I'm no fan of Guiliani, and Kaplan is right to assume Guiliani's foreign policy credentials are lacking. But in his seemingly 'rabid' attempt to undermine everything Guiliani states, Kaplan unwittingly slips up on a few points: 1) It is true that the D of D and all components of the military, down to the National Guard and Reserves, are training, equipping and changing strategies to fight irregular, urban warfare against multiple non-state actors. During the Cold War, our military was trained to fight the traditional warfare of a WWIII, but this has fundamentally changed. Military personnel will tell you such, as they did to me when I interviewed Georgia state Guard officials last month. The truth is, we are not engaging nation-states, and for Kaplan to suggest that Afghanistan was somehow a nation-state before we entered is totally erroneous and naive. Moreover, to say that terrorist movements only add a twist to the nation-state parameters is also erroneous. When Guiliani writes that there is no alternative to the sovereign state system, he is referring to the productive models that we have seen rise in America and western Europe. He's exactly right, because terrorist organizations are not just a twist on the nation-state...they are wholly unlike a nation-state. And this is warfare in the 21st century. Kaplan couldn't be more wrong when he suggests that combat tactics have not changed as a result of new, irregular, urban warfare. 2) In the 90s, following the fall of the Soviet Union, many other conflicts that had been suppressed in the bipolar conflict of the Cold War were then set loose - Bosnia, Kosovo, Rwanda, Somalia. Kaplans assertion that there were no threats because Al-Qeada was in its nascent form is so historically false that I begin to question Kaplan's credentials for writing such an article. In the 90s, before Al-Qeada became the ultimate threat, demands for U.S. military missions were far exceeding capabilities, but nevertheless existed. Kaplan says there was nothing else to do than cut the military budget, but as a percentage of the gross domestic product (approx. 4 percent), the U.S. is spending less today on defense than at any other time since the end of WWII. I would suggest the conflict we now face, despite how this administration has handled it, is the most dire and serious conflict our country has encountered since the reign of Hitler. 3) Kaplan smugly attacks Guiliani for his criticism of China and Russia. I, in fact, applaud Guliani for calling out both nations. We have seen ample evidence of Russia's backsliding away from democratic reforms in recent months - they don't just remove journalists from their positions anymore...no...they just straight off 'em. And the Chinese, if they are to be recognized with the glory they hope the Olympics will bring them, need to promote and institute policies that encourage and protect a free, homegrown press. Guiliani, as Kaplan suggests, may have no real leverage for pushing these reforms, but his attitude about the situation is spot-on and should be repeated for the world. The fact that Kaplan has chosen to attack Guiliani for reforms that he himself, especially as a journalist, should be backing is irresponsible and contradictory to the spirit of journalism. What else are you willing to betray, Kaplan?

"I'm no fan of Guiliani"

Liar.

I would disagree with point 2, only to the degree that our defense build-up as a result of the Cold War was not what was needed for the conflicts that arose post-Soviet occupation. We were arms-racing for a global war with a gigantic superpower, and when that ended, much of our tactical ability was useless in small-conflict situations.

Caveat: I am not a military tactician. But thousands of ICBMs and bombers do not seem to fit well in the military needs of a conflict in Rwanda or Somalia.

Besides, Giuliani isn't talking about Bosnia. You're rewarding his ignorance by pointing out a way that the military was used, but Rudy is all terrorism, all the time. His essay implies that the military cuts post-Cold War were stupid in light of the military shortages we have today in the war on terror. But he forgets that there was a decade in between where terrorism was not our military's primary focus.

Some were justified, and some were not.

It's all arm chair quarterback in hindsight. With regards to the cuts.

Try the A-6 Intruder and the A-12 Avenger two such murder victims that came directly from the pen off former Sec Def Dick Cheney during period the in quesiton.

The A-6 was due for a final upgrade in the mid 80's which would have made it the tip of the Navy's carrier's strike ability throughout the 90's. They actually made a hand full of proto types which some became museum pieces.

Instead they stopped procurement of new A-6's and scrapped the idea of a retrofitted A-6F and G models all together.

Instead going with a bold new direction the A-12 Avenger. But that didn't last very long.

I gather it was a Navy stealth fighter /bomber and was eventually cancelled due to cost overruns and alleged mis-management.

All compliments of Dick Cheney.

Personally knowing that all we would be doing in the 90's was dropping bombs we should have gone with the A-6F or not placed unreasonable deadlines on the A-12.

And put the F-14 in mothballs.

Although we do have 100 composite winged A-6's sitting in Arizona.

