Progressives have ideas:
By on Jan 26th, 2006 at 4:19 pm
Progressives have ideas:
American Progress has released a progressive Quadrennial Defense Review, an assessment of national security threats over the next four years and a prescription for transforming the military to face those threats. The Pentagon will release its version in the next few weeks.
View Most Popular
Advertisement
What We're About
What We're Fighting For
What We're Fighting Against
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Afghanistan
Bachmann
Beck
Boehner
Business
Cheney
Civil Rights
Congress
Corporate Ethics
Dobbs
Economy
Education
Election
Energy
Environment
Ethics
Fox News
Gingrich
Glenn Beck
Global Warming
Health Care
Immigration
International Relations
Justice
LGBT
Lieberman
Limbaugh
Media
Military
O'Reilly
Obama
Palin
Pelosi
Politics
Race
Radical Right
Religion
Sports
Steele
Stimulus
Tea Parties
Tea Party
Terrorism
Veterans
Women's Rights
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Reports
In-depth studies on select topics
Got a hot tip?
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
ArchivesBlog Roll
An excellent pre-emptive strike AP!
January 26th, 2006 at 4:23 pmWell, I guess this pokes a thumb in the eye of the nay-sayers who falsely claim progressives never offer advice of their own!
Of course, it would be too much to ask of the ultra-radical right-wingers to admit their calumny. They’re going to make more straw-man arguments in an attempt to save face and not seem like the shrill harpies they truly are.
Let the ‘troll spinning’ begin!
January 26th, 2006 at 4:45 pmI couldn’t bring up the pdf (can you make it available in html?) but the summary seems to say some of the right things.
January 26th, 2006 at 5:23 pmThere is no real military threat against our country, and there hasn’t been for some time. Yet we continue to support, and even expand, conventional military forces. Rumsfeld wants to expand the Navy (which hasn’t fought a sea battle since Leyte Gulf) to 300 ships, even though the deployment rate is way up, and also increase the Army strength and its combat brigades from 33 to 42. And of course we ‘need’ a big Air Force and a new fighter plane.
The last Pentagon QDR said that our national enemies were China, Syria, Iran, North Korea and Venezuela. I know I stay awake nights worrying about those pesky Venezuelans, how about you?
The whole deal, of course, has almost nothing to do with defense and everything to do with the financial benefits (to the tune of $400 billion plus annually) of corporate welfare, death trade employment and useless military bases plus the political benefits that come from non-stop warfare.
January 26th, 2006 at 8:28 pm
January 26th, 2006 at 8:29 pm
January 26th, 2006 at 8:30 pm
January 26th, 2006 at 9:45 pm
Over the next generation, the United States must prepare for a dramatically changed strategic environment. That environment calls for a new war-fighting and national security posture that can simultaneously contain one superpower rival, defeat two terror threats in failed states and maintain two police actions at home and abroad. Call it the “1-2-2 Scenario.”
Here’s more on the 1-2-2 Scenario.
January 26th, 2006 at 9:55 pmWant to know why there are poor people living in AMERICA THE SO-CALLED GREAT NATION?
THIS IS WHERE YOUR TAX DOLLARS WENT,D***IT!
JUST READ HOW MANY NUCLEAR WPNS AMERICA hAS,. TALK ABOUT WMDS:WHEW!
January 26th, 2006 at 10:10 pm
It looks like they cribbed Rumsfeld’s plan. No originality. Nice of them to essentially agree with him though.
January 26th, 2006 at 10:20 pmTook the time to get the pdf up, and agree with JABramoff
This plan tries to be a more efficient way to implement the neocon dream of an American Empire. Defend the homeland, fight one major regional conflict, concurrently 2 post-conflict peacekeeping missions, including counterinsurgency, and deter or contain conflicts in 3 countries or regions. This doctrine is referred to as 1-1-2-3.
Goals include: protect the american people from harm by safeguarding the homeland and projecting power around the globe; deter and defeat aggression against the United States, its people and its interests; and
ensure access to energy supplies.
It calls for quick victories (that’s a new twist), use of the Powell Doctrine, and overwhelming force. It recognizes that unilateral military action is sometimes necessary, increases the army by 86,000, and places top priority on recruitment and retention.
It also also eliminates the ban on women in combat and repeals don’t ask don’t tell. New weapons systems include the B-2 heavy bomber, CVN-21 aircraft carrier, F-35 joint strike fighter, and army future combat system.
This is progressive? Projecting more military power around the globe is not conducive to friendship from those upon whom this military power is projected. As the study says, one of the long-term challenges (arguably the most important one) is the precipitous decline in the reputation of the United States, mostly due to our addiction to military intervention. Think Vietnam and Iraq. Think national moral and financial bankruptcy. Think.
January 27th, 2006 at 1:07 amHow much stock does Donald Rumsfeld hold in Northrup Grumman Lockheed Martin? Who is the prime for cruise missles. Any of you DOD types care to help with my question?
January 27th, 2006 at 7:14 am$1.6 billion non-competitive corporate-welfare bucks for Raytheon, while our people suffer from poor education and lack of affordable health care
August 18, 2004
Raytheon Co., Tucson, Ariz., is being awarded an estimated value $1,607,191,872 firm-fixed-price multi-year contract for the full rate production of up to 2,200 Tomahawk Block IV Cruise Missiles for the U.S. Navy (2,135) and the United Kingdom (65) from fiscal year 2004 through fiscal year 2008. Work will be performed in Tucson, Ariz., and is expected to be completed in June 2011. Contract funds will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year. This contract was not competitively procured. This contract combines purchases for the U.S. Navy (96.5%; $1,559,759,741 ceiling) and the United Kingdom (3.5%; $47,432,131 ceiling) under the Foreign Military Sales Program. The Naval Air Systems Command, Patuxent River, Md. is the contracting activity (N00019-04-C-0569).
January 27th, 2006 at 10:10 amhttp://www.defenselink.mil/contracts/2004/ct20040818.html
Mr. Korb,
January 29th, 2006 at 11:59 amWe appeal to you: The situation cries out for a modern-day Smedley Butler and you could be the one.