Welcome Robert M. Farley (University of Kentucky, Patterson School) (Lawyers, Guns & Money)(Twitter), and Host David Axe (War Is Boring) (author) (Twitter)

Grounded: The Case for Abolishing the United States Air Force

It’s been a rough couple of years for the U.S. Air Force. The flying branch has squandered billions of dollars on gold-plated aircraft and other weapons it doesn’t need. It has mishandled nuclear weapons. Airmen in the nuclear force have been caught cheating on exams. And then there are the numerous sex scandals.

At the same time, the Air Force has struggled to remain relevant during the course of two land-centric wars. The Air Force sends strategic bombers to drop bombs on small bands of insurgents. In nearly 13 years of continuous warfare, the flying branch’s most advanced fighter, the F-22, hasn’t flown a single combat mission.

The air service is also unnecessarily bureaucratic, resistant to systemic change and is the most parochial of the armed services. But there’s an even bigger problem—one that calls into question whether the Air Force should exist at all.

This is the focus of the new book by University of Kentucky professor Robert Farley. In Grounded: The Case for Abolishing the United States Air Force, Farley argues that the Air Force is redundant. And, he claims, its existence actually hurts American national security.

Now, Farley doesn’t suggest getting rid of air power. Instead, he recommends the Pentagon dismantle the Air Force and hand its missions and aircraft over to the Army and Navy. All the same, it’s a shocking proposal–one that argues for a profound shakeup in the way America wages war.

 

[As a courtesy to our guests, please keep comments to the book and be respectful of dissenting opinions.  Please take other conversations to a previous thread. - bev]

88 Responses to “FDL Book Salon Welcomes Robert M. Farley, Grounded: The Case for Abolishing the United States Air Force”

BevW March 15th, 2014 at 1:51 pm

Rob, David, Welcome to the Lake.

David, Thank you for Hosting today’s Book Salon.

For our new readers/commenters:

To follow along, you will have to refresh your browser:
 PC = F5 key, MAC = Command+R keys

If you want to ask a question – just type it in the Leave Your Response box & Submit Comment.


If you are responding to a comment – use the Reply button under the number, then type your response in the box, Submit Comment. (Using Submit Comment will refresh your browser when you reply to a comment/ask a question.)

David Axe March 15th, 2014 at 1:57 pm

Hi Bev, hi all. And welcome, Dr. Farley.

David Axe March 15th, 2014 at 2:00 pm

Our introduction today is an excerpt of a review of Rob’s book written by Kyle Mizokami: https://medium.com/war-is-boring/ef5ac0f4a117

Robert Farley March 15th, 2014 at 2:00 pm

Bev, David,

Thanks very much for having me!

Rob

dakine01 March 15th, 2014 at 2:01 pm

Good afternoon Robert and David and welcome back to FDL this afternoon.

Robert, I have not had an opportunity to read your book but I do have a comment. I am a USAF veteran (10 Dec 76 – 9 Sept 82) and at least one of the ‘considerations’ was that with the USAF it is mostly the officers getting their a**es shot off.

But how much of the USAF problems are attributable to out of control Congressional spending. The F15 and F16 are still technically superior to any other fighter jets around the world yet since those planes have been operational there have been the F22, F35, and F117 (Stealth) I know the big ticket weapons developments are always more glamorous than Ops & Maint spending. But doesn’t the Navy at least have a similar problem with the continuing purchase of big ticket aircraft carriers yet no one is calling for disbanding the Navy?

David Axe March 15th, 2014 at 2:01 pm

I’ll start us off. In your book, you argue for abolishing the U.S. Air Force. But you stress that this is not the same as abolishing AIR POWER. Can you explain the difference?

David Axe March 15th, 2014 at 2:02 pm

Rob, feel free to ignore my comment for now and address dakine01′s.

eCAHNomics March 15th, 2014 at 2:02 pm

How much will Boeing’s, Lockheed-Martin’s, et al business diminish if USAF is folded into other branches? Are military jet manufacturing facilities located in each of the 50 states?

eCAHNomics March 15th, 2014 at 2:04 pm

Why is the USAF Academy a center of religious fundamentalism?

Robert Farley March 15th, 2014 at 2:04 pm
In response to dakine01 @ 5

The F-15 and F-16 are still extremely impressive platforms, but I think that a lot of reasonable commentators would suggest that the Su-27 family, the Eurofighter Typhoon, and the Dassault Rafale are very competitive.

