@Olivier5,
Quote:Quote:@Finn dAbuzz,
Quote:
There is no point having the greatest military the world has ever known if everyone thinks you're afraid to use it.
Makes sense
No, it doesn't. Not in the context that Finn said this. Nor in a much broader context either.
First, in the broad context, the US has continually engaged its military around the world consistently for decades and that's too obvious to even bother arguing about. In the specific context of "Obama was scared to use the military", that's not even close to being true.
Quote:To cite just some recent examples: In October, the president authorized the first sustained deployment of U.S. special-operations forces to Syria to complement his air campaign against the Islamic State. In January, reports emerged that the Obama administration was rethinking its troop drawdown in Afghanistan, given the deteriorating security situation there, and considering sending more troops to Iraq and Syria. The next month, Obama released a defense budget that included an increase of $2.5 billion over the previous year to expand the fight with ISIS to North and West Africa, and billions more for sending heavy weapons, armored vehicles, and other equipment to Eastern and Central Europe to counter Russian aggression. In the past several weeks alone, we’ve learned of Pentagon plans to dispatch military advisers to Nigeria against the jihadist group Boko Haram and to launch an aerial offensive in Libya against the Islamic State. U.S. bombing raids recently killed 150 suspected militants in Somalia and over 40 in Libya. By one measure, in fact, the U.S. military is now actively engaged in more countries than when Obama took office.
And yet while America’s military footprint abroad is fainter today than when Obama took office, it’s also more dispersed. Not counting the probable expansion of the anti-ISIS campaign to Libya and other parts of Africa in the near future, the U.S. military is, by my reckoning, involved in more countries now than when Obama took office in 2009, albeit to varying degrees.
Atlantic
As I noted earlier, the "Republicans are strong, manly and brave while the Dems are weak, frightened and effeminate" is in the realm of Big Lie. It's a long-standing PR gambit used in alignment with other such stories, eg Republicans tough re law and order while Dems are wishy-washy). It plays to the father-figure, authoritarianism which is a deeply ingrained part of right wing mythology.
Another way to get a handle on the thoughtlessness of that idea you quoted from Finn is to understand how unhelpful it really is. How often does the US have to strike at other countries to maintain this proposed conception of "the world will be frightened of the US"? What level of military incursion is necessary to maintain it? Will 55 missiles do it? 1000? How many carriers off shore? How many missiles must that fleet send flying for it to frighten? How often does the US have to threaten to use nuclear devices?
And there is the implication in all of this that maybe only military actions and acts of war are workable tools of international affairs.
