Our reader Pat Patterson commented last night:
And if anyone seriously believes that either of the two Democrats aspiring to be president are actually going to cut defense spending then I own a bridge in Brooklyn...
I might be interested in this bridge. Here are three reasons:
1.) Obama and Clinton sound as if they would withdraw most troops much earlier from Iraq than McCain would. That would reduce the defense spending.
2.) Democrats tend to be less enthusiastic about the expensive Missile Defense program than Republicans.
3.) Obama and Clinton are less likely to go to war with Iran. McCain sounds more hawkish on Iran ever since singing about bombing Iran; very inappropriate for an aspiring statesman and a veteran, who should know better than to joke about war. This song might have meant the end of his campaign in most European countries. Certainly it would have been considered worse than Howard Dean's scream, which ended his campaign.
Anyway, George F. Will has a few questions for McCain in the Washington Post:
First, he says war with Iran would be less dreadful than an Iran with nuclear arms. Why does he think, as his statement implies, that a nuclear Iran would be, unlike the Soviet Union, undeterrable and not susceptible to long-term containment unless internal dynamics alter the regime?
Then again it was a Democratic president, who got into the Balkans, when the European Union could not deal with them. As our reader Don* pointed out many times, Kosovo and the rest of the Balkans are not vital for US national security, but Bill Clinton invested heavily into these wars anyway. That means Democrats start wars as well, even wars that are not important for US national security. Perhaps Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama would start another war -- as most US presidents did in the course of their term(s).
So, perhaps I should not yet buy that bridge from Pat. Read Pat Patterson's full comment at US Presidential Candidates: Who's Good for Europe?
Related posts in the Atlantic Review: Defense budget: US spends too much and Europe spends too little? and No Rapid Reaction Force for NATO.
* Don argued that Kosovo was important for Europe, thus Europe should help the United States in wars that are important for Americans. I think Clinton went into the Balkans primarily to push back Russia rather than to help the EU or Bosnians and Kosovars. And right now, Washington is again more supportive of independence for Kosovo than Brussels, London, Paris, Berlin, Rome etc.
Since Kosovo is expected to declare independence in a few hours, check out the Atlantic Review posts: