This article details the fact that it will require a draft to successfully execute an ambitious military-based foreign policy. Sounds obvious, but it’s rarely pointed out. Here’s an excerpt:

Still, if political leaders want to send the troops to solve a vast range of the world’s problems—if they want a military that’s far-flung, deployed on many fronts, and fighting in multiple theaters—then, at some point, numbers do matter. Or, rather, numbers and missions matter. If we want to maintain all these military missions, then the numbers have to go up. If we don’t want to do everything necessary to push the numbers up, then the missions have to be cut back.

So, should we continue to send troops overseas to fight wars, keep peace, settle conflicts, impose order, and build nations? How do we get the extra troops—pay them a lot more (and where do we get that money?), mobilize all the reserves, reactivate the draft?

Or should we handle international affairs in a different way, relying much more on military alliances and diplomacy—not because (or not just because) that’s often regarded as preferable to unilateral military force, but simply because there is no practical alternative?

I’ll take the latter.

Draft

Hillary accuses Obama of being “naive” for saying he would sit down at the highest level with Iran and Syria, etc., so he decides now to become hawkish, while simultaneously excoriating President Bush on his reckless war in Iraq.

Allright, so Obama’s solution to a reckless foreign policy and the war in Iraq without support from the “International Community,” is to posit a unilateral invasion of Pakistan, a country on a precarious and narrow edge of alliance with us on fighting terrorism? Why? Because that’s where Osama Bin Laden is supposed to be, and everyone knows that as soon as you catch or kill OBL, then we’ve won, and all the terrorists will take their IEDs and go home–as long as we cross our hearts and promise not to fight them anymore. Any OTHER terrorists we kill or capture, three more step up in their place, but not Osama; his group of terrorists are just like those ugly guys in the Fifth Element where if you just take the leader out, the rest of them won’t fight anymore. Just send in Obama the negotiator to take him out.

So if Obama is elected, how does he explain these remarks to Musharraf, when it comes crunch time on the Aghan border, there?

“Hey, Mr President, you know…I was just pandering to those right-wing nut jobs for votes. What’s a fella to do? Need that Middle America vote. You know how it is. I certainly can’t let that Clinton lady call me ‘naive,’ can I?”

And his solution to an irresponsible approach to the war on terror is to:

1) Sit down at the highest level with the extremist nutjobs we’re fighting.
2) Downgrade our “moderate” allies’ wishes and border sovereignty as not very important.
3) Double overall foreign aid to $50 billion.
4) Make foreign aid to Pakistan conditional on a Musharraf success at a Taliban crackdown.

I’m all for number four, number three is just sophistry, but does anyone but me find one and two a little bit odd? How about:

1) Refusing to negotiate with terrorist-supporting regimes.
2) Find more ways to uphold, support, develop and downright coddle those regimes that HAVEN’T sworn our destruction as their top priority (still a majority of the world, thankfully) forcing them to further alienate those regimes that HAVE sworn our destruction as their top priority.
3) Make ALL foreign aid to terrorist heavy nations conditional on their Governments’ crackdown on terrorist training camps…and (not to blatantly preempt a Scottie retort) that would include Israel AND the Palestinian Authority, AND Egypt, AND Jordan, etc.

On that note, does anyone know how to find 2006 U.S. Foreign Aid numbers. The latest I found is 2005:

Top 16 recipients of U.S. foreign aid for 2005:
1. Israel 2.58 Billion
2. Egypt 1.84 Billion
3. Afganistan 0.98 Billion
4. Pakistan 0.70 Billion
5. Colombia 0.57 Billion
6. Sudan 0.50 Billion
7. Jordan 0.48 Billion
8. Uganda 0.25 Billion
9. Kenya 0.24 Billion
10. Ethiopia 0.19 Billion
11. South Africa 0.19 Billion
12. Peru 0.19 Billion
13. Indonesia 0.18 Billion
14. Bolivia 0.18 Billion
15. Nigeria 0.18 Billion
16. Zambia 0.18 Billion

washingtonpost.com

Our newly designated Author Emeritus has a good post and a great link to a debate, put on by the London Review of books, on the often talked about Walt and Mersheimer article titled: The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy.

It’s a very interesting discussion, and intelligent enough to wish that the subject matter had been more broad. If approximately these same guys were to debate ACTUAL policy issues, I would tune in.

No Justice - No Peace

This is an interesting way to try to prevent Pelosi from continuing to travel to Iran, Syria, etc. pretending that she is the foreign policy Queen of the United States.

House Republican wants to restrict Pelosi’s travel
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) will not be permitted to use State Department funds to travel to nations that are known to have sponsored terrorism if a Republican amendment to appropriations legislation passes the House on Thursday.
The amendment to the $34 billion State and Foreign Operations bill, offered by Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa), prohibits funds to be used to travel to Cuba, Iran, North Korea, Sudan or Syria.
…

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/house-republican-wants-to-restrict-pelosis-travel-2007-06-21.html

Uber-neocon Jay Nordlinger gets it right as he sums up the latest on the Pentagon announcement:

The Pentagon is certain — or says it’s certain — that China “lacks the power for a successful attack against rival Taiwan” (I have quoted this news story). Needless to say, I hope that’s right. But one can hardly have full confidence that it is, in fact, right.

By the way, isn’t “rival Taiwan” interesting? Taiwan is an itty-bitty island, and the PRC is a massive, sprawling police state. And yet, in a way, Taiwan is a rival — because it shows the Chinese a different way, a way extremely threatening to the Chinese Communist party and its exclusive rule.

Yeah, can’t say I expected anything miraculous from HRH in the Middle East, but I must say I expected a little more professionalism and tact than this.

This whole fiasco comes on the heels of Nancy’s instructions to President Bush to “take a deep breath” and to respect Congress’ constitutional role, which apparently now includes establishing dipolomatic foreign policy.

washingtonpost.com

A memorable and interesting debate between WFB and the good professor from MIT. I’ll admit that WFB comes off as pompous whereas the professor looks calm, cool and collected, but looking at history since this debate…well judge for yourself.

The kind of thing I get in the inbox daily:

Posted at 02:04 pm by Johnny B

An article from Scientific American

Posted at 10:03 pm by Johnny B

	Posted by BP @ 06/05/2006 02:17 PM PDT
	Interesting article…I’m assuming the link with Condoleeza Rice is with sanctions on Iran? Interestingly enough I’ve worked on economic experiments like this and it’s amazing how much like rats we all are when we are exposed to a controlled environment and how easy it is to nail down human tendencies. A similar phenomenon was evident with the first few seasons of the Pilgrims where all were welcome to share of the community crops. They nearly starved to death. Without recourse…noone contributes didley squat.

Posted at 09:13 pm by Johnny B