The Occasional Observer

And I love every minute of it.

Nigel Tufnel writes:

Follow the Powell doctrine in any military conflict and we should be fine: always have a clear purpose, always have a clear exit strategy, and use overwhelming disproportionate force when you attack.

Looking back, Iraq had #1 (remove Saddam, look for WMD), fell short on #2 (fuzzy goal of exit when they had democratic gov't and could police themselves), and half had #3 (we had overwhelming force for the invasion which was a resounding success, but could have used more troops per Army/Pentagon requests to lock things down and secure the peace).

The problem right now is that Europe and Asia are content to sit on the sidelines, contribute no soldiers or funding to any effort, and let the US fight all the battles for them. I think a more isolationist policy, which would force European and Asian countries to choose sides in these coming battles and put up or shut up to defend themselves, would be in our best interest. If we couple that with strong funding for intelligence and military, we then have the ability to overwhelmingly strike anywhere at anytime.

Here's my only question. Nigel writes, "a more isolationist policy...would force European and Asian countries to choose sides in these coming battles and put up or shut up to defend themselves."

But what if Old Europe is content to continue being assimilated into the Muslim Borg? France is well down the road and based on the below-replacement level population growth in old Europe's native cultures, that trend will accelerate. Will aging European nations forfeit cushy socialist pensions, funded on the backs of immigrant Muslim workers, to fight a wrenching political war at home and bloody war(s) abroad? Could we do anything about Old Europe committing suicide even if we were willing to?

Moving on to part two of Nigel's comments. I particularly like this part, b/c it shows that the use of military force is not exclusive to Nigel's definition of "isolationism." If we hold foreign regimes accountable for maintaining lawfulness (read: arresting terrorists) within their own lands, we are, in effect, using a carrot and stick approach. We will stay out of their way so long as they stay out of ours, saving us lives, money, and international reputation. If, however, we believe a government is complicit in working with terrorists, we don't try to aid the citizenry of that state (nation-building, etc.). We simply punish them, and don't waste energy dividing state from nation. Therefore, we avoid the "asymmetic warfare" you mention below.

Not to mention, the terrorists have created this so-called asymmetric warfare, where a nation (U.S.) now has to fight non-nations ("rogue" individuals).

Well, especially in the case of Syria and N. Korea where the state is clearly complicit in these activities, we too can change the battlefield and fight symmetric battles. Instead of exposing ground troops, we can simply lob bombs and missiles, taking them out without suffering any losses (at least in the initial stages). Keep that up for months or years and see whether they still have the will to threaten and attack us. Then send in the Marines to mop up whatever's still standing, with a quick "get in, get out" approach, which is what our military is really built for. Not hanging around for years afterwards as glorified UN peacekeepers, being picked off by psycho suicide terrorists, while the international media effectively handcuffs our soldiers from using sufficient force to defend themselves.