More broadly, the problem extends beyond concerns about any particular platform (although the F-35 is obviously a major problem). The problem is that in the current system procurement priorities are still generated by the services, which leads to parochialism, and to the services buying the weapons they like rather than weapons needed for the cooperative fight. Thus, the question isn’t “F-35 vs. F-15″ but rather “F-35 vs. A-10 vs. A-37 or Super Tucano.”

eCAHNomics March 15th, 2014 at 2:05 pm

What does a female pilot have to do to get to be a Top Gun? Is it the same in every service?

David Axe March 15th, 2014 at 2:05 pm
In response to eCAHNomics @ 9

One question at a time! Let’s allow Rob to respond. And besides, I think the religious question is a little off topic.

Robert Farley March 15th, 2014 at 2:07 pm
In response to David Axe @ 6

Sure. The United States currently has five or six air forces, depending on how you count the CIA. The Army, Navy, Marine Corps, and Coast Guard all have their own (expensive, sophisticated) air forces. Airpower comprises all of these capabilities, many or most of which already sit outside the USAF.

What I want to do is link “airpower” more formally with the other capabilities we have, which means doing away with the USAF.

dakine01 March 15th, 2014 at 2:07 pm
In response to eCAHNomics @ 11

“Top Gun” is a Navy concept, not USAF

David Axe March 15th, 2014 at 2:09 pm

So Rob, if you could redesign U.S. air power, how would it look?

eCAHNomics March 15th, 2014 at 2:09 pm

What about the scandals involved in the incompetence of USAF handling nukes? Not just the recent testing scandal at Minot, but the rogue B-52, with 6 live missiles (5? returned???) that flew from Minot to Barksdale in August 2007 before being stopped. How many more do you know about that “we” have not discovered?

Is there a rogue nuke-lover element in USAF? If so, can you name names?

Robert Farley March 15th, 2014 at 2:09 pm
In response to eCAHNomics @ 8

Yep. The short answer is that procurement priorities will change, and some companies will benefit, while others will lose out. The firms that focus on traditional “air force” capabilities (long range global strike) will be hurt on balance. But then the defense industrial base tends to be pretty flexible.

eCAHNomics March 15th, 2014 at 2:10 pm
In response to David Axe @ 12

Religious definitely on-topic. If you fold USAF into other services, could diminish the influence of that dangerous end-times religious view.

David Axe March 15th, 2014 at 2:11 pm
In response to eCAHNomics @ 16

I think the “rogue” assertion is probably wrong, but I’ll let Rob address the nuke-handling.

Robert Farley March 15th, 2014 at 2:11 pm
In response to eCAHNomics @ 16

I think it’s just the opposite; we’re having problems with the USAF nuclear forces because the Air Force has grown bored with the nuclear mission, particularly as it pertains to missiles. The USSR is gone; no one expects ICBMs to come under Russian onslaught, and so serving in missile silos can be a boring dead end for a USAF career. Thus the cheating, the drugs, and the general unpreparedness scandals.

BevW March 15th, 2014 at 2:12 pm

The original Air Corps was US Army, what was the reasoning to break air power off from the US Army in 1947? Seems like a complete fighting force as one combined force.

eCAHNomics March 15th, 2014 at 2:12 pm
In response to dakine01 @ 14

Tried to use it in a metaphorical sense, i.e., women competing for top spots with men, regardless of the service.

dakine01 March 15th, 2014 at 2:13 pm
In response to eCAHNomics @ 18

Religion is not just a problem with the USAF – think Army General Boykin (“gun totin’ Jesus”) But religion is a side issue for all services

Teddy Partridge March 15th, 2014 at 2:13 pm

Thank you for joining us today, and for writing your provocative book.

This book proposes a solution I’ve long advocated: abolishing the Air Force while retaining air power, housed in the services that can best utilize it. The most depressing thing I read was in the intro: the long list of “necessary” air power systems that have never been used in anger, throughout the history of our acquisitive and appropriations-driven Air Force.

I’m interested in knowing the reception for your book. Have you had any (need not name them, of course) Capitol Hill denizens take a look, and provide feedback? I wonder if the omitted “-Congressional” part of Ike’s Military-Industrial- Complex” warning would prohibit any possible reconfiguration of the Pentagon that omitted the AF.

Again, thanks for chatting today…. I look forward to completing your book this weekend!

