Excellent Podcast, as always.  Love the Humor, perspective, and your presentation.

I think that Lt Col Gordon Cucullu and others have mispercieved the truth of the matter on a couple of points.

The issue is not that the "Civilian Popluation" in the United States does not have good communication with those in the military.  They have excellent communication between the Left and the military.  The issue is that their values do not match.  The Left rejects the core values of nationalism and unity within a culture with distain and insult, and embraces the notion of one world government, without national borders and national identity.  The military, and most of the population in the United States, rejects the notion of a one world government without borders and recognizes the essential charactaristc of a strong and successful nation is unity.  These viewpoints are fundamentally at odds.

The biggest single detriment to the United States is not foreign enemies, but those in the left who are actively working to the detriment of the United States.  Treason and sedition are no longer recognized and are permitted to extremes. Hanoi Jane and production of propaganda movies contrary to the intersts of the United States (much less that they are false in their assertions) are but small examples of how the Left is the single biggest weakness the United States has.

I also believe Lt Col Gordon Cucullu also is mistaken with regard to the US Military expense allocation and ability to respond to threats.  Cutting edge aircraft are an excellent investment, they quite literally make our enemies expensive equipment obsolete.  Control over air space is crucial in these times for victory, and the lead time on developing this technology is extensive.  I believe the US military is correct in their focus in this regard.  Expanding infantry reserves can be done quickly if needed.

Thank you Shire Network Network News for your continued podcasts!

Granted, a total of 4,500 casualties (not slightly more than 3,000) isn’t a lot for a 5-year-long war, or even a 7.5-year long war if you include Afghanistan. However, there are two questions that spring to mind:

1. What about the civilian casualties? You have to add that into the equation. It’s true that there were casualties due to killings by “insurgents,” but maybe we should count those, too, since they were indirectly a result of our invasion. In any case, I understand that the number of civilian deaths may tally up to the hundreds of thousands. Estimates of total civilian casualties seem to run anywhere from 150,000 to upwards of 800,000. I hold no brief for Saddam Hussein, but the war may have killed more Iraqi civilians than he has.

2. What will come out of this war? My impression is that the Gulf War was a greater success because of the Powell Doctrine, which held that an invading force should have a limited and achievable goal, and then get out once that goal is achieved. The problem with Afghanistan and Iraq is that we didn’t have the option of getting out. And now that we’re stuck, we're clueless as to what to do. I don’t know that we’re building “freedom” there, or just barely suppressed chaos.

Cuculli says that the US military can handle the war. No arguments there. But handling the war hasn’t been the problem. The problem is building a functioning polity in this non-country, this collection of incompatible groups that was hobbled together by the British and given the name “Iraq.” The problem is what to do with the chaotic political and economic situation so that the violence isn’t continually generated by this group and that. The US military has no clue how to deal with this problem. Fair enough, it’s not their job. But the US government hasn’t a clue, either. It never did. That’s what’s so unnerving. The best George Bush can do now is walk away, leaving this mess to his successor and to the American people.

On another subject: The Obama song is fulsome; I cringed as I listened to it on your podcast. But fiscal restraint in military spending probably isn’t a bad idea. Remember that Republicans are no strangers deficits (viz. Reagan and Bush). They accuse the Democrats of "taxing and spending," but they’ve taxed less and spent even more--putting our government deep into the red. Not all military spending is necessary; in fact, inflated prices charged by military contractors have long been notorious, and no branch of the military will ever ask for a smaller share of the federal budget.  I think that we should take a closer look, to gauge what’s really necessary and what’s not. Just as one can “waste” money on social programs, one can waste money on military projects. And just as government spending on education, health, infrastructure, etc. is necessary, spending on defense is necessary. The questions are “how much?” and “where should the money go?”

Enjoy your podcasts. New listener who has turned several friends on to your work. Thrice in the last couple of podcasts people have referred to McCain as pro choice, this is wrong McCain is pro life.

