CougarCorner

Anyone who thinks republicans are fiscal conservatives has their head in the sand. They are refusing to estimate the costs of their foreign interventions and military expenditures.

https://theintercept.com/2016/05/02/rep ... r-arsenal/

jvquarterback wrote:Anyone who thinks republicans are fiscal conservatives has their head in the sand. They are refusing to estimate the costs of their foreign interventions and military expenditures.

https://theintercept.com/2016/05/02/rep ... r-arsenal/

When I considered getting a master's degree in international relations along with my JD, I was interested in studying the costs of isolationism (WWI and WWII) versus the costs of interventionism (all the conflicts since). Apparently, the university I applied to was not interested in that as a research topic. I was just curious what the outcome would be.

Cougarfan87 wrote:

jvquarterback wrote:Anyone who thinks republicans are fiscal conservatives has their head in the sand. They are refusing to estimate the costs of their foreign interventions and military expenditures.

https://theintercept.com/2016/05/02/rep ... r-arsenal/

When I considered getting a master's degree in international relations along with my JD, I was interested in studying the costs of isolationism (WWI and WWII) versus the costs of interventionism (all the conflicts since). Apparently, the university I applied to was not interested in that as a research topic. I was just curious what the outcome would be.

I think that would be an incredibly fascinating topic to study.

WWI and WWII are examples of interventionism. I suppose you could argue WWII wasn't but even if we agreed it was, the only necessary cost of "isolationism" was that of developing nuclear weapons for a deterrent.

Which brings us back to the point that all of the Republican congressman in the armed services committee voted against coming up with an estimate of the costs of those nuclear weapons.

jvquarterback wrote:WWI and WWII are examples of interventionism. I suppose you could argue WWII wasn't but even if we agreed it was, the only necessary cost of "isolationism" was that of developing nuclear weapons for a deterrent.

Which brings us back to the point that all of the Republican congressman in the armed services committee voted against coming up with an estimate of the costs of those nuclear weapons.

I consider WWI and WWII the costs of isolationism because they came about, in large part, because he US refused to get involved in the regional conflict until it boiled over. It would be interesting to analyze costs in terms of lives and treasure, compared to all the entanglements since, and throw in what nuclear power costs and saves...if I were studying the topic as I had proposed to do about 12 years ago. There are real costs that are not being counted. I became interested in the topic after reviewing public opinion polls from the 1940s...against war, even after Pearl Harbor...and after speaking with a WWII vet who said what they learned from WWII was that you better have a very good reason for going to war.

In what possible way anyone would consider WWI a "consequence" of isolation? There was absolutely no US interest in the war. It would be like saying the US should have intervened in the Napoleonic wars in Europe. The costs came as a result of intervention proposed by Woodrow Wilson, not of isolation. The whole world would be a better (and much wealthier) place today if the US hadn't intervened in WWI.

Not sure I agree with the last sentence, but I like much of the rest. WWI would have dragged on for possibly years longer without US intervention. Europe is America's largest trading partner (or was at the time). The sooner that war ended the sooner America could get back to the business of America which is business.

Reading the article, it sounds like Republicans and Democrats alike have a pretty good idea how much it will cost (over $1 trillion). As I see it, the fight isn't over finding out how much it will cost, the fight is about paying the CBO to put an official stamp on the estimates so that Democrats have something to use to beat up Republicans for the November elections.

Maybe I'm misreading something?

jvquarterback wrote:In what possible way anyone would consider WWI a "consequence" of isolation? There was absolutely no US interest in the war. It would be like saying the US should have intervened in the Napoleonic wars in Europe. The costs came as a result of intervention proposed by Woodrow Wilson, not of isolation. The whole world would be a better (and much wealthier) place today if the US hadn't intervened in WWI.

In the sense that the U.S. ignored it from 1914 to 1917, got involved, and the war was over in one year. Now, had they got involved immediately after the assassination of the Archduke of Ferdinand, perhaps it doesn't spiral into a World War at all. That is the real question, isn't it? To what extent does intervening in small skirmishes avoid a much broader war? Isn't that the basis of the U.S. constantly being engaged around the globe? And what is the cost of constant intervention versus waiting until things boil over and require a world war? How does the advent of the nuclear age change that analysis? Even though doing nothing required much more U.S. involvement in WWI and WWII then if those issues were nipped in the bud, maybe doing nothing now would not get that out of control due to the advent of nuclear weapons...or maybe it would lead to nuclear world war. At any rate, I thought these were interesting research questions. I guess I was trying to say that the analysis concerning the necessity of our constant global involvement and its costs has either not been done, or not well publicized, and it may actually cost more than just sitting back and waiting until you have to do something. Or maybe allowing things to fester and then getting involved costs even more.

So you're agreeing that the US had no more (probably less) at stake in WWI than in the Napoleonic wars in Europe, but you're still trying to lay the cost of the unnecessary intervention at the feet of non-interventionists. I don't think I've heard anything more backwards in a long time. No wonder no one wanted to touch your proposed research topic.