: they are doing the hard work for the next Republican. Romney won't have to cut the DoD budget because Obama did it for him.

Responsible cuts yes, but I do not want to go back to the Carter years when draconian cuts were made in order to pay for social spending in an economic downturn.  The results on the military were disasterous, not enough fuel for navy ships, aircraft uable to fly because maintenance was not being done, enlisted people swelling the food stamps rolls and receiving welfare.  Recruiting bombed, attrition was awful, and because of the inability to attract and keep quality personnel, the quality of personnel suffered greatly.  Drug use in some units was ignored, waivers were given for those with criminal records.

You get what you pay for

I will type this slowly. DoD will wind up being the only thing cut.

That seems to be what it comes down to, aesthetics. Like, goddamn if we cut one red cent from Defense, regardless of whether it's wisely spent, so long as 1 penny is being wasted on anything else.

Well let me tell you this, if in the end we all go bankrupt, 11 carrier groups won't do shit without enough money to gas up the jets.

That's the current US 100 year plan.

Spend all the money until all the money is gone and then say "oh shit".

Here's an idea... lets drop some more $30M bombs in places like Libya where the GDP is $25M.

So we can only stop increasing military spending when none of our people are being killed? So that'll be never, then.

Especially since that would just further incentivize the people who don't want cuts to go get people killed in wierd and random places halfway around the globe.

If you gave a ruthless Republican unfettered military control for a decade I could balance the Federal budget in 15 years.

That's... um... frightening.

You take the population of the United States and swap it out with Africa it'd be paradise on Earth. The Chinese ever have the wiggle room to exert stability for economic resource extraction on a serious scale they have bought themselves world dominance on the cheap.

If they made Africa functional and productive, that would be good for the whole goddamn world. It's unbelievable, and it would be unbelievably good for the global economy and global living standards.

And if we live in a world where the Chinese control Africa and have to bomb them every few years instead of the US.... why exactly is this such a disaster?

Oh right, because after they have Africa they're coming for the Aleutian Islands, right? And the only chance we have to defend ourselves lies in keeping control of... Africa...

Posted by: sven10077 at August 28, 2012 12:09 PM (LRFds)

Um... yeah.

Must be direct descendent of Napoleon. Some people just aren't happy unless the invasion prospects remain infinite.

You're a fucking utopian, you think you can finagle the End of History and a nice little safe unthreatening world. God knows how many millions you'd kill in the process because that's what those sorts always do when they get their shot at Utopia.

I don't know what to say other than that some people think a year long really-kickass no-holds-barred military campaign and a couple tactical nukes can solve Africa's domestic warlord problem.

Of course we need higher defense spending with your plan to strong-arm the entire goddamn world at once, mostly over stuff domestic to them and foreign to us. Surely they would understand they are just fuckups and we are not and we have all their best interests at heart?

The Chinese will want stability for resource extraction not a prosperity that is in any way equitable.

Those resources coming out of Africa (a sight not seen for 2000 years, a PRODUCTIVE Africa) would benefit the whole world even if Africa still sucked.

And given how bad Africa does suck - really really really really bad - Chinese style suckitude would still be a great leap forward over the current sitatuion, where countries swing back and forth between armies of 12yo drug addicts eviscerating neolithic substanence-farming villagers for sport.

Any kind of stability (the kind that would allow actual production) would be a boon.

My personal economic beliefs, and morality prevent me from wanting to do so of course unlike the RAWN! fans those same morals mean I am supposed to prevent the Red Force from doing evil when able to as well....

No. Because the US military is a defense force, not a charitable organization. The purpose is not to storm around the whole world preventing evils, it's just supposed to defend us from foreign invasion.

Maybe I'm too mercenary but I thought it's purpose was to defend our interests. And that's a broad category.

That's the whole problem with that phrase "defend our interests" as I've argued before.

It's not just a broad category, it's an infinitely broad category.

It's basically meaningless. It's like saying the purpose of our military is to "do stuff". Ahh, stuff. Well I'm sure whatever it's doing, that stuff will be stuff to be done then, I guess.

If you want to be mercenary be mercenary, anti-westphalien. You want (commercially backed, colonialistic) voluntary moral crusades to unfuck Africa? OK I'm fine with that.

Hire XO or Blackwater to do it and pay for it yourself, and don't use (and get killed) troops that are pledged to our national defense.

XO (a private security company - mercenaries) were doing a damn lot of GOOD for Africa, actually, until the International Community put the kibosh on it.

Because it was a private organization and the fact that a private military can be good enough to kick the shit out of your standard 3rd world National standing army was very scary to some people.

I'm not against charitable war persay, I merely insist we let charitable wars be fought on donated charitable dollars with volunteered charitable soldiers.

The US army is for fucking defense.

