Comments by jonesgp1996

The US defense budget that is released to the public ($700 billion) also includes health care costs (for active, retired, and family members) as well as retirement pay. In the case of our European comparison others, I wonder if those costs are included under some other budgetary category since they already have universal health care, for example. I don't know the answer, but I'm asking if perhaps in the US's case that contributes to the perception of an inflated military budget.

As far as interventions in other states' affairs, I think we started going down the wrong path in the 1990s when we so easily discarded the Westphalian system that had served us so well for 300+ years. Maybe that decision did some good in the Balkans, but maybe it's too early to tell. Liberal interventionism will only get us into more trouble, IMHO.

Democratic elections in 6 months? Care to place a bet on whether they are democratic or take place in 6 months?

I think you are confusing anti-intellectualism with anti-authoritarianism. It is the natural extension of the rebellious 1960s which urged people to "question authority." During that era, political authority (broadly defined as government officials, police, the military) lost its previously undisputed claims to authority (for better or for worse). By undermining the duly elected and appointed political authorities, American society was left with business, scientific, and cultural authorities (or experts/reference points). The last few years have damaged the credibility of business authorities, so who does that leave? No one should be surprised that the anti-authoritarianism which has its modern roots in the 1960s/70s American Left has been adopted by the American Right in an era when we are constantly bombarded by the results of new scientific studies that refute earlier scientific findings. Combine this with the perception of the rise of the "Nanny State," and it's no wonder that the American Right (exemplified in this post by "certain news channels" and Sarah Palin) is questioning authority, i.e. the scientists and intellectuals. (The Right has mostly decided to ignore the "authority" of cultural experts, i.e. the Hollywood elite.)

So it's not anti-intellectualism. It's just the intellectual community's bad luck that they are the only authority target remaining. And I think it is a bad omen for an American society which has long since stopped respecting traditional authority figures (such as police, teachers, elders) in favor of the "You're not the boss of me" philosophy. A bit of societal introspection on how we deal with authority figures might be a good thing.

@Didomyk:

"Centuries old"? That's just a convenient way that people often use to throw up their hands in defeat when faced with difficult issues of ethnic tension. So many of these inter-group conflicts are often described in similar terms as if to explain them away as too difficult to try to understand and solve. The self-awareness of being a nation or ethnicity didn't become a big deal until the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, and with that notion came the idea of the nation-state. At the root of many of these conflicts (a good example is Israel-Palestine) is a desire for one's own state without interference from another: self-determination, sovereignty, and all that good stuff.

In this case I would say that the Chechens have identified who they are, and now they want to be left alone to run their own affairs. The road to a solution will start when the Russians can come to terms with this reality.

Couldn't agree more with Reluctant Polluter. Before we know anything about the shooter (who I guess is probably a John Hinkley Jr.-esque nut job more than anything else), those on the Left starting blaming Republican politicians and Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, et al. Then they jump to the outrageous idea that the Federal government should start going after militias, cult groups, etc. What is the connection between militias and a lone, deranged shooter? The "logic" defies logic. I agree that those behind a microphone have a responsibility to think very carefully about what they say before they say it. I can't say that I think Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow exercise that responsibility any more than Glenn Beck tends to. It cuts both ways.

And as an aside, are the Taliban becoming a corollary to Godwin's Law? Get a grip, people: I'm in Afghanistan, and you don't have any idea how bad the Taliban are. The Tea Party movement, for all its merits and shortcomings, is not the Taliban.

If the previous administration had simply accorded the Geneva Convention prisoner of war rights to these guys instead of trying define what an "illegal combatant" is, we wouldn't be having this discussion. A prisoner of war hasn't committed a crime, and he is being detained simply to keep him from returning to the fight. Since this is a "long war," we could have held these guys forever. And in the end, they're still receiving most of the Geneva protections, so I fail to see what we gained by calling them illegal combatants.

Cheap shot, Stephen Chenney. I've seen quite a few rotund Euros of late.

I would caution readers to remember that much of the US defense budget (the costs of Iraq & Afghanistan notwithstanding) covers personnel costs, including active duty and retiree health care (as well as family members), pay, pensions, etc. So for all of those who think government health care is the way to go, look no further than the US military for an example of how costly it can be.

Tilmitt:
You say that Europe and Japan "have prospered in harmony since the end of the wars"; how do you think that happened? It certainly wasn't through autonomous defense capabilities. It was achieved because the US, through NATO and a bilateral alliance, respectively, underwrote defense and deterrence for Europe and Japan. You are welcome.

Try reading Robert Cooper's "The Breaking of Nations", specifically where he discusses the pre-modern, modern, and post-modern states. While Europe comfortably enjoys its "end of history"/post-modern existence, somebody still has to live in the "modern" world and provide the muscle to put down those that would threaten the post-modern states. Again, you are welcome.

The problem with presidential candidates is that they always talk about what it is they're going to do across the spectrum of issues (health care, the economy, education, etc.) irrespective of the president's actual ability to do so. For some reason, the electorate believes that their respective candidates will actually have some major influence on those issues once he becomes president. I wish people would look back at history to see where presidents have actually been able to make a tangible difference. From my position, it is mostly in the realm of foreign policy.

On an unrelated note, the Economist/YouGov poll shows that most people have an unfavorable opinion of Congress (as a whole); but they will doubtless re-elect the incumbents from their districts and states since they're the only Congressmen and Senators doing a good job. And so the cycle repeats...

Fcxar: In the US Army, men & women serve together, but they aren't in the same quarters or showers together.

