More National Journal - 4 August, 2010

 http://security.nationaljournal.com/2010/08/us-military-power-preeminence.php#1611207

Comments

[Steve]

Colonel, you said:

"Withdraw our forces from all overseas commitments that do not serve AMERICAN interests. Keep a few locations that do so."

Can someone explain to me the current rationale for the existence of Nato as a military organization?

Perhaps there is one, but it's certainly not obvious to me. A jobs program, perhaps? To keep the Europeans in line with American hegemony?

[Norbert M. Salamon]

Colonel:

your persistence to analyse ther situation based on reality is welcome.

That Mr. Paul Sullivan'
Professor of Economics, National Defense University
FORGOT to inclusde any reference to oil/energy problems, even though the USA Armed Forces made an analysis [far too optimistic IMO] indicating that in 4 years time there will be a crunch, and as Armed Forces are operating in a very energy demanding environment [both as to manufacture of assets, and as operating demands], clearly shows that this Prof is NOT LIVING IN REALITY. Similar points can be related to most strategic alloy metals and to ALL RARE EARTH METALS - necessary for modern USA WAR equipment.

This Economist professor is as worthy of the dismal science as the 95% of economists who did not forsee 2007-present ecopnomic upheaval.

Therefore, his total commentary has to be discarded [though his remarks re enetitlements is correct - though unsolvable in present political terms].

For the warmongers among the commentators, shi[p them to afganistan's forbidden plateau so they can enjoy the fruits of their desires!