I support cutting spending across the board, including the Pentagon's budget. But I just support cutting the one third of the Pentagon's budget that it spends on foreign intervention. You don't see very many conservative Republicans like myself who advocate bringing all of our troops home from around the world.
And you don't see many African Americans like me willing to vote in Republican primaries to support Ron Paul either.
We all come from different backgrounds with different preconceived notions. But the key to growth is to at least
think deeply about those preconceived notions. And the end of the day you might end up with the same notions, as I have largely done on the civil war and the civil rights movement (much to the chagrin of some here), but you should be at least able to understand the other side and better articulate your position.
With that in mind can you answer this question? What deficiency do you see with the Swiss military model? Do you honestly believe the Swiss are in danger of being invaded or that such an invasion could be successful? I don't. Even a modern military has a hard time dealing with a coordinated insurgency. Look at the Soviets in Afghanistan (or us in Afghanistan) or look at Israel's unsuccessful recent attempt to invade Lebanon and destroy Hezbollah. Think of the Swiss militia as mujahadeen on steroids. They go through the same professional training as any Chinese, Russian, American or Israeli solider. Plus they have an air force, and more importantly
modern air defense systems. The Swiss wouldn't have to wait on someone else to supply them with the equivalent of stinger missiles.
The other element of the Swiss model that makes them more secure then the U.S. is since they have no large standing army there is no temptation to use it to intervene in foreign countries. I know that
you are against foreign adventurism, but the problem is that
you aren't the president. I remember reading once after the Bosnian war a general confiding with someone about his frustration with secretary of state Madeline Albright. He was trying to explain to her why the Bosnian intervention was not a good idea (we still have soldiers there by the way), and she responded by saying
"What good is having a big military if you aren't going to use it?"
Nor is use in foreign countries the only concern. Remember Katrina? Remember how at first FEMA kept
everybody out? Remember that later, after Bush fought with the governor of Louisiana over who should be in charge of the
Louisiana national guard deployment, they sent the national guard in with a dual mission of providing aid
and confiscating guns?
Remember why this country passed the Posse Comitatus Act? It was to prevent scenes like the one above. This couldn't happen under a Swiss militia model, because the people you would be being asked to disarm would be your fellow troops. But with a large imperial style "professional" military it can happen (already HAS happened in the U.S.) because there is an "us" versus "them".
"We must focus our resources on defending the United States rather than on building and maintaining an unsustainable trillion dollar empire overseas"
That quote by Ron Paul is exactly what I've been saying. Also, a 700 billion defense budget would be a 100 billion cut from the current 800 billion defense budget. Nobody in Congress is advocating that large of a cut. (Other than Ron.) Also, the 700 billion number was just an estimate. The number could be lower than that. But I agree with what Rand Paul has said, which is that the defense budget should be about 70-80% of the overall budget.
Spending nearly 3/4 of a trillion a year hear at home to maintain a force ready to enforce martial law here in America isn't sustainable either. Oh, and you should change the above to say that no
republicans in congress other than Ron (and I believe Justin Amash and a few others) are advocating that large of a cut. But there are democrats like Barney Frank who signed on to Ron's large cuts. And that's the problem. You can get republicans to sign on to massive cuts in social spending but not in the military. You can get democrats to sign on to massive cuts in military spending, but not social. It's like the debt is a huge arch with the left side and the right side of the arch propping it up. Here's a better way. Do away with taxes and let people donate to the part of the government they feel is necessary. You think we need 700 billion for the military? You fund it. Someone else thinks millions are needed for space exploration? They should fund that. Someone wants to spend money on education or medical research or anything else? Let that person fund that. But our current
system is in reality unsustainable. Thinking there will be a balanced budget based on
your priorities is a pipe dream.