When Japan ended it's isolationist policy, it did so because of America actually. An American merchant sailed into a Japanese harbor and unloaded a broadside into a hill as a show of force, and then asked again if they'd like to trade or just be raided and razed.

That happened a long time ago but that kind of shit is wrong. If Japan wants to be isolationist, they can be isolationist. If they don't want to trade, they don't have to trade.

If Somalia does not want open business and free global trade and US businessmen, fine. It doesn't have to have them. If some US businessman decides he wants to do business in Somalia, it does not then become compelling national defense interest that we make Somalia safe for US businessmen.

Let the fucking business who wants to do business in Somalia hire mercenaries and take over Somalia. Fuck Somalia - I don't care if it's the Somalis, Microsoft, or the red Chinese, we have no business in Somalia, or the rest of Africa, under practically any scenario it's nothing to do with us.

If Somalia is a lawless place where sailors are liable to be pirated and kidnapped, that doesn't mean it falls on the US to make the place safe. It means don't fucking go there.

If you go there anyway, buy your own damn security.

Forgive me, but aren't you thinking of XE, formerly Blackwater? They changed their name again to Academi, trying to live down the trouble they caused in Iraq before they were fired by the military.

No, I'm talking about a prologue to Blackwater, XO, the South African private security contractor who was hired by several wartorn African governments (like Sierra Leone) to restore order and end warlord insurgencies, before being ultimately disbanded by the international community sometime back in the late 80's or early 90's I think.

Executive Outcomes.

tinyurl.com/ebya3

XO ended the violence in Sierra Leone.

Then they got rid of XO.

Then the violence came right back. Sierra Leone caved to international pressure and promises that UN-types would step in and do for them what XO was doing.

Big shocker, they lied. Turns out the UN-types are full of shit. The only thing they can do well is extort starving people into providing sexual favours in exchange for getting their humanitarian aid packages.

and if the US would pledge to protect private military contract forces I'd be all for that....

WTF?

Protect???

somehow "moral neutrality" only requires us to be weak...

WTF with the BS?

Spending only 3 times as much as all our enemies on defense preparedness, instead of 5, makes us "weak"? WTH are you talking about?

It's just hysterical and emotional hyperbole. You're waiving bloody shirts at budget cuts, how original. Never seen that tactic before.

not militarily champ politically...

You must be one of them crazy paulbots ranting about privateers then.

That was basically Paul's idea - declare letters of marque for Somalia and let whomever has the gung-ho and the guns to go in and fuck the place up right.

That was, of course, CRAZY, delusional, idiotic, niave, isolationist, pacifist, and also, of course, directly aiding and abetting Iran.

arguing we should unilaterally crank back our world presence

Unilaterally?

How else would you do it? Especially if you want to maintain a position of strength.

Are you saying it would be "strength" if we bilaterally cranked back our presence in the world?

If the US says you know, we really have no compelling reason to be in Korea so we're just going to leave because we have better things to do, that is weak?

But if the US and Korea come to a joint agreement kicking the US out that's strength?

Or are you arguing we must never, ever, ever leave Korea, that the long game is to add it to the 57 states?

if you are serious about allowing Corporations to....

Allow, shmallow. I am saying it's none of our business and not our problem to decide what is allowed or not allowed, everywhere.

It's our problem what we allow in US territory.

Outside of our territory and that of our volunary, modern, democratic, industrialized (or industrializing) allies - and here I stipulated that to be a genuine ally you must be able to actually contribute to mutual defense, which is shown by having your own fucking standing first-line defense of your own borders, not relying on us for that - what happens elsewhere is what China should worry it's pretty little head over and not our national political concern.

The US has an interest in making certain her trade routes are open and having the force necessary to exert access to those markets....

You're apparently making an assumption that all foreign trade is under duress, that none of our allies value their own trade routes with us, that trade with voluntary partners alone just isn't sufficient.

Somalia may have a lot of resources, all of Africa does (all the world does, really). But that goes back to what we were discussing earlier. The place is too fucked up to produce anything.

You're the one who brought up China trying to establish hegemony in Africa.

We're not protecting our trade routes, we're protecting all the trade routes. We're protecting China's trade with Africa. Make China do it.

The US can protect it's trade lanes to it's trading partners alone, and only up until the point of their territorial border, beyond which they can be expected to do it their damn selves.

The only reason they don't is for 40 years we have played the game of "Oh no no no! We insist! Let me do that for you."

Our defense policy was designed by a goddamn control freak. Just like the 5% cuts, a rollback internationally is not cause for disaster. Others can and will step up when they are expected to, and when they have no alternative of just having the US subsidize their defense.

force necessary to exert access to those markets....

Also this.

Accessing markets is not an activity that usually requires exherting force.

The force necessary to exert access to voluntary markets or involuntary ones?