Robert Farley March 15th, 2014 at 2:14 pm
In response to eCAHNomics @ 18

There’s some work (but not enough) on why the USAF in particular tends more towards Christian evangelicalism than the other two services. It’s certainly not universal (in either direction), but there’s probably a feedback loop associated with how conservative Colorado Springs has become. I’ve also seen the argument that Airpower, particularly the notion of global strike, global vigilance, etc. has certain resonances with how Christian evangelicals understand the US role in the world.

But then airpower enthusiasts have historically come in all colors and creeds, so it may be more an “interesting” question than a “critical” question.

homeroid March 15th, 2014 at 2:14 pm

I dont see the gov saving any money by renaming what the USAF is. The costs will just be pushed to the Army or Navy. Then it will not be a USAF boondogle it will be an Army or Navy boondogle.

dakine01 March 15th, 2014 at 2:15 pm
In response to eCAHNomics @ 22

USAF is probably more advanced than the Navy in that regard though obvioulsy still needs work

Teddy Partridge March 15th, 2014 at 2:16 pm

Well, there’s a whole lot of duplicative eggsalad-wearing top-end management that could be erased from org charts, for a start.

Robert Farley March 15th, 2014 at 2:17 pm

We’ve had some feedback from Congress-critters; mostly at the hill staffer/think tanker level. This is exactly where I’d like to see reception; people who can talk into the ear of Senators and Representatives, maybe someday leading to a question for the Secretary of the Air Force, etc.

I do think we’re at an odd period in defense politics; there’s a potential coalition for major defense reform than runs through big chunks of the Democrats and the Rand Paul wing of the GOP.

Robert Farley March 15th, 2014 at 2:19 pm
In response to homeroid @ 26

Maybe. But at the very least, you can reduce redundancy; different services having the same capabilities. You can also push back against some of the more super-expensive elements of what the Air Force has historically favored. And so cutting back to just two boondogggles, if you want to phrase it in those terms, is still a positive.

Teddy Partridge March 15th, 2014 at 2:20 pm
In response to Robert Farley @ 29

Thanks for answering! That’s very good to hear. It’s the staffers who generate the real questions, I suppose — ‘critters too busy taking legal bribes. It does seem like the distributed jobs program that is our military acquisition process might defeat any attempt at real reform.

BevW March 15th, 2014 at 2:21 pm

I do think we’re at an odd period in defense politics; there’s a potential coalition for major defense reform than runs through big chunks of the Democrats and the Rand Paul wing of the GOP.

Do you see a consolidation of DoD resources similar to the realignment of federal agencies after 911 – into Homeland Security?

Robert Farley March 15th, 2014 at 2:22 pm
In response to BevW @ 32

I think there’s an analogous process; the post 9/11 consolidation and the reform of the IC was, in part, about moving away from a Cold War system. This is also part of that, although in fairness I think it was an error to give the USAF independence in 1947.

David Axe March 15th, 2014 at 2:24 pm

Rob, the nerd in me wants to hear your ideal air power structure? Who has and does what?

Robert Farley March 15th, 2014 at 2:25 pm
In response to BevW @ 21

The idea of breaking the Air Force off in 1947 was that the Air Force could conduct airpower wars for independent, decisive effect. Essentially, the idea was that airpower could win wars all by itself, and that Army and Navy folks just got in the way, so the airmen need an independent service.

In the fullness of time, hasn’t worked out so much.

Robert Farley March 15th, 2014 at 2:28 pm
In response to David Axe @ 34

Heh. Nerds.

Most important principle is that all of the elements needed to conduct particular missions are part of the same service. Army needs CAS, interdiction, depends on air transport for mobility; bulk of those assets should become Army Aviation, or a new Army Air Corps, or whatever you prefer. Army becomes primarily a tactical and operational service geared towards fighting wars against opponents across the spectrum, with all the tools it needs to win.

Navy also prepared to fight, but is more of a strategic shaping service; deterrence, maintenance of the commons, trade protection, etc. And so it gets the assets that we normally associate with the strategic parts of the Air Force, plus the bulk of cyber and space capabilities.

B-52s fly in Navy colors. Just like Russia!

Robert Farley March 15th, 2014 at 2:31 pm

Picture of a Tu-142 with a P-3 Orion. Because I like pictures.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Tu-142M%26P-3C-Orion-1986-DN-SC-87-00265.jpg

David Axe March 15th, 2014 at 2:31 pm

Can you think of any historical examples of countries cutting an entire military branch and redistributing its missions?

Robert Farley March 15th, 2014 at 2:33 pm
In response to David Axe @ 38

The big example is Canada, which folded all three of its services into one organization in the late 1960s. That process has gone… okay. It’s a struggle to say that Canadian military power has really suffered, although at the same time it’s hard to argue that the reform has had all of the positive implications that it’s framers had hoped. But it is an example of big reform in a major Western country.

Other example, of course, would be independence of USAF in 1947.

Robert Farley March 15th, 2014 at 2:35 pm

No drone questions? Drones! Everybody loves drones…

Robert Farley March 15th, 2014 at 2:39 pm

So imagining a question: “How would this affect the drone war?” I think that the answer is complicated. The Army and the Air Force fought a pretty nasty fight over drones last decade, and the Air Force won. Most of the drone strikes that we see today are under the auspices of the CIA, but there’s some reason to believe shifting responsibility back to DoD would create more transparency. I think that the proper home for attack drones would be the Army, which has more of a tactical combat than a strategic air campaign focus; more using drones as close air support for US troops, less, potentially, in wide ranging attacks in Pakistan et al.

David Axe March 15th, 2014 at 2:39 pm

Ha, I have drone questions. What does the CIA drone campaign tell us about the Air Force’s effectiveness as an organization?

David Axe March 15th, 2014 at 2:40 pm

You beat me to it.

David Axe March 15th, 2014 at 2:41 pm

I wonder if you could apply some of your “abolish the Air Force” arguments to the Marine Corps.

Robert Farley March 15th, 2014 at 2:45 pm
In response to David Axe @ 44

You could, although I think that the Marine Corps plays a less problematic role in procurement and in politics. Now in fairness, a significant part of the F-35 issue can be laid at the feet of the USMC, so it’s not exactly innocent where bad procurement decision are concerned. But the USMC also doesn’t act as an advocacy organization for amphibious assaults to solve political problems, in the same way as the Air Force. And if we give the Navy a strategic shaping role, there’s a place for the Marine Corps as the land element of that mission.

BevW March 15th, 2014 at 2:45 pm

How would abolishing the USAF effect the number of soldiers needed to support the US Army commitments? Would the total number of “soldiers” be a reduced number, elimination of duplicated efforts?

Robert Farley March 15th, 2014 at 2:49 pm
In response to BevW @ 46

There are arguments both ways. Air Force people will contend that the number of soldiers abroad will need to increase, because we’ll have fewer long-range strike capabilities and need to have more people “on the ground” as it were. But then air forces have a way of requiring ground forces; some of the early big deployments to Vietnam were to support air bases, and one of big reasons for a “residual presence” in Afghanistan is to support the drone campaign.

Robert Farley March 15th, 2014 at 2:53 pm

Interestingly enough, the argument about an independent air force is a bit more advanced in the United Kingdom than the United States. There’s a growing coalition of journalists and retired Army and Navy officers gunning for the Royal Air Force. The entire debate is a bit more above-board there than here.

BevW March 15th, 2014 at 2:54 pm

Is there one DoD agency better suited to take over the nuclear requirements that the USAF is supporting now?

karenjj2 March 15th, 2014 at 2:56 pm

Welcome to the lake, Robert; your proposal to abolish the air force is extremely appealing to me. Any thing that will reduce the war machinery budget is welcome.

If your proposal is considered, where does the decision making take place? Was the air force created via act of congress?

Robert Farley March 15th, 2014 at 2:57 pm
In response to BevW @ 49

I think that the Navy has done a better job historically; morale in the submarine service is much higher than in the USAF missile corps, largely because the crews mix between attack and boomer submarines. If we decide to keep ICBMs, I’d give them to the Navy just to avoid burdening the Army with nuclear responsibilities it doesn’t need. But I think that we can do without ICBMs, even if we grant the need for a nuclear deterrent.

Robert Farley March 15th, 2014 at 2:58 pm
In response to karenjj2 @ 50

Yep. The Air Force was created by legislative action in 1947. You’d need an act of Congress to fold it into the other services, but as I suggested above, we’re at an odd place right now in American politics where there seems to be an envisionable coalition between some Dems and some Reps on major reform.

David Axe March 15th, 2014 at 3:01 pm

@karen, would you propose abolishing other branches, too? Rob, are there other opportunities for high-level DoD reform in the vein of shuttering the Air Force?

