Comments on: Gates wants Europe to beggar itself on War Expenditures the Way the US Has

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sat, 27 Feb 2010 06:07:38 +0000

US military spending has consistently be half the worlds total combined.

By: Kipchuk

Kipchuk — Thu, 25 Feb 2010 23:10:01 +0000

I could not have imagined previously a stupider scenario than spending roughly $1 trillion/year to subdue smoke and fog, which is what I equate the AfPak, Iraq, Yemen, Somalian, etc (who have I left out?) Wars to be.

In today's world, it is no longer possible to practice a full-spectrum dominance strategy for long because it will soon deteriorate into big power confrontation and resulting direct hostilities, which would quickly lead into the nuclear realm, what with worldwide "launch on warning" for ICBM missile systems being the norm.

My case-in-point offering: Iran sanctions, the next step. That's on the verge of stepping hard on China's strategic toes.

By: bkrog

bkrog — Thu, 25 Feb 2010 18:59:27 +0000

Unfortunately, the USA seems neither to be a republic, and is certainly not an empire, or at least not a competent empire. Empires have actual legions, successfully conquer and subdue enemies, create client states, subsume the local military units into the command structure of the legions, replace the local political structures with those subservient to the empire, extract tribute and income from these client states to the empire, etc. This list could go on for quite a while…
needless to say, the US is doing and has done few of these things, and — when attempted — none of them competently. Accordingly, my opinion is that this new worldwide hegemonic model is not at all described as either 'republic' or 'empire'; it might be best described by a new word or phrase, but I'm at a lack in combining the adjectives of "thoughtlessness', 'expediency', 'ignorance', 'intellectual dishonesty','incompetence', etc. all into one new noun. Perhaps readers agreeing might contribute.

By: super390

super390 — Thu, 25 Feb 2010 08:05:05 +0000

To all the flag-wavers attacking Prof. Cole here, I would like to reiterate his key comment:

"The US overspent on its military because Washington mistakenly thought the Soviet economy was twice as big as it actually was, and vastly over-estimated Soviet military capabilities."

I am less tactful than Prof. Cole and would change the words "mistakenly thought..." to "lied to the citizens that..."

General Smedley Butler said from experience that war is a racket, but empire is a bigger racket because it can last for centuries. It always starts with a good excuse for military domination, but over time that excuse must be propped up or replaced with fake excuses to protect the entrenched interests that have grown with that domination. This was the tragedy of Athens, which created the Delian League as a defensive alliance against Persia but turned it into a profitable tool of aggression, leading to the Pelopponesian War which ruined Athens and its democracy. The ordinary Athenian, like the ordinary American patriot of our time, simply fell in love with power and porkbarrel.

If you won't take it from me, take it from Dwight Eisenhower.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Thu, 25 Feb 2010 06:05:18 +0000

Well put Professor Cole.

Spain was the first empire that looted & plundered other countries so thoroughly and lost everything in the wars. Spain even missed the industrial revolution.

I see USA is going in the same direction by going to unnecessary wars. US have to keep its interest first in its foreign policy. It appears neocons do not care much for US interests.

By: Jim Harrison

Jim Harrison — Thu, 25 Feb 2010 01:21:21 +0000

I probably make the comment too often, but I think it all too likely that the U.S. will eventually use its current military preponderance to maintain its hegemony just as Spain, France, and Germany opted to use theirs when they recognized that they were losing out in the economic and cultural competition. Judging from general principles, America is an extremely dangerous country. Boy do I hope I'm wrong.

By: menomnon

menomnon — Wed, 24 Feb 2010 23:24:14 +0000

Of course Europe has had their, say, only 50 years of peace in more than 500 years thanks to such things as the US taking up the brunt of ensuring that the Soviet Union didn't overrun Western Europe as they'd done Eastern Europe. And to mention one other thing, the Marshall Plan

Many of the comments here seem short-sighted and self-righteous.

Yes empires waste themselves in war. Personally I wouldn't have supported the US's becoming an empire (I wasn't yet alive at any of the crucial points). What kind of world would the fascist Japanese and Germans have wrought.

Your sense of history is disappointing Prof. Coles.

By: bkrog

bkrog — Wed, 24 Feb 2010 22:40:38 +0000

The criticism is well-founded. Another interesting number is the estimated amount of the cost of the US nuclear weapons programs since 1940; according to the Brookings Institution in its analysis published in "Automic Audit" (ISBN 0-8157-7773-6), that amount was in 1998, over 6 trillion 1994 dollars. A substantial percentage of these costs were for the development and testing of weapons and delivery systems never put into production, and on the face were fairly ludicrous.
I must disagree with Juan over the comment regarding putting such possible savings into wind energy: wind energy shows very little likelihood of being a substantial contributor of normal- or peak-load power to the existing grid or any foreseeable distribution grid in the near- or medium future.