John Isaacs over at Council for a Liveable World (www.clw.org), who thinks we spend too much money on defense and not enough money on non-defense, reported this recent speech by Defense Secretary Robert Gates, who didn't sound much like Rumsfeld in Kansas City. The entire speech, as reported at the DoD website, is http://www.defenselink.mil/speeches/speech...x?speechid=1199
Some of Gates' comments that Isaacs quotes are especially interesting: “One of the most important lessons of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan is that military success is not sufficient to win: economic development, institution-building and the rule of law, promoting internal reconciliation, good governance, providing basic services to the people, training and equipping indigenous military and police forces, strategic communications, and more – these, along with security, are essential ingredients for long-term success.”
Gates also pointed out, "Funding for non-military foreign-affairs programs has increased since 2001, but it remains disproportionately small relative to what we spend on the military and to the importance of such capabilities. Consider that this year’s budget for the Department of Defense – not counting operations in Iraq and Afghanistan – is nearly half a trillion dollars. The total foreign affairs budget request for the State Department is $36 billion – less than what the Pentagon spends on health care alone. Secretary Rice has asked for a budget increase for the State Department and an expansion of the Foreign Service. The need is real.”
Do we spend too much on defense (hardware, armed forces, brute force) and not enough on softer power, such as diplomacy, economic development, institution-building, the rule of law, internal reconciliation, etc.? Mind you, these are the official, public words of the Secretary of Defense in a Republican administration, not some wild-eyed left wing Democratic liberal think tank.
Full Version: Defense Secy. Gates, on using "Soft Power"
QUOTE (Fit2BThaied @ Nov 28 2007, 05:45 PM) 
John Isaacs over at Council for a Liveable World (www.clw.org), who thinks we spend too much money on defense and not enough money on non-defense, reported this recent speech by Defense Secretary Robert Gates, who didn't sound much like Rumsfeld in Kansas City. The entire speech, as reported at the DoD website, is http://www.defenselink.mil/speeches/speech...x?speechid=1199
Some of Gates' comments that Isaacs quotes are especially interesting: “One of the most important lessons of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan is that military success is not sufficient to win: economic development, institution-building and the rule of law, promoting internal reconciliation, good governance, providing basic services to the people, training and equipping indigenous military and police forces, strategic communications, and more – these, along with security, are essential ingredients for long-term success.”
Gates also pointed out, "Funding for non-military foreign-affairs programs has increased since 2001, but it remains disproportionately small relative to what we spend on the military and to the importance of such capabilities. Consider that this year’s budget for the Department of Defense – not counting operations in Iraq and Afghanistan – is nearly half a trillion dollars. The total foreign affairs budget request for the State Department is $36 billion – less than what the Pentagon spends on health care alone. Secretary Rice has asked for a budget increase for the State Department and an expansion of the Foreign Service. The need is real.”
Do we spend too much on defense (hardware, armed forces, brute force) and not enough on softer power, such as diplomacy, economic development, institution-building, the rule of law, internal reconciliation, etc.? Mind you, these are the official, public words of the Secretary of Defense in a Republican administration, not some wild-eyed left wing Democratic liberal think tank.
Some of Gates' comments that Isaacs quotes are especially interesting: “One of the most important lessons of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan is that military success is not sufficient to win: economic development, institution-building and the rule of law, promoting internal reconciliation, good governance, providing basic services to the people, training and equipping indigenous military and police forces, strategic communications, and more – these, along with security, are essential ingredients for long-term success.”
Gates also pointed out, "Funding for non-military foreign-affairs programs has increased since 2001, but it remains disproportionately small relative to what we spend on the military and to the importance of such capabilities. Consider that this year’s budget for the Department of Defense – not counting operations in Iraq and Afghanistan – is nearly half a trillion dollars. The total foreign affairs budget request for the State Department is $36 billion – less than what the Pentagon spends on health care alone. Secretary Rice has asked for a budget increase for the State Department and an expansion of the Foreign Service. The need is real.”
Do we spend too much on defense (hardware, armed forces, brute force) and not enough on softer power, such as diplomacy, economic development, institution-building, the rule of law, internal reconciliation, etc.? Mind you, these are the official, public words of the Secretary of Defense in a Republican administration, not some wild-eyed left wing Democratic liberal think tank.
Being one who thinks the ENTIRE process of governmental spending should be changed, I'm not one who thinks the military should be ignored. Although I believe we don't spend enough on soft power and a little too on hard-power, I'd prefer the entire system hace a complete overhaul.