Robert Farley March 15th, 2014 at 3:02 pm

I would also say that sites like FDL can play a role in this process by increasing the visibility of the concept. One of the biggest complaints I get is that the proposal is so “out there” that no one will take it seriously.

homeroid March 15th, 2014 at 3:05 pm

Seems to me the drone force could all be USAGF, US Army geek force. Sure would eliminate some of the problems with the F-35. But then whos to say the military wont put quarter slots on the controls.

Robert Farley March 15th, 2014 at 3:05 pm
In response to David Axe @ 53

That’s a good question. I think that airpower is nearly singular in its impact across DoD; this is, in some sense, the One Big Reform that could change everything about how the United States approaches war, defense, etc. But bureaucracies learn to defend themselves, and tend to persist long after they should have gone away. So I think there’s good reason to believe that other reforms might make sense.

Robert Farley March 15th, 2014 at 3:07 pm
In response to homeroid @ 55

That’s one of the big questions; if you have an Air Force, what other kind of services can you justify? Some people argue for separate Space Force and Cyber Forces, which is a perspective that has never made sense to me.

BevW March 15th, 2014 at 3:07 pm
In response to Robert Farley @ 41

The Army and the Air Force fought a pretty nasty fight over drones last decade, and the Air Force won. Most of the drone strikes that we see today are under the auspices of the CIA,

The CIA getting the drones – was this an Executive or Congressional decision? Who was behind it? Assuming the drones were military hardware / operations, it would take Congressional action to move the operations?

David Axe March 15th, 2014 at 3:12 pm

Rob, can you talk about how organizations shape our perceptions, and make it hard to imagine the world without the organization?

Robert Farley March 15th, 2014 at 3:14 pm
In response to BevW @ 58

That’s been a big argument over the past few years. The CIA actually pioneered the use of many of drones that are most commonly used today, in part because the Air Force wasn’t very interested in drone projects. The Army developed its own drones for tactical reasons (recon, communications, etc.). When the importance of drones became clear, the Air Force worried about being left out.

And so in some sense we got here without really making decisions between bureaucracies. Recent proposals have suggested moving drone strike operations back to the DoD from the CIA, but those have stalled, largely because both Congress and the administration are nervous about implications.

Robert Farley March 15th, 2014 at 3:18 pm
In response to David Axe @ 59

Absolutely. This comes through very strongly in conversations about airpower, because we struggle to think about how we might manage aircraft without an Air Force. But then we did so just a few decades ago, and we continue to manage airpower through the other services, even today. We made the system, and we can always break it and start over, even if the current system has created vested interests.

karenjj2 March 15th, 2014 at 3:20 pm
In response to Robert Farley @ 56

One huge reform would be to reduce the number of generals and their retinues that were high lighted in the Petraeous “affair” with the enclave in Florida. Chefs for generals??? And apparently there are lots of golf courses, military bands, aides, go-fers, etc. that have no bearing on an effective War Department.

Personally, Smedley Butler’s proposals are the ideal and your work is an excellent first step toward that.

Robert Farley March 15th, 2014 at 3:24 pm
In response to karenjj2 @ 62

The Air Force is famed for its bands. It’s a thing. http://www.duffelblog.com/2014/03/afcent-band/

Oscar Leroy March 15th, 2014 at 3:25 pm

For what it’s worth, Mr Farley, I mentioned your proposal to a friend in the Army and he’s all for it :)

Robert Farley March 15th, 2014 at 3:27 pm
In response to Oscar Leroy @ 64

Heh heh. In the US, we’ve submerged our inter-service conflicts for a very long time, but the tensions are still there. I’ve heard from several USA officers and personnel who like the idea, and even one USAF officer. But generally not for public attribution.

homeroid March 15th, 2014 at 3:29 pm

Just think of the lost lobby jobs should the forces consolidate. Wailing clutching pearls.

David Axe March 15th, 2014 at 3:29 pm

Whoa, why did the USAF officer think it was a good idea?

Robert Farley March 15th, 2014 at 3:31 pm
In response to David Axe @ 67

Just one, who doesn’t like strategic airpower and thinks the services should all be folded together. Most of them pretty negative.

Robert Farley March 15th, 2014 at 3:33 pm
In response to homeroid @ 66

One less organization means, I hope, fewer vectors for lobbyists to influence defense policy and defense procurement.

