I happen to believe that this is not just pandering to votes, but actual concern within the Russian leadership about the positioning of the missile defense system in Eastern Europe. Once again the administration's myopic focus about the over-hyped Iranian nuclear program is ruining its goal of resetting the American-Russian relationship.

The problem with Leon Panetta is that he is way too accomadating to the agencies that he is supposed to be in charge of such as the CIA and now the Defense Department. Rather than investigating what weapon programs need to be terminated or if the Iraq and Afghanistan wars are in America's best interests, Panetta just takes the advice of the generals and lets them dictate the future strategic direction of the United States. Sadly Panetta is typical of the Washingtion elites and their worship of the military. If Panetta were to resign tomorrow his successor would probably be not much better in curtailing the growth of military spending.

I thought that you were a bit too hard on Jimmy Carter since he got the Arabs and the Israelis to sign the Camp David Accords which has given the Middle East thirty-five years of relative peace. George H.W. Bush has an overrated reputation in the area of foreign policy. George H.W. Bush encouraged a newly reunified Germany to join NATO that has led to further NATO expansion and the poisoning of the American-Russian relationship. Also George H.W. Bush failed to stop the former Yugoslavia from descending ino civil war and ethnic cleansing. Moreover George H.W. Bush mishandled the ending of the Gulf War by encouraging the Kurds and Shiites to rise against Saddan Hussein, but did nothing to help them achieve their goal. Finally George H.W. Bush sent soldiers into Somalia without an endgame in 1992.

What this incident in Norway proves is that terrorism, whether it be foreign of domestic, is a problem for the criminal justice system, and it cannot be eradicated through military force.

Drones could delude policymakers further into believing that military action is the end all solution to the conflicts in Yemen, Pakistan, and Somalia while ignoring the political tensions in these countries that helps to foster extremism. In the sixities, McGeorge Bundy and Walt Rostow thought that the selective bombing of North Vietnamese targets would somehow solve the political problems in South Vietnam. But when this use of airpower failed American ground troops became quickly involved in the Vietnam War. Drones have now replaced airpower as the new panacea for trying to resolve military conflicts throughout the developing world. Today's policymakers seems to be making the same mistakes as McGeorge Bundy and Walt Rostow made in the 1960s in believing that the use of advance military technology can solve the political problems of the Third World.

There were really not any prominent military men in George W. Bush's cabinet. Colin Powell did serve in GW's administration but he gained his fame under his father's term, and Powell's confidant Richard Arimtage originally served under Ronald Reagan. I believe that the dearth of military officers in Republican politics is due to the fact that Neo-Conservatives still dominate the Republican Party, and they have a misguided view of all high raking members in the armed forces as being in the realist mold of Colin Powell and Brent Scrowcroft.

It is not just the CIA that has be using drones without any congressional oversight, but the Joint Special Forces Command drone operations have also eluded public scrutiny. As long as drones are assigned to the Joint Special Operations Command, there is little Congress can do to prevent their expanded use since JSOC acts secretly and without congressional knowledge of its operations. There really needs to be another Frank Church or Albert Gore, Sr. in the Senate, but I believe that those, who presently occupy that chamber, are too afraid of being called "soft on terrorism," to challenge this current militarization of foreign policy.

To fuster The point that I was making about casaulties is the same one that Peter Singer has written about in his book "Wired for War." Drones make war seem easy and very much like a computer game, and hence policymakers will falsely believe that future