QUOTE
Being one who thinks the ENTIRE process of governmental spending should be changed,
OK Casu, and just how in the hell do we make that happen? Serious Q here. I would like to see that happen too but short of tampering with the constitution I don't see this happening. Those responsible for appropriating OUR tax dollars will always try to spend them for their benifit.
QUOTE
Some of Gates' comments that Isaacs quotes are especially interesting: “One of the most important lessons of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan is that military success is not sufficient to win: economic development, institution-building and the rule of law, promoting internal reconciliation, good governance, providing basic services to the people, training and equipping indigenous military and police forces, strategic communications, and more – these, along with security, are essential ingredients for long-term success.”
Fit, I'm suprised with you here. You have been around long enough to know that the words of ANY politician is just meaningless pandering. Fact here is Iraq and Afghanistan are NOT wars, they are police actions. History has shown us that an enemy must be totally destroyed and humiliated before the humanitarian aid does it's wonder. Europe and Japan are prime examples of this. Unless ALL opposition is crushed, military and civilian the war will not end. That's just the way of the world my friend.....................
QUOTE (Nomad @ Nov 28 2007, 09:33 PM)
OK Casu, and just how in the hell do we make that happen? Serious Q here. I would like to see that happen too but short of tampering with the constitution I don't see this happening. Those responsible for appropriating OUR tax dollars will always try to spend them for their benifit.
Fit, I'm suprised with you here. You have been around long enough to know that the words of ANY politician is just meaningless pandering. Fact here is Iraq and Afghanistan are NOT wars, they are police actions. History has shown us that an enemy must be totally destroyed and humiliated before the humanitarian aid does it's wonder. Europe and Japan are prime examples of this. Unless ALL opposition is crushed, military and civilian the war will not end. That's just the way of the world my friend.....................
Fit, I'm suprised with you here. You have been around long enough to know that the words of ANY politician is just meaningless pandering. Fact here is Iraq and Afghanistan are NOT wars, they are police actions. History has shown us that an enemy must be totally destroyed and humiliated before the humanitarian aid does it's wonder. Europe and Japan are prime examples of this. Unless ALL opposition is crushed, military and civilian the war will not end. That's just the way of the world my friend.....................
Well, I can't say that I'm qualified to answer that, but I'll give ya a few ideas.
F&#CK with the Constitution, PLEASE!! Make a balanced budget a constitional mandate.
Flat Tax for all.. including corporations.. 10-15% Federal, and then states could make their own rules. It's easier to make a budget fo you know what your taking in.
All budgets are to be based on the previous years tax collections.
The government should be held accountable the same way people and corporations are for their financial mistakes.
Budgets should be MUCH more transparent... Easy to understand and highly categorized. Maybe even for public scrutiny... or line item vetoes for the public.
Each budgetary item MUST be it's own thing.. not attached to or hidden in some bigger bill that is likely to pass.
Mandatory price checks.. meaning you can't pay $800 for an ash tray or trash can. And those that do?? Punished
ALL governmental contracts must be biddable.. non of this nobid bullshit
Accountability on all lvls... you ###### it up, you get punished. Alot of this ###### would go away if it was punishable.. not all.. but some.
Maybe the nature of funding changed.. stead of huge lump sums that once given are not tracked, monthly, bi-monthly or bi-annually funded things. That way they are reviewed MUCH more often.
Consult actual economists... they have been recomending much over the years and are frequently ignored.
Do away with tax breaks for various companies and organizations that don't need them...
Tax churches that get involved in politics... You try to influence politics and you are no longer separate from state.
Stop the war on drugs... jeez.. it doesn't work. I don't take em and never have, but it doesn't take much to see that it creates more problems then it solves. Didn't we learn this from prohibition? The extra income from taxed drugs will be a huge boon.
Outlaw lobby groups and make it so the system can funtion for what is best for this country.. not just the groups with the most money.
And many more small things, but I think the biggest thing would be making abuses ILLEGAL. Send those ######ers to jail.. FOR ALONG TIME.. and no more of the internal investigation bullshit.. A public investigation of some sort.. 5 people from each state... with NO affiliation with those charged. JAIL THE ######ERS.
The gentleman says the Dept. of State only receives 36 billion dollars of budget per year. 36 billion for diplomacy and about 700 billion for defense (including ongoing wars and police actions, of course). Totally out of proportion.
Yes, Gates is an appointed, political bureaucrat, but it doesn't seem to be in his department's best interests to say the other dept. is underfunded.
