tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8746692.post8827178767570740455..comments2024-03-19T11:28:58.168-04:00Comments on History Unfolding: Obama and KennedyDavid Kaiserhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05020082243968071584noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8746692.post-31528972081341975152016-07-07T18:07:08.288-04:002016-07-07T18:07:08.288-04:00Indeed, you are correct!! I never intended to sug...Indeed, you are correct!! I never intended to suggest that Bacevich was in favor of military intervention, and I should have been more articulate on that point. I appreciate that you understood what I meant. Thank you for the opportunity to clarify, and I will proofread my future comments! Thank you again for your thoughtful and informative blog.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8746692.post-37696045114991990022016-07-05T22:30:51.705-04:002016-07-05T22:30:51.705-04:00Thank you, Thomas. I don't think you said quit...Thank you, Thomas. I don't think you said quite what you meant, but I want to be sure. Bacevich himself certainly does not believe that military intervention is the solution to every problem; he thinks that that is what the foreign policy establishment of both parties thinks, and I agree with him. And as you point out, no accumulation of failed or disastrous interventions seems to change their minds.David Kaiserhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05020082243968071584noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8746692.post-62603928110008383262016-07-04T16:24:35.132-04:002016-07-04T16:24:35.132-04:00I wanted to re-read Bacevich before commenting, an...I wanted to re-read Bacevich before commenting, and now feel comfortable suggesting that there is a corollary to his observation that all recent overseas problems might be solved through military intervention. The corollary is that in virtually every case, our intervention has either made little difference, or (more often) has made the situation far worse for our having intervened.<br /><br />This is not to suggest that the U.S. didn't/doesn't have vital interests in the Middle East, as noted above. Rather, it has become to easy to think of our really excellent military hammer as the right tool - all the while squinting hard enough to convince ourselves that the problems are conveniently nails, when they are not. And to follow some more of COL Bacevich's points further, it is easier to use our all-volunteer military in almost any way, because soldiers and their families no longer represent the cross-section of U.S. society that they did while used our draft system. The American public and its government has the luxury to "support the troops," whatever that actually means, without (for the most part) having any literal skin in the game.<br /><br />It is disheartening to think that we are essentially doomed to do more of the same counter-productive and expensive things (that is, more military intervention), after so many years of negative outcomes. I don't pretend to know the all the right answers, but the wrong answers ought to be fairly obvious by now. And more disheartening, how is this not an issue in the political campaigns??<br /><br />As always, I greatly enjoy your insights.<br /><br /><br /><br />I Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8746692.post-23171585469565408122016-06-24T06:45:33.170-04:002016-06-24T06:45:33.170-04:00“In the foreign policy establishments of both part...“In the foreign policy establishments of both parties, interventionism still reigns supreme.”<br /><br />In the case of the Middle East, there are two very good reasons why that is the case. Those two reasons are that there exists there two vital US interests that need protecting which exist nowhere else in the world: The state of Israel, and the maintenance of the free flow of the largest concentrated regional oil supply on the Earth. Those reasons make the Middle East a vital interest to us in a way that Vietnam never was, and they make the Middle East, in essence--our back yard and US military interventionism there permanent. <br /><br />The last 25 years of US policy makes perfect sense if we keep this in mind.Gloucon Xhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05218027862578514587noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8746692.post-46287755142203638442016-06-23T21:29:49.752-04:002016-06-23T21:29:49.752-04:00Professor
Great stuff!
Sadly, one can make analo...Professor<br /><br />Great stuff!<br /><br />Sadly, one can make analogous criticisms of both parties' presidents uses and abuses of trade policies over a similar period, 60 years, with disastrous long term political economic and military consequences in the near future that have not yet fully been made apparent to the Average American (even though Trump has taken this unfair trade bully pulpit as his own), who also would not necessarily understand them and their sources in American political history.<br /><br />One of the tricky things about this, that is especially hard for people to grasp, is that one cannot really distinguish trade (and financial and industrial) policies from military, or diplomatic, or moral, initiatives. Each was used either to mask, or frankly to ignore, various other agendas, as things unfolded.<br /><br />all the best Bozonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18078858723231122013noreply@blogger.com