CompuServe Messages

Invasion is the last resort of the diplomats. Before that level of action is even reached there is a projection of power that is used. This projection of power is reached by simple things, such as showing the flag when US flag warships make courtesy calls. It could also be as simple as moving a battle group from it's normal area of operations to another area (which just so happens to be closer to an area that the diplomats want to influence). The miltary are a two edged sword. They are used when the stuff actually hits the fan, but are more commonly used as a threat. By reducing the ability of the military to actually project power, a reciprocal effect occurs with diplomatic influence. In essence all diplomacy is is talk. In order to actually have 'suggestions' implemented, some sort of threat of action needs to be used. The easiest and quickest way is for the military to be used. Not in an actual combat role, but more as the threat. There are other ways (such as economic sanctions), but these are all long term and affect a wider range of people in a target nation (even those that support the action). While more humane (in that there is no direct loss of life), they rarely affect the group of people that need it. Do you think that Hussien and the clique in charge were actually deprived when economic sanctions were imposed on Iraq? I think not. The common people were affected and that was used as a propaganda measure against the coalition forces. While I support _some_ cutbacks to military forces, a balance has to be drawn. The government has to determine want it's role is to be and what it wants to achieve in regards to foreign policy, and then structure and budget the military accordingly. Learn from history. After WWI there were drastic military cutbacks (the 'War to end all wars' mentality) to the point where the military was smaller than it's pre-war levels. Look what happened. Trent 'Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori'