PNAC's infamous, but all-too-often-ignored blueprint document, Rebuilding Americas Defenses

http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf

was quite upset that America's post-Cold War defense doctrine only called for being able to wage two simultaneous solo regional wars at once.

Most people don't realize it, but this was the official defense doctrine promulgated by the Bush I regime, as a way of justifying maintaining a bloated military budget after the adversary we built it to fight vanished suddenly right before our very eyes. Just to make sure that defense cuts would not go too deep, we were required--on paper at least--to maintain the ability to fight and win two regional wars--without allies--at the same time.

Of course, (1) we had never had to do this in our entire history before; (2) we have military alliances out the wazoo, so fighting wars alone is utterly unrealistic as well; (3) no foreign country can threaten us directly without risking instant overwhelming retribution without using any ground troops whatsoever, so the need for forces ready to fight even one regional war without allies is questionable, at best; (4) if we can't get allies to fight alongside us, maybe we shouldn't be going to war at all, know what I mean? So it was always a bogus standard. Yet, it was not good enough for PNAC. In introducing its four new missions, PNAC's report stated:

LARGE WARS. Second, the United States must retain sufficient forces able to rapidly deploy and win multiple simultaneous large-scale wars and also to be able to respond to unanticipated contingencies in regions where it does not maintain forward-based forces. This resembles the “two-war” standard that has been the basis of U.S. force planning over

the past decade. Yet this standard needs to be updated to account for new realities and potential new conflicts.

Of course, Iraq showed just how woefully insufficient the "two war" standard actually was. No one would doubt that we could have won two Iraq wars at the same time--and then been stuck with two unmanagable quagmires on our hands after "Mission Accomplished" time. But the PNAC gameplan wasn't content with the post-Cold War consensus illustion. It called for arming ourselves to fight just about anywhere, simply to retain our "credibility."

After what Iraq has done to our "credibility," is it any wonder that the Kagans get the vapors at even the slightest suggestion that we should worry about resting our troops?

To end this nonsense decisively all Congress has to do is to reinstate the draft without any deferments for the right wing children of privelege. The speed with which the war culture would collapse would be stunning!

The long-term health of the military would be better served if its active duty officers understood that their duty involves more than following the orders of a deranged Commander-in-Chief.

That applies to military and civilian leadership! The tired old trope, "supporting the troops" takes on a greater significance when one considers the purpose for having those troops in the first place. Is the "common defense" served by ill-planned, ill-advised, immoral nation building in which our military forces are pawns, wielded by wannabe kings for reasons having nothing to do with the actual defense of the country?

The Department of Defense was originally called the Department of War. In the interest of honesty, shouldn't we go back to the original nomenclature?

What one sees with the Kagens and James Webb is the difference between those who like to play soldier and those who are soldiers. In his soaring response to Bush/Cheney’s State of the Union speech, Webb, in explaining why he and others in his family served, nailed how nations should go about deciding whether or not to go to war:

Like so many other Americans, today and throughout our history, we serve and have served, not for political reasons, but because we love our country. On the political issues those matters of war and peace, and in some cases of life and death, we trusted the judgment of our national leaders. We hoped that they would be right, that they would measure with accuracy the value of our lives against the enormity of the national interest that might call upon us to go into harm's way.

We owed them our loyalty, as Americans, and we gave it. But they owed us sound judgment, clear thinking, concern for our welfare, a guarantee that the threat to our country was equal to the price we might be called upon to pay in defending it.

I’ve had about enough of our foreign policies being made by those who are guided in large part by personal voids and inadequacies, whose military experience at most consists of watching John Wayne movies and Patton, and who clearly have not one whit of concern for those they send in harms way.

Oh, and they’re wrong all the time.

Nothing's wrong with venting frustration, but this post is kinda weak. Really. Fat faces, chickenhawks? Fred Kagan would've been just as wrong if he looked like Wesley Snipes and served in the delta force for the last 30 years. I hope this kinda rhetoric is not going to become a permanent feature here.

Crimson Ghost:

Huge Disconnect between Soldiers and War Instigators.

The upper middle class, the wealthy, and the Jews all served in large numbers during World War 2.

But none of these groups are on the front lines in any significant numbers nowadays even though they are the ones who started the war, still support it, and profit from it in many instances.

As with almost all wars--WWII was the exception that proves the rule--American Jews are significantly over-represented in the anti-war ranks. While the neocon movement is disproporationately Jewish, it is in no way representative of American Jewish opinion.

http://www.galluppoll.com/content/?ci=26677

February 23, 2007
Among Religious Groups, Jewish Americans Most Strongly Oppose War
Opposition goes beyond Jewish Americans' political affiliations

by Jeffrey M. Jones

GALLUP NEWS SERVICE

PRINCETON, NJ -- An analysis of Gallup Poll data collected since the beginning of 2005 finds that among the major religious groups in the United States, Jewish Americans are the most strongly opposed to the Iraq war. Catholics and Protestants are more or less divided in their views on the war, while Mormons are the most likely to favor it. Those with no religious affiliation also oppose the war, but not to the same extent that Jewish people do. The greater opposition to the war is not simply a result of high Democratic identification among U.S. Jews, as Jews of all political persuasions are more likely to oppose the war than non-Jews who share the same political leanings.

For this analysis, Gallup combined 13 surveys from the last two-plus years that measured both support for the Iraq war (using Gallup's "mistake for the U.S. to send troops to Iraq" question) and respondent religious affiliation, for a combined sample of more than 12,000 interviews.

All Americans opposed the war 52-46. Jews opposed the war 77- 21. Only Black Protestants were more opposed, at 78-18. Those with no religion opposed the war 66-33. Catholics opposed the war 53-46. Non-black Protestants supported the war, 55-43. Mormons supported the war 72-27.