I don't expect us to wrong Cheney's right and bring them out of mothballs for one last dance in Iran.

As for Kaplan

<<< Giuliani doesn't explain why more submarines, bombers, and tankers are necessary for the war on terror (or, as he puts it, "the Terrorists' War on Us").* Could he be pandering to the Navy and Air Force?>>>>

This guy is nit picking. Guiliani isn't Von Clauswitz and a great deal of technical detail isn't necessary for a mere "essay" on military issues.

I look at it as merely a preamble to whatever his foreign policy view is.

Tankers are a no brainer. The tanker fleet is usually always antiquated and the last air craft to get priority.

As long as the military is going to maintain an offensive philosophy you need good reliable tankers for the next fifty years fiscally speaking.

Submarines? Submarines for the war on terror? Sure they don't help much fighting Al Queda to a liberal, but they are still relevant weapons platforms that will come in handy if we were to have a real shooting war with China, Russia, or just about any nation.

Our submarine fleet can deliver strike teams quietly. Or launch cruise missiles or ICBMs if called upon. They can also blow merchant ships straight to hell. They can do alot of things, just because they aren't involved in killing Al Queda 24 hours a day they still have a place.

They have decided to convert a numer of Ohio class SSBN's over to "SSGNs" or nuclear guided missile submersibles.

Which should give liberals an orgasm, but it won't. Devoting it's payload to cruise missiles instead of sea launched ICBMs, as well as additional room to carry Navy Seals or Marines.. I also hear they reserve one of the missile tubes as SEAL team entrance/exit port.

The company formerly known as Electric boat needs to build submarines just to survive. They almost shut down Groton Naval Yard a year or so ago when they were shutting down bases.

If memory serves they put that off.

We should build submarines at a steady rate for the next 20 years to replace the older Los Angeles class attack subs. It's not like merchant shipping is going to move into outer space in that time span.

I don't know about more SSBNs at this point, but you can never have enough attack submarines.

We might even start a small fleet of diesel subs to operate out of a forward African or Asian port.

Some believe diesel submarines are even more quiet than our best nuclear subs although they don't have the payload or endurance of nuke boats.

As for Bombers? Well read above. Bring back the A-6. It can use GE F404's the same used in F/18's.

Or we could just make unmanned bombers from now on.

I'm sure career fighter/bomber jocks would love that!

yeshua:

I would suggest the conflict we now face, despite how this administration has handled it, is the most dire and serious conflict our country has encountered since the reign of Hitler.

Hardly. Hitler represented an actual existential threat to the US. The Soviet Union represented an actual existential threat to the US. Al-Qaeda and other terrorist organizaions do not. They don't have the manpower, organization or the means to be enough of a threat to this country. Al-Qaeda can cause damage, to be sure. But having the greatest military in the world is not going to prevent a determined suicide bomber.

maggot:

yeshua:

I would suggest the conflict we now face, despite how this administration has handled it, is the most dire and serious conflict our country has encountered since the reign of Hitler.

Hardly. Hitler represented an actual existential threat to the US. The Soviet Union represented an actual existential threat to the US. Al-Qaeda and other terrorist organizaions do not. They don't have the manpower, organization or the means to be enough of a threat to this country. Al-Qaeda can cause damage, to be sure. But having the greatest military in the world is not going to prevent a determined suicide bomber.

When the first suicide bomber manages to vaporize much of downtown Chicago (or LA, NY...or, heck, all three) thanks to developments in "suitcase" nuclear bomb technology, I wonder if you'll still be thinking (that is, assuming you weren't exterminated as a result of such an attack) that Al-Qaeda isn't an actual existential threat to the U.S. and that you'll desist in your idiotic recycling of the banal horseshit of the likes of Michael Moore.

yeshua:

1) ... The truth is, we are not engaging nation-states, and for Kaplan to suggest that Afghanistan was somehow a nation-state before we entered is totally erroneous and naive. Moreover, to say that terrorist movements only add a twist to the nation-state parameters is also erroneous. When Guiliani writes that there is no alternative to the sovereign state system, he is referring to the productive models that we have seen rise in America and western Europe. He's exactly right, because terrorist organizations are not just a twist on the nation-state...they are wholly unlike a nation-state. And this is warfare in the 21st century. Kaplan couldn't be more wrong when he suggests that combat tactics have not changed as a result of new, irregular, urban warfare.

Terrorist organizations are hardly as "new" as you are suggesting. Think of pirates in the 16th century, mafia organizations, revolutionary movements in other countries...for centuries all of these things have existed, and guess what!! They are still around. There is still piracy on the high seas, mafia organizations in a variety of countries, and revolutionary movements that plot how to overthrow host governments. The "terrorist threat" is just like any of these. And if history is any guide, America will be as "succesful" in defeating the terrorists as pirates, the mafia, and revolutionaries.

George Washington was labeled a "terrorist" by the British Crown -- and here we are two centuries later. I am not equating Washington to bin Laden, but it is telling that the same label is used for both. This is not a new problem.

Combat tactics, no matter how they change, will fail. That is guaranteed for reasons that Sun Tzu wrote about two millenia ago. We are an overseas power essentially laying siege to a variety of power centres in Mesopotamia without local support. This is military madness. Sieges like this are extremely difficult to win, and the longer they go on the more likely they are to fail. The harder we push, the more support we will lose.

And Kaplan is absolutely right to point out the paradox in Giuliani's argument, as well as yours. If the nation-state system is all there is, then we certainly can't be bombing areas in Pakistan without their permission -- that attacks the very core of state sovereignty. But then you and Giuliani argue that we're fighting a "new war." So which one is it? You can't have it both ways, no matter your intellectual gymnastics.

yeshua:

2) In the 90s, following the fall of the Soviet Union, many other conflicts that had been suppressed in the bipolar conflict of the Cold War were then set loose - Bosnia, Kosovo, Rwanda, Somalia.

Conflict does not equal threat, and it is this type of thinking that is now leading to the destruction of the American military. So other countries fight -- so what? How does this affect American interests? I don't see how any of those countries you named have any relationship to American interests in any concrete form. None of them required American attention. I can't understand this mentality that other people's fights are America's business somehow. When did we become the global busy-body? Wouldn't it have been better to mothball some of our weapons and spend money, say, reinforcing New Orleans levees and bridges in Minnesota? America is the most awesome military power the world has ever seen. The idea that conflict in Somalia or Rwanda threatens us is simply ludicrous.

Maybe if we stopped interfereing with other people, they might not hate us as much!! What a radical idea!!

yeshua:

I would suggest the conflict we now face, despite how this administration has handled it, is the most dire and serious conflict our country has encountered since the reign of Hitler.

Horror! shudder! a man in a cave is trying to kill us! Sorry but I just don't see it. This is even more laughable than the previous proposition. By 1939 Germany was one of the most powerful military states in the world. Are you suggesting that a man in a cave is the most powerful military entity on the planet today? Or maybe you're referring to Iran, a country without nuclear weapons?

How can you write those words with a straight face? Who is the threat? Where is the threat? A rag tag band of militants is like Hitler? Really? Where is their fleet of submaries? their Panzer units? the Luftwaffe? They must be really good at hiding stuff. I hope you have a steady supply of clean linens because it sounds like you're wetting the bed every night thinking about bin Laden.

yeshua:

) Kaplan smugly attacks Guiliani for his criticism of China and Russia. I, in fact, applaud Guliani for calling out both nations. We have seen ample evidence of Russia's backsliding away from democratic reforms in recent months - they don't just remove journalists from their positions anymore...no...they just straight off 'em. And the Chinese, if they are to be recognized with the glory they hope the Olympics will bring them, need to promote and institute policies that encourage and protect a free, homegrown press.

You know, there's an old saying...something about a goose and a gander. Or maybe I'm thinking about the one about seeing the splinter in another's eye and ignoring the mote in your own. Yea can't really remember how it goes exactly, but the gist is that maybe we ought to mind our own freakin' business before we begin criticizing others. We have a concentration camp open in an outpost in Cuba, where we hold people without trial indefinitely! And other countries are backsliding on democracy?? The president can spy on people's communications without warrants, in direct contravention of our 4th Amendment -- and the Chinese need a free press?? Again, this interest in being the world's busybody is totally foreign to me. The roads we use and the buildings we occupy are literally crumbling beneath us, and somehow I should worry about Russia and China! How about America?? and American democracy? What happened to those things?

Yeshua I'm afraid your thinking is prevalant amongst the intellectual "literati". This thinking is more and more produced by elite schools, who are increasingly training their students to think of themselves as perfect and everyone else as flawed. You suggest that we can know more about Russia than the Russians; more about China than the Chinese; that we can defeat terrorism through war; and that a man in a cave is as dangerous as the leader of the most powerful European state that existed 60 years ago. I would suggest you contemplate all of these notions, because they have no foundation in reason.

Gracchus,

I wonder if any of our modern day so-called conservatives will recognize the real conservative ideals expressed in your comments?