Centerfield

For the GOP, the elimination of the estate tax is more important than expanding the military. In the pursuit of power through pork, the Republicans have betrayed their small government principles.

Say what? Since "expanding the military" is not a GOP agenda item and the estate tax is, that's hardly bloody surprising, much less deplorable. Not to mention the obvious conflict between the purported "expanding the military" agenda item and "smaller government." The military being part of the government, after all.

The only folks calling for "expanding the military" are anti-War Dems pushing the re-instatement of the draft. And this may be news to The Moose, but the Dems are just as assidious at pursuing "power through pork." They're just not as able while they're a minority. As a majority they proved that "power through pork" is pretty generic.

"coming from the Moose"

Only Bull has been coming from the Moose recently. Whitman might be flirting with the Unity 08 ticket, but I'm sure that this will be a no show. They don't seem to have the money to conduct an orderly vote on candidates, and the idea of an online nomination is ridiculous. This dog won't hunt.

Oh, btw, I heard that Marshall Whitman's biography is a very interesting readm, to say at least. He seems to have tried every possible political standpoint over the years. He's simply the king of flipfloppers. Why anyone would take this jerk seriously is beyond me.

Despite my sniping on particulars, Mathew, I agree with the gist of what The Moose is saying. Can we get a rousing cheer for democratic pluralism? :-)

Gray,

What the hell are you talking about?

Read the post from the Moose.... I think what he is saying is that the Unity '08 movement isn't feasible; therefore, he will be supporting a candidate from one of the two parties in the mold of John McCain or Joe Lieberman.

Furthermore, I think your classification of Whitman fails to grasp the point. Newsflash, most Americans flip-from on political parties and ideologies, mostly because they don't identify with either Republicans or Democrats, nor liberals or conservatives. Considering this fact, it seems to me that Whitman is ideal for the role he is currently playing.

Your quasi-personal vendetta against Whitman is sort of weird. There are many others involved in the Unity '08 movement. I would take the time to read about it if I were you.

"The only folks calling for ‘expanding the military’ are anti-War Dems pushing the re-instatement of the draft".

I guess you mean by “expanding, adding more troops. I do not see that as an anti-war position. Increasing the Guard for the "greening of America" and border security are hardly Kosian; some similar thoughts have come from the DOD.

As for expanding America's military capabilities, this does follow from the goals of the Bush Doctrine and the idea of pre-emption. Global Strike is an expansion of military power. Our capabilities for prevention, gathering intelligence and improving deterrence had better expand faster than asymmetric threats, or we are approaching problems.

It also follows present NSS that increased missile defense, increased response systems, increased theater protection, increased interdiction and security of assets means "expanding" the present effort and obtain better tactical control over emerging threats. Given the growing strains of extremism in Africa and Asia, what Republican candidate would suggest slowing the defense budget? McCain was rebuffed for his objection to the F-22 contrat terms. In theory, numerous stealth sea platforms could launch drones and missiles with greater global coverage than continue to build fewer mega billion dollar carriers while attack sub production is reduced. Fuel Cell and energy transformation also mean expanding military efforts to reduce energy demand. Already synthetic fuel is being added to jet fuel.

How only anti-war Democrats are trying to expand the military, and for the goal of bringing back the draft seem odd. Some could argue that the Bush Doctrine has cracked the Status Quo through force and unleashed the dam requiring increased expansion of American military power.

Lastly, I am not an antiwar Democrat. As Bobby mentioned a while back, perhaps the best posture is for America to have two militaries; one to fight the large-scale conventional battles and another transformed branch to respond rapidly to the asymmetry of the emerging threat. This indeed would be an expansion of the military, but the cost could be mitigated by the increased security, infrastructure benefit here in the USA, and the prosperity of a more stable world. I do not see how "winning the war on terrorism", "containing dangerous regimes", "defending our allies" points anywhere BUT to military expansion. Unfortunately, the economy is the limiter as well as the public will. Antiwar cannot be blamed for mistakes and the blow back from them.

McCain Lieberman would be better than either team from 2004. I do not exactly see this duo forming; I did speculate it could make a winnable Unity ticket should the Right defeat McCain and the Democrats field a Kossak wearing a flag.

Tully,
Is it your opinion that a 1-2 kilometer buffer zone would be a "defeat" for Israel?

