Rynar wrote:
Vindicarre wrote:
He values a military that can do what is asked of it, no more and no less, as far as I can tell.
We're a large country with wide ranging national interests; that begets having a military large enough to accomplish its goal of protecting the national interest.
I can't say I agree with him about the necessities all the time, but his approach is logical and his reasoning is linear.
I can't say I agree 100% with this assessment. His argument is logically consistent for the most part, but I find that some of his base premises are flawed. It's really not that hard for forming a compelling necessity based argument for the bombing of Libya from the conservative military-statist perspective. Maybe not from DE's particular perspective, but it certainly deviates from what I expected from him in this case.
The reason for that is that you think I have some sort of military-statist perspective. I suppose from your perspective it might appear that way, but that speaks more to a stereotype you seem to put me in than anything else. I admit that it may occasionally seem that I think that way, but I've also explained myself in some detail on more than one occasion. I value a strong national government, but I also value clear limits on that government. I just disagree as to where those limits are and where they ought to be with your perspective in some cases. In other cases, I think you would find we agree, or nearly so.
So yes, you are correct it is easy to justify an attack on Libya if one's "military-statist perspective" is simply putting a military to use for its own sake, or as a distraction from domestic issues, which is the best I can do to guess at what you mean by "military-statist perspective" as I suspect this is simply a conglomeration of positions you have labelled as "authoritarian". In fact, I wouldn't put the latter out of the realm of possibility for why it's being conducted as a secondary reason of some sort. However, I don't hold such a perspective, and don't see either of those reasons as being in the national interest.
As to my premises being flawed, they are no more or less so than anyone else's. They are only flawed in terms of your premises, which are equally flawed in terms of mine.