quote:

As a first step, therefore, the country needs to return to its roots. We need to restore our innate suspicion of foreign entanglements and concentrate on being the best United States of America we can be.

With the ghosts of our Founding Fathers, I reply, Hurrah!

quote:

Originally posted by godawgz:

And what REAL HISTORY would that be in your opinion? Lind is right on target regarding occupation forces, corrupt and ineffective governments and most important, a non-complying and non-supportive population. Situations we supported long before Vietnam became part of our lexicon.

Foreign entanglements unless mandatory (like the attack on Pearl Harbor) should be avoided as they are usually a losing proposition. History is replete with many examples not only of the US but of other foreign nations who became entangled in asylums like Iraq and Afghanistan...you may win some battles but you will lose the war. Too much emotion and ideology and not enough common sense has been the guiding principle for too many years in the US. Each succeeding group thinks, and believes they are The Best and The Brightest...when they are proven wrong, you get the 'cut and run' mantra as a weak attempt to cover their sorry butts.

S/F Gordon
_______________________________________________
This guy would have an excellent shot at making some good points if he would base them on real history and not the pseudo written post Viet Nam era history we've all had rammed, unquestioned, down our throats. Of course if he did that he'd make points that were entirely different.

quote:

Originally posted by foxred03:
I have a hard time disagreeing with much of what Lind wrote here. For once he wrote a clear, concise article and it is very good.

quote:

Originally posted by Weatherguesser:

Hey, maybe he finally got around to reading Orwells 1984...........

S/F Gordon
_______________________________________________

quote:

Originally posted by foxred03:
I have a hard time disagreeing with much of what Lind wrote here. For once he wrote a clear, concise article and it is very good.

I agree. Because of this foreign entanglement we are now spying on ourselves, holding prisoners outside of the Continental United States in legal-limbo, stepping into booths to be strip searched and on and on and on.

The words of our President just moments ago, and I paraphrase; "Why do we need to pass this bill(on domestic spying)? I will tell you why.. because we have to know what people are saying and thinking and doing, that's why".

And I am NOT kidding around.

quote:

Originally posted by M123Driver:

Lind is not making a point supporting isolationism. He is saying in this article and many others he has written, the wars we are trying to fight will not succeed utilizing second generational warfare tactics and its passe mentality in a fourth generational warfare world. Massive amounts of troops stationed in any hostile country will win battles but not the war. We saw the same thing in Nam, and should have learned lessons from it but didn't.

If you have read the Counterinsurgency Field Manual, you will find even now in Iraq and Afghanistan, we are not adhering to its tenets. So if we have this so called bible for fourth generational warfare, why are we not practicing it and implementing its recommendations? We have made some half hearted attempts to do so but the number of troops currently involved could never hope to prevail according to General Petreus' own opinions and recommendations contained in the Manual.

S/F Gordon
_______________________________________________

S/F Gordon

Isolationism did not work prior to WWII and it certainly would not work today with our total dependence on imported goods for our very survival. Getting rid of "legacy" military equipment and capabilities would indeed save a whole lot of money...right up to the point where the other nations of the world who have such equipment and capabilities shove them up our arse because they never got rid of theirs. As Obama says..."it's good to have hope". But you are an idiot if you let "hope" or should I say dreams overshadow reality.

quote:

Originally posted by AmericanMom2006:
Both authors need a smack upside tha head.

quote:

Originally posted by LordBest:
"right up to the point where the other nations of the world who have such equipment and capabilities shove them up our arse because they never got rid of theirs"

That is what nuclear weapons are for. I salute your knowledge and command of grand strategy.

quote:

Originally posted by rdelaney:

I'm not sure isolationism would ever work. But, without developing alternaive energy sources, so that we would no longer have to purchase oil on the open market, it is an impossible strategy.

(It is difficult for me to believe we cannot replace 12% of our oil? According to our own government, we only receive 12% of our oil from Arab nations. I'm convinced, we can develop an energy program than would substantially reduce our dependency for Arab oil but will not due to the fact we have too many other financial ties to Arab nations other than oil. And frankly, I believe that is the driving force with our relationship to Arab oil producing nations. Oil yes, to some degree but there is more to the monster than we know.

Will we as Americans have to bite the bullet? Yep, but I have no problem with seeing fewer Hummers on the road. Fewer trucks that people buy for everyday driving instead of a car. Hell, you cannot buy a GMC 2500 crew cab short bed/long bed and put a plow on it because it has a Denali chassis! They sell the truck based upon the ride. I only know this because I recently bought a new truck. I wanted a GMC 2500HD with a crew cab and short bed with a plow. Was told no can do, and if you mount a plow, it voids the warranty. So I bought a Ford 250HD.

How many homes do you drive by that are lit up like a Christmas tree? Shopping malls that have thousands of lights? I think a good idea is a tax credit (which a company receives for lowering their electricity consumption but a consumer doesn't). Reduce your consumption, you receive a tax credit equal to your reduction. That would save many gallons of wasted oil.)

As for the current force structure, it is designed to match our requirement of global force projection, on an as needed basis. We could only reduce the force structure, if we wanted to reduce our abilities to project force. Our need for resources and open trade drive our global obligations. Our global obligations drive our force structure. As I do not expect our need for resources or open trade will decline, neither will our global obligations. As our global obligations will not decline, neither should our force structure.

(Not even close. Our current force structure is near the breaking point...you're own members of this administration, DOD, JCS admit it is so.)

S/F Gordon