Joanna, I think that Obama's position needs to be seen in context.  Yes, there's wasteful spending being done by government in pursuit of its constitutional mandates (defense) and in pursuit of progams not specifically enumerated in there (social spending).  Smaller government, a conservative principle (thought a bit on hiatus in the Republican party, I'll admit), would go a long way to dealing with that.

As for Obama's comments, when I hear the "dream" about a world without nuclear weapons, my antannae go up.  What's typically meant is the unreasonable assumption that, as I noted, if we drop our weapons, they'll drop theirs.  Instead, history has shown that enemies are emboldened when we drop, or give indications that we won't use, our weapons.  When bin Laden considered the US a paper tiger, it was then he had the confidence to attack us so spectacularly.  George Washington had a couple of quote related to this.

"There is nothing so likely to produce peace as to be well prepared to meet the enemy."

"To be prepared for war is one of the most effectual means of preserving peace."

I don't want a President who's guiding principle is to "change" our military policy and "hope" the enemy follows suit.

That's fine, Doug, we need to be strong...noted. But that doesn't gainsay the point that we have to figure out how much is needed to be spent on defense. Traditionally, the US government has had three big areas of expenditures: military, military pensions, and social security. Social programs, the environment, education, etc., have commanded a much smaller portion of the federal pie.

OK, we should be strong, granted. But what does that mean? Spending $245 billion a year on an invasion and aftermath of Iraq that hasn't added to our security or that of the Iraqis? I'm sorry, but a strong military is not the same thing as an inflated military. And it's not the same thing as invading where and when we like.

And this military adventure has helped to undermine our economic security by worsening the federal government's deficit. That deficit, along with our negative trade balance, raging consumer debt, a mortgage crisis due to a lack of regulation of the banks, a drastically weakened American dollar, and the threat of a recession have hardly helped to strengthen America.

Also, I'm leary of "smaller government" talk, because it seems to come hand-in-hand with support for a bigger military. Often it's not a smaller government that's really being suggested, but smaller spending on the things that conservatives don't want the government to care about (health care, etc.), in favor of bigger spending on the military. Or simply in favor of lowering taxes for the rich.

By the way, I didn't mention this above, but our notion of success in Iraq should also be tempered not only by the numbers of Iraqis killed, but also by the number of those made into refugees. Two and a half million people have been displaced within Iraq, and another 2.5 million have fled the country.  So, I'm glad that only 4,500 American soldiers died, and not more...but that's not the only figure we should be looking at.

A first try at this new comment didn't take, so I'm writing something similar, in order to try again. If you see two repetitive comments from me in a row...I apologize.

I get your point that the US should be strong, Doug. But that doesn't gainsay the fact that we still have to look critically at how much we need to spend on the military. A strong military is not the same thing as an inflated military.

BTW, I don't see how spending $245 billion a year on Iraq has made us safer or made the Iraqis safer. It has helped, indeed to lessen our economic security. Our zooming federal deficit--along with consumer debt, mortgage meltdown, trade deficit, drastically weakening dollar--has not exactly made us stronger.

I'm leary of "small government" talk, because the people who speak of small government really just want smaller spending on the areas they don't care about (social programs, education, the environment)...in favor of spending more on the military. Or they may simply care about lessening taxes for the rich.

As far as I know, the three biggest areas of federal expenditures have traditionally been the military, military pensions, and social security. Other areas count for far less in the federal budget.

Hi. I recently discovered your podcasts which I think are great. I was wondering if anyone knows what has become of the anglosphere institute, James C Bennett's organisation. The website seems to have been dormant for a couple of years. Does it still exist? Is he still working? Is the institute of any considerable size? I wonder because I want to know if there are any routes to get involved. Cheers.

Well, you've reminded me we really ought to have had Dr Bennett on as a guest a long time ago.

So I've e-mailed him a request to do an interview, and if he says yes, then he'll be on SNN soon!

I'll be sure and ask him about the Anglosphere Institute, which has a website that does rather seem to have that shuttered and empty feel at the moment.