National Security, Foreign Policy & Veterans Affairs

But we also need to be a lot more practical on how we spend money on the military.

Indeed. We need to find ways to preserve our military end-strength and power projection ability while still reducing operating costs. Procurement and R&D, especially, are over-due for an over-haul.

I feel we need to be more proactive and less reactive in our R & D. It took a war to develop better body armor, vehicles, enhanced weapons systems, etc...

I'd say good friendships over strong alliances. Alliances were what caused the unnecessary Great War. I believe temporary alliances against common threats could work, but continuous alliances make no sense as leadership and policies in every country, including the ones we're allied with, are always in flux. There is no guarantee that the agreeable nation we ally with today will be the same after their next election.

It may seem nice, if because of an alliance, someone will have our backs in a crisis, but it means the same obligation befalls us. And what if the crisis involves matters we as a country do not want to be involved in? If we back out then we'd be negating the alliance and making ourselves unfavorable to the other party.

I believe it is much easier to be a friendly, good-natured nation that will give aid out of good will, not obligation, and will ally with others only when necessary.

Agreed on everything else.

AS to being more practical, we here in NY bantered about a more formal consolidation of all Special Operations under its own joint command. This is occuring operational, and we NY Whgis felt it should be formalized as indicative of the type of "reduced, yet fully effective" force we will need to project in the future.

This combined with a much less "kinetic" and more diplomatic foreign policy should allow us to maintain international goals with less outlay.

America is a rich and big country and because of that, it also has many social issues to be given immediate action and solution. In a 51-page August 1 report, the U.S. Department of Defense's Office of the Inspector General found the Army didn't properly test body armor before sending it into the field in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Associated Press states that over 5.1 million pieces of body armor were rushed into action at a cost of $2.5 billion, and several if not all of the body armor escaped examining for minimum safety standards to protect troops. So many people would take out their own personal loan to make sure our military men are safe. I think the government should also allocate adequate budget and attention to the army. Life is what's important here and during a battle, life is at great stake.

It seems to me that U.S. spends way too much on extreme high-tech which is strictly a deterrent and never sees real combat in modern realities (e.g. F-22) and even when it does is very much overkill. While military superiority over all potential adversaries is a necessary deterrent, it doesn't have to be _that_ big (i.e. several times more than either China or Russia).

On the other hand, spending on the basics, such as infantry weapons and armor, light vehicles etc is lacking. Why is the program to retire the venerable M16/M4 and replace it with something more modern and reliable is lagging for over a decade, when most European states have developed and fielded better weapons in the same period - even as small as Slovakia or Belgium? And it's a crying shame that soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan have to buy so many little (but needed!) things on their own money.

Agree as far as it goes, but perhaps Foreign Policy needs to be a separate item. It is a big topic with many concerns. I would like to know where Whigs stand. How far is integrity extended in word and action?

To me it is an important area, distinct from military concerns, and at the same time linked our being a constant target as a result of our political behavior.

We continue to lose "friends" by our policies, and our reputation is not good outside the U.S. How can we become a better "friend" to other countries and stop abuses?

I am not saying we should be isolated, rather that we need to sincerely build good neighbor relationship with other countries and their citizens.

From a National Security standpoint, where do Whigs stand of policies utilizing the CIA in creating problems around the world in the interest of the U.S.? What about the surveillance and monitoring by Homeland Security and our freedom?

There is a long list of abuses in the name of National Security and I am sick of the hypocrisy and shameful reputation we have as a nation.

The more people we make hate us for the effects of our interference, the more we will be targets and drawn into war.

We need to protect and build up our economy via a Tariif-Revenue-System. A strong defense is necessary, but we need to bring most of it home. I'm a fan of The Monroe Doctrine... Having troops all around the world gets us in trouble and is unsustinable !!

Dear sir,

I'm not sure if I agree on the MWP position concerning National Security and Foreign Policy because it is way too general and ambiguous. Personally, I agree that we need a strong national defense, but what exactly is a strong national defense? I submit what what we have now is an unsustainable empire and national security state that goes way beyond what is required for a strong national defense and indeed weakens our overall security and, more importantly, the liberty of our citizens. I'd like to see more clarification on this issue. What is the MWP position on our hundreds of overseas bases, wars of convenience, drone wars, extra-judicial assassinations, etc? What is the MWP position on our overly intrusive internal "homeland" security and its associated bureaucracies and excesses?

Your’s &c.
the Federal Farmer

I agree. I have no problem with spending on defense. But that's what it should be - defense. Not war profiteering. Not wars of choice. Let's just look at the facts: Our infrastructure (sewers, roads, etc.) is literally falling apart... But contractors have built plenty of new roads and schools and other things in Iraq with our money. The US gave the Iraqis "universal healthcare", but gave its own people nothing. We've spent more time in Afghanistan than Vietnam. We've spent trillions on that war alone. HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of Americans and Iraqis are dead. And for what? It's certainly not "terrorism" because even someone like Petraeus admits al-Qaeda left Afghanistan a long time ago. The Taliban? Karzai says he wishes he was part of them. Women's rights? They're shutting down women's shelters. Drugs? We're openly guarding the poppyfields now - I wonder why! Do people seriously think occupying and bombing all these foreign countries (or starving them through "sanctions" like we did in Iraq for years) is going to make us any safer? No, of course not. It's why we're arguably the most hated country in human history at this point. But that doesn't stop Obama and all the neocons in the GOP from threatening to bomb Iran too. When are we going to collectively come to our senses and DEMAND AN END TO THE WARS?