Robert Farley March 15th, 2014 at 3:36 pm

No Curtis LeMay questions?

homeroid March 15th, 2014 at 3:36 pm
In response to Robert Farley @ 69

Minimising influence on procurement would help.

Robert Farley March 15th, 2014 at 3:42 pm

Biggest upside: The end of the USAFA’s appallingly awful football team.

David Axe March 15th, 2014 at 3:43 pm

What about LeMay?

frmrirprsn March 15th, 2014 at 3:44 pm
In response to Oscar Leroy @ 64

Army officers should be all for it. Soldiers die because the AF is not especially interested in the close ground support mission. The army has all those helicopters because the AF has limited the army’s ability to operate fixed wing combat aircraft.

The A-10 was actually effective. (The AF didn’t want to buy it.) The F-35 will be the worst of the lot–high minimum air speed, small payload, limited loiter time, and vulnerability to ground fire. The F-35 may be the biggest boondoggle in the history of weapons procurement.

Robert Farley March 15th, 2014 at 3:46 pm
In response to frmrirprsn @ 74

The F-35 is supposed to do some very complicated things, but it’s been badly botched. At the very least, the USAF could cut back on the buy and supplement with legacy platforms, and with cheaper purpose built aircraft.

Robert Farley March 15th, 2014 at 3:48 pm

Whatever issues I may have with the Air Force, let me affirm my strong affection for Aviation Gin…

David Axe March 15th, 2014 at 3:52 pm

Few minutes left. Any final questions?

frmrirprsn March 15th, 2014 at 3:52 pm
In response to Robert Farley @ 75

The F-35 is supposed to do some incompatible things. It has the added benefit of driving out any kind of competition. If it can do everything, why do we need anything else.

BevW March 15th, 2014 at 3:53 pm

As we come to the last minutes of this great Book Salon discussion. Any last thoughts?

Robert, Thank you for stopping by the Lake and spending the afternoon with us discussing your new book, and a future without the USAF.

David, Thank you very much for Hosting this great Book Salon.

Everyone, if you would like more information:

Robert’s website, book and Twitter. David’s website and Twitter.

Thanks all, Have a great weekend.

Tomorrow: Ken Jacobs / When Mandates Work: Raising Labor Standards at the Local Level; Hosted by Erik Loomis

If you would like to contact the FDL Book Salon: FiredoglakeBookSalon@gmail.com

Robert Farley March 15th, 2014 at 3:54 pm
In response to frmrirprsn @ 78

Right. Joint fighter projects often tend to go wrong, because they attempt to pile too many capabilities into the same air frame. It’s another drawback of the service-oriented system that we’ve adopted.

David Axe March 15th, 2014 at 3:55 pm

Thanks, everyone.

karenjj2 March 15th, 2014 at 3:55 pm

Dumb question but: whatever happened to our air national guard? I remember seeing films of drills that had pilots going from barracks to in the air in 5 minutes or some extraordinary time. I was surprised they were no where to be seen on 911.

I also was disturbed that National Guard and Coast Guard were shipped to Iraq; that does not sound like “defense.”

Robert Farley March 15th, 2014 at 3:55 pm

Thanks everyone! And I highly recommend tomorrow’s event; Erik Loomis is a friend and colleague.

frmrirprsn March 15th, 2014 at 4:01 pm
In response to karenjj2 @ 82

No aircraft were involved prior to the destruction of the buildings. The US had scheduled an elaborate drill that had a large portion of fighters away from their usual locations. It’s one of the points people unsatisfied with the official explanation often cite.

But the first fighters over NYC were F-16s from the VT Air National Guard. They were there within hours of the attack.

karenjj2 March 15th, 2014 at 4:11 pm
In response to frmrirprsn @ 84

Thank you! I knew about the “drills” scheduled 911, but wondered where Air National Guard were.

elizabeth44 March 15th, 2014 at 4:45 pm
In response to Robert Farley @ 47

It would seem to me that the Navy with its carriers could cover a lot of the need to build bases, which we then abandon when we leave.

Bluetoe2 March 15th, 2014 at 5:06 pm

Better yet, abolish the United States period.

reader March 15th, 2014 at 5:43 pm
In response to Bluetoe2 @ 87

You may have *something* there.

I am wondering about the militarization of the CIA – responsible for drones and torture. A Cheney effect, I expect.

Sorry but the comments are closed on this post