Max, you can cast things however you feel. Any sane president or party will attempt to upgrade, but upgrades are not expansion. The DOD will naturally have those who wish to get more money/powers/troops. They're not a political party. The only politicians that I have heard calling for an actual increase in the size of the military are the draft-pushers.

As Bobby has explained copiously both here and in other places, today's U.S. military has more than adequate numbers for the current missions, with roughly 2/3's or more available for additional usages. We have roughly 1.4 million active duty military, another 900K in available reserves.

Is it your opinion that a 1-2 kilometer buffer zone would be a "defeat" for Israel?

Depends on what they do with it. Lord knows that the UN "force" has been even less than worthless as a buffer. In 28 years the very best they've managed is worthless. And at the worst, they've been both active and inactive facilitators for Hezbollah.

Israel Nixes Major U.N. Role in Lebanon

Gee. I wonder why. Just because the current "temporary" force has been there almost three decades, and accomplished less than nothing in terms of keeping Israel secure.

Tully,
I still don't know where you get that the antiwar wing advocates more troops to force the draft issue (then blame Bush?). I have heard the DLC suggest more troops for Iraq and Kerry of course, during his run said he would add special ops.

I wonder what you mean by "adequate" when there are so many unknown scenarios and surprises. Adequate is certainly not the slogan for the CVN-21 ad. I think Bobby quoted a military officer (Air Force) that suggested essentially two military forces. That wouldn't call for more than an upgrade? I guess if one simply goes along with DOD upgrade requests, then EVERYONE is for expansion.

Actually, the military seems to prefer better hardware to more insurance policies to pay. However, you didn't address the DOD notion of an expanded guard for energy construction and the "greening of America". Silly? Perhaps, that is better left to corporations and illegal workers after they get done with the fence.

Counterterrorism Blog considers a 2-kilometer buffer a strategic defeat for Israel because Hezbollah remains, can fire weapons and remain a political force. The UN outpost took 2 of 700 rounds that landed around them. We know how close Hezbollah was operating to these "observers" and of course, you are clearly right in YOUR OBSERVATION that these twits did nothing for twenty years but allow a terrorist group to arm and entrench along Israel's border. I also suspect these observers were asked to leave.

Only Israel would have to broadcast their plans and refrain from flattening the area. The claim of using banned chemical weapons is the same Kos rant leveled at the US in Iraq. This time Defense Tech posted a reply quickly. here

Do you think Israel is blinking, and if so, is it because IDF doesn't want to commit to a full invasion and "flattening" for political reasons, wonders how successful such a military campaign would be, is waiting for the long range salvos to justify more force, or lastly, they want to draw this out despite an apparent time factor working against them?

Follow up

You really wouldn't advocate any expansion, or support a larger guard or a national service draft in which the guard would be an option?

Would growing involvement in Africa and Asia "require" an expansion?

You know I am a bit dense; manpower is not an issue even in the present global context?

Manpower's not much of an issue, no. Not unless we have some intention on launching long wars against two or three more countries. And "expanding the military" means adding more troops. Many have argued forever about sending more troops to one place or another, but the only politicians I've heard arguing for significantly more troops in the military overall have been anti-war Dems arguing for a draft. Specifically, in the House, Charles Rangel D-NY, James McDermott D-WA, John Conyers D-MI, John Lewis D-GA, Pete Stark D-CA, Neil Abercrombie D-HI, Donna Christensen D-VI, Alcee Hastings D-FL, Corrine Brown D-FL, Wm. Lacy Clay D-MO, Elijah Cummings D-MD, John Murtha D-PA, Jesse Jackson Jr. D-IL, Sheila Jackson-Lee D-TX, James Moran D-VA, John Lewis D-GA, Nydia Velasquez D-NY, and Eleanor Holmes-Norton D-DC.

Rangel's posturing bring-back-the-draft bill was forced to a floor vote, and lost 402-2. Rangel himself voted against it, as did all but one co-sponsor. The only two people who voted for it were Rep. John Murtha, D-PA, and Rep. Pete Stark, D-CA.

Please note there's no "R" on that list at all, and each and every one of those Democrats can be quite fairly characterized as "anti-war Democrats." The only Senator I'm aware of who has called for "expanding the military" is one John Kerry D-MA. I think we can safely call him an anti-war Democrat as well.