The root issue here goes back to an incident in 1999 at Fort Campbell when a gay soldier was beaten to death by one of his fellow soldiers (http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19991208&slug=3...). Officers do not want to lose their careers over situations like this where an incident occurs in the barracks after duty hours and for which they are ultimately held responsible by an investigation that finds that they did not take all possible prudent measures to ensure the safety of every single soldier 24 hours a day, 7 day a week. Military leaders support the continuation of DADT because it protects their careers in what is a very risk-averse organization that will crucify someone in order to make an example out of them and mollify the media lynch mob.

Roast-beef: I think you missed the broader intent of my statement which you quoted. I'm all for tipping in the US where it is appropriate and the norm; and I'm perfectly happy not to tip in Italy where I live now since the prices are outrageous to begin with and I expect that management is appropriately compensating waiters.

I was assailing your broad assault on the "Anglo-Saxon" way of doing things. I use that term because I often hear it thrown about in "Latin" (i.e. French & Italian) contexts when people gripe about how the US and UK "do business" in the broadest sense of that term. I know how competition and free markets vex those who prefer a society based on the omnipotence and omnipresence of the State, but individual liberty and the pursuit of happiness (which often includes the accumulation of money) are near and dear to Anglo-Saxons.

I hate those darn fees. I wish they would have just raised the fare prices, incorporating the "baggage fee" into them.

The problem with tipping at restaurants in America, at least in some locales, is that there is an expectation on the part of many servers that they are entitled to the 15% tip without much extra effort on their part. My bar for the 15% is pretty low: "Good evening, my name is... How are you tonight?" Sure, I suppose it's the typical superficial friendliness that we Americans are accused of, but it's part of the custom that I expect at a restaurant.
What I really get irritated by is the "suggested" tip that the restaurant calculates at the bottom of the receipt; I can do my own math, thank you very much.
I have to agree with many of LastLivingModerate's points. While in many European countries being a waiter is a career choice with an emphasis on being a professional in your field, in the US waiting tables remains a "stepping stone" job that you use to pay the bills while working toward the American dream. Unless you're a waiter at a high-end place where service and professionalism are demanded by both management and customers, and high tips linked to costly bills provide for a living wage, I would venture that most servers at TGI Fridays don't believe that they have achieved their maximum potential in life.
Roast-beef: Get off your high horse and out of your European rigidity and try to understand that other cultures and their economic systems do things differently, and it seems to be working okay for them. Tip your American waiter because he is only making $2.50/hour before tips, and "the State" isn't paying for his education, medical care, etc; he needs that tip money.

Bad analogy compounded by over-simplification. The situations aren't the same and therefore call for different means to address the issues. The most obvious difference undercuts DiA's argument from the start: Mexico is the US's neighbor; Afghanistan is an ocean away.

Kudos to Mr. Izquierdo for shooting down this lame attempt at arguing for more US action in Mexico or less US action in Afghanistan. You can do better than this, Economist.

D.Gunz-

I'd hardly call Bruce Bawer an extreme right-wing person, and he is strongly opposed to unchecked Muslim immigration to Europe.

You also write that Muslims should not expect their host countries to accommodate their cultural & religious whims, but that's exactly what's happening in Europe and the US (though there it's more about linguistic accommodation to the Latin American immigrants). The self-doubting (self-loathing?), PC crowd trumpets "diversity" and questions the value of their own culture as compared to others, so they are more than happy to give wide berth to newcomers who wish to remain culturally isolated against their adopted countries. I don't think it's a recipe for success.

And the wave of European immigration to North America in the late 19th and early 20th centuries is not an analogous situation. Most of them were white & Christian like their American hosts, which is not what is going on in Europe (as Prometeus points out).

The Rest is Silence wrote: "A sincere question: if that is the case, does this become a development problem? Something for the IMF/WB to handle instead of NATO?"

Development is certainly a problem, but without security first, how can you have development?

The issue that many have with failed states is a sort of "domino effect" theory: a failed state next to a weak state could ultimately lead to the weak one failing as well, until at some point failed states border Europe and the US. Best to try to keep the failure within the defined borders.

I wholeheartedly agree with Kouroi: you have to separate the army aspect from the political aspect (which I'm sure is a mental hurdle that some are having difficulty making). I think if someone were a US Civil War memorabilia collector, there would be nothing wrong with having both US & Confederate items. Owning the latter would not necessarily mean that the individual in question supported the Confederate cause.

Hypothetical situations aside, I love the revelation of the obvious hypocrisy going on at this self-righteous watchdog that wags its finger at governments that suppress freedom of thought but that is perfectly comfortable doing the same to one of its own employees. They probably ought to start checking the other employees' homes for Che Guevara t-shirts; who doesn't own one of those (especially in that crowd)?

Wstar:

Regarding government employees living overseas, don't their "plush" residences compensate for the fact that in some cases they are getting comparable residences to what they would have in the States if both spouses were working? I would imagine that some of those DoS spouses had to leave good jobs (as well as nice homes paid for by two incomes) in America to follow the other one overseas. You have to incentivize that sort of life in some manner.

CBPFrancophile:

Who's civil rights were violated? Unless they were US citizens, what was their entitlement to those protections if they weren't on US soil?

Enough of the jailhouse lawyering. The big mistake that the Bush administration made from the outset was not classifying anyone that they picked up as an enemy prisoner of war. Sure, they would have had to afford them the protections of the Geneva Convention, but they could have held them indefinitely without a trial as long as the war is going on, which by my reckoning is going to be a long time. They wouldn't have been able to "torture" the detainees, but the detainees would have been picking cotton in Mississippi for the rest of their lives, like German POWs in WW II.