Diplomacy can prevent wars, don't you know? Maybe you don't know that. Maybe the current Secretary of Defense does know it.
Yes, Gates is an appointed, political bureaucrat, but it doesn't seem to be in his department's best interests to say the other dept. is underfunded.
Diplomacy can prevent wars, don't you know? Maybe you don't know that. Maybe the current Secretary of Defense does know it.
QUOTE (Casublett @ Nov 28 2007, 10:49 PM)
Well, I can't say that I'm qualified to answer that, but I'll give ya a few ideas.
F&#CK with the Constitution, PLEASE!! Make a balanced budget a constitional mandate.
The constitution is what made this Country great. The only way to change it is by amendment or a constitutional convention. Neither of which will happen here.
Flat Tax for all.. including corporations.. 10-15% Federal, and then states could make their own rules. It's easier to make a budget fo you know what your taking in.
Never happen, the economic ramifications cannot be quantified here. Better to deal with the devil you know.
All budgets are to be based on the previous years tax collections.
Unworkable, did you not ever have a major expense that requiered an extention of credit?
The government should be held accountable the same way people and corporations are for their financial mistakes.
1000% agreement here. Additionally ALL government employees should be in SSI not a private retirement fund.
Budgets should be MUCH more transparent... Easy to understand and highly categorized. Maybe even for public scrutiny... or line item vetoes for the public.
Never. The IQ Public would paralize a budgetary process if they were involved. Thats's why we have elected representatives
Each budgetary item MUST be it's own thing.. not attached to or hidden in some bigger bill that is likely to pass.
Agreed, no pork. No earmarks.
Mandatory price checks.. meaning you can't pay $800 for an ash tray or trash can. And those that do?? Punished
And what would be the cost be of starting a new beuracracy to do this? These examples you state are the exception not the norm.
ALL governmental contracts must be biddable.. non of this nobid bullshit
Lets suppose that a Hurricane flooded New Orleans and all our resources were deployed elsewhere fighting a war for our very survival. There is but one company that has the resources and expierience in plucking people out of flooded areas. Should we take the time necessary to draw up a specific bid oppotunity and then take the time to analyse the bids or should we just pay those with a proven track record to get the job done?
Accountability on all lvls... you ###### it up, you get punished. Alot of this ###### would go away if it was punishable.. not all.. but some.
Maybe the nature of funding changed.. stead of huge lump sums that once given are not tracked, monthly, bi-monthly or bi-annually funded things. That way they are reviewed MUCH more often.
Consult actual economists... they have been recomending much over the years and are frequently ignored.
Do away with tax breaks for various companies and organizations that don't need them...
Tax churches that get involved in politics... You try to influence politics and you are no longer separate from state.
Stop the war on drugs... jeez.. it doesn't work. I don't take em and never have, but it doesn't take much to see that it creates more problems then it solves. Didn't we learn this from prohibition? The extra income from taxed drugs will be a huge boon.
Outlaw lobby groups and make it so the system can funtion for what is best for this country.. not just the groups with the most money.
And many more small things, but I think the biggest thing would be making abuses ILLEGAL. Send those ######ers to jail.. FOR ALONG TIME.. and no more of the internal investigation bullshit.. A public investigation of some sort.. 5 people from each state... with NO affiliation with those charged. JAIL THE ######ERS.
Casu, laudable suggestions all. However, in reality (where I dwell) non will come to pass. I have and will continue to prosper in the realities presented me. I do not waste time dwelling on how things should be.
Perhaps our differences can be summed up by our sigs. Both our sigs are quotes from a wise and thoughtful man. Compare the two and give it some thought..........
I wish you well..................................
F&#CK with the Constitution, PLEASE!! Make a balanced budget a constitional mandate.
The constitution is what made this Country great. The only way to change it is by amendment or a constitutional convention. Neither of which will happen here.
Flat Tax for all.. including corporations.. 10-15% Federal, and then states could make their own rules. It's easier to make a budget fo you know what your taking in.
Never happen, the economic ramifications cannot be quantified here. Better to deal with the devil you know.
All budgets are to be based on the previous years tax collections.
Unworkable, did you not ever have a major expense that requiered an extention of credit?
The government should be held accountable the same way people and corporations are for their financial mistakes.
1000% agreement here. Additionally ALL government employees should be in SSI not a private retirement fund.
Budgets should be MUCH more transparent... Easy to understand and highly categorized. Maybe even for public scrutiny... or line item vetoes for the public.
Never. The IQ Public would paralize a budgetary process if they were involved. Thats's why we have elected representatives
Each budgetary item MUST be it's own thing.. not attached to or hidden in some bigger bill that is likely to pass.
Agreed, no pork. No earmarks.
Mandatory price checks.. meaning you can't pay $800 for an ash tray or trash can. And those that do?? Punished
And what would be the cost be of starting a new beuracracy to do this? These examples you state are the exception not the norm.
ALL governmental contracts must be biddable.. non of this nobid bullshit
Lets suppose that a Hurricane flooded New Orleans and all our resources were deployed elsewhere fighting a war for our very survival. There is but one company that has the resources and expierience in plucking people out of flooded areas. Should we take the time necessary to draw up a specific bid oppotunity and then take the time to analyse the bids or should we just pay those with a proven track record to get the job done?
Accountability on all lvls... you ###### it up, you get punished. Alot of this ###### would go away if it was punishable.. not all.. but some.
Maybe the nature of funding changed.. stead of huge lump sums that once given are not tracked, monthly, bi-monthly or bi-annually funded things. That way they are reviewed MUCH more often.
Consult actual economists... they have been recomending much over the years and are frequently ignored.
Do away with tax breaks for various companies and organizations that don't need them...
Tax churches that get involved in politics... You try to influence politics and you are no longer separate from state.
Stop the war on drugs... jeez.. it doesn't work. I don't take em and never have, but it doesn't take much to see that it creates more problems then it solves. Didn't we learn this from prohibition? The extra income from taxed drugs will be a huge boon.
Outlaw lobby groups and make it so the system can funtion for what is best for this country.. not just the groups with the most money.
And many more small things, but I think the biggest thing would be making abuses ILLEGAL. Send those ######ers to jail.. FOR ALONG TIME.. and no more of the internal investigation bullshit.. A public investigation of some sort.. 5 people from each state... with NO affiliation with those charged. JAIL THE ######ERS.
Casu, laudable suggestions all. However, in reality (where I dwell) non will come to pass. I have and will continue to prosper in the realities presented me. I do not waste time dwelling on how things should be.
Perhaps our differences can be summed up by our sigs. Both our sigs are quotes from a wise and thoughtful man. Compare the two and give it some thought..........
I wish you well..................................
We're getting slightly off track, but that never matters at the Bearpit.
I agree with a lot of the points being made here. But this one puzzles me:
"Additionally ALL government employees should be in SSI not a private retirement fund."
Are you referring to employees at all levels of government, or just federal? You say SSI but that usually refers to a welfare program for disabled citizens. Perhaps you mean the Social Security OASDI program. Well, surprise, all new employees of the federal govt. have been covered since 1987 in both the OASDI program and FERS, the Federal Employee Retirement System. Only the old-timers are still earning credits or receiving pensions from the CSRS (Civil Service Retirement System)!
Anybody who's studied the OASDI knows that its retirement was never intended to give average or above-average wage earners a retirement pension that would approximate their earnings. Govt. employees need an additional pension to retire reasonably. FERS and CSRS do that. Every state has multiple retirement programs for various classes of its workers, such as teachers. Being technical, those programs are public, not private. Some such programs also incorporate a type of 401(k) system where the employee and employer contribute a percentage of gross salary into a savings plan.
Do we spend too much on defense, and not enough on diplomacy? Apparently the Secretary of Defense thinks so!
I agree with a lot of the points being made here. But this one puzzles me:
"Additionally ALL government employees should be in SSI not a private retirement fund."
Are you referring to employees at all levels of government, or just federal? You say SSI but that usually refers to a welfare program for disabled citizens. Perhaps you mean the Social Security OASDI program. Well, surprise, all new employees of the federal govt. have been covered since 1987 in both the OASDI program and FERS, the Federal Employee Retirement System. Only the old-timers are still earning credits or receiving pensions from the CSRS (Civil Service Retirement System)!
Anybody who's studied the OASDI knows that its retirement was never intended to give average or above-average wage earners a retirement pension that would approximate their earnings. Govt. employees need an additional pension to retire reasonably. FERS and CSRS do that. Every state has multiple retirement programs for various classes of its workers, such as teachers. Being technical, those programs are public, not private. Some such programs also incorporate a type of 401(k) system where the employee and employer contribute a percentage of gross salary into a savings plan.
Do we spend too much on defense, and not enough on diplomacy? Apparently the Secretary of Defense thinks so!
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.