No doubt there are some GOP'ers that think that adding more troops would be a fine idea (especially if their state would get the extra spending). But we've not heard from them. It's not part of the GOP platform--nor the Dem platform. So I don't know where the Moose got that bit as something being advocated by the GOP. It's a puzzle. Simple enough? Upgrading the military with better equipment and capabilities is a different subject entirely.

However, you didn't address the DOD notion of an expanded guard for energy construction and the "greening of America"

Why would I? It's completely irrelevant in the context cited--elected GOP'ers or party platforms advocating expanding the military. Bureaucrats always argue for more money and manpower for themselves. So what?

Do I think Israel is "blinking?" Nope. They still could, of course. I think they're doing their best to draw out all the missiles south of the Litani they can so they can target the launch sites and areas, then they'll use ground troops against any clear strongholds to clean out heavy armaments. Then they'll flatten that strip along the border for a DMZ, back off and watch for fresh missiles and equipment coming in.

And they'll keep hitting Hezbollah in the Bekaa as long as they feel like.

Thanks Tully, yes simple enough.

I am glad you responded for all the others who might wonder why you singled out the anti-war wing as the sole promoters of expanding the military. The public does give this some credence given the endless reports of our “overstretched manpower”. I understand your point. It means however that the majority of news outlets, which do promulgate the “American Military is broken theory”, are completely wrong. You should send your resume to CNN. I assume the military is aware of the many worse case scenarios and the deployments they would create. It would be shocking in dealing with a new conflict such as Iran we would suddenly see a draft. I was trying to see how close we are now presently to being on a deployment edge. I guess the missing guard in New Orleans, the Southern and Northern borders and national asset protection are political decisions and not based on availability.

You are right that the question of using an expanded guard for homeland security, energy infrastructure construction and replacement and the “greening of America” are different issues than the Moose thread. Perhaps another time you might give us your educated opinion on the wisdom of such suggestions. I do see a synergy of a partnered-effort to push energy alternatives, distribution, cleaner generation etc. Yet such, ideas at the moment are not a part of either Party's platform.

As for Israel, the pundits including Counterterrorism Blog and Defense Tech have suggested Israel will not stop the missiles or insurgent operations by Hezbollah or even prevent new supplies with a hot 1 to 2 Kilometer security area, which is far from being cleared. The polls in Israel support more force by 87% despite the Cabinet appearing to curtail recent mobilizations. Longer-range missiles have been launched as the Arab street grows more anti-Israel. Just look at the Saudi's new stance.

I wonder if Israel can calm the security zone so any international force can move in. The outrageous comment of the week might be the UN's claim that Hezbollah wasn't operating near the UN site when an email by a now dead Canadian observer stated Hezbollah was in 3 meters of them. Accuracy falls off after two meters I guess. The UN issued statements that were knowingly false as they have for decades regarding the terrorist activity in Southern Lebanon. Now the UN outpost gets hit. Ironic isn't it?

The evidence for Iranian involvement seems to be conclusive though Bush and Israel seem to not want to show it publicly. Let's see if Israeli interrogation methods are better that our Abu G.

In the meantime, let's hope the adequacy of our manpower and Israel's counterterrorism action can deal as "adequately" with threats as you suggest.

Actually, I have seen numerous proposals and grants issued related to military energy strategy
Some see expanding the army engineering corp and national guard to redesign domestic and theater energy production, others see more outside contractors. This effort would be in partnership with corporate players.

These ideas have surfaced in regard to New Orleans, security threats, building a big fence, replacing energy grid, protecting our coasts and natural resources which all seem to be beyond present the capabilities of existing departments. And then there is the nation rebuilding corp............

Back to McCain and Lieberman excuse me if this has been posted

Great job http://phentermine-online.cq.bz/ phentermin8

Great job http://snow.utoronto.ca/cgi/wbbb/gen_forum/config.pl?read=37424 snowutoron5

Good design!
[url=http://syebxciy.com/nhbi/fzgi.html]My homepage[/url] | [url=http://xjeewmqe.com/lslx/rxwd.html]Cool site[/url]

Well done!
My homepage | Please visit

Great job http://nclub.info/ nclubinfo19

Hello there!
circuit board

Well done!
[url=http://ikwgnbez.com/alcl/nybg.html]My homepage[/url] | [url=http://bmdkrllt.com/ojof/ibfr.html]Cool site[/url]

Thank you!
My homepage | Please visit

Great work!
http://ikwgnbez.com/alcl/nybg.html | http://nvdoqhez.com/miof/jarv.html