- Domestic (924)
- Foreign Policy and International (333)
- Uncategorized (70)
Tag Archives: massive retaliation
If we were serious about the debt, we’d stop fighting dumb wars we don’t even try to win. One policy re-adoption could save a majority proportion of half-a-trillion dollars annually ($585B in FY2016), thousands of lives of our soldiers, tens of thousands of lives of our opponents, and make the entire world a safer place.
Shouldn’t that be the goal of our defense policy?
We don’t need to continue to enrich Lockheed and others building toys we won’t use to win combat in which we shouldn’t be involved. And if we won’t use them to win, what […]
When one takes the long look of history, two errors of Western Civilization stand out above all others.
The first, US entry into WW1, birthed the USSR, Weimar Republic, NAZIs, WW2 ETO, Red China, Cold War, Korea & Vietnam, and Left hundreds of millions dead.
The second, Kuwait, with a familial epilogue of Afghanistan & Iraq, destroyed S Asia & the Middle East, created the largest immigration outside of war in human history and is in the process of destroying European civilization and attacking America.
Both of these mistakes were by individuals insisting on defining the roles of other nations […]
This is an interesting column on conventional military structure and results. It is at best tangential to the discussion that must take place.
There’s a larger problem, and that is a nation for the first time in history choosing the sacrifice of its soldiers over the use of its most productive weapons. Ike announced his policy of “Massive Retaliation” and kept us out of war his entire time in office. An acquaintance at the National War College states bluntly that MR is the only reason Parisians don’t speak Russian today.
Re-adopting MR will reduce our defense budgets, rid […]
This is an excellent column re: Why we can’t negotiate with ISIS. It’s in a center-left magazine, Atlantic. The final sentence – should – launch a broad investigation of strategy and goals, because it is exactly correct:
“If ISIS remains true to its principles, that’s also the reason the world can accept nothing less than the group’s full defeat.” (Emphasis mine.)
With the goal thus defined and defended, the strategic question becomes, “At what cost?” And, of course, two answers exist:
- The cost of tens of thousands of educated kids from Western Liberal democratic nations who have been
Flawed thinking resulting in yet another column that says we need to keep doing what has never worked because we’ve always done it.
First off – America’s goal in the region, whatever it is, has not and will not be achieved via our current or recent strategies – whatever they’ve been. We’ve been doing this for decades and nothing positive has accrued. We either need to colonize the region with all the human and economic costs of dragging its inhabitants, a generations-long quest, into the 21st Century and post-Enlightenment world, or leave it to Russia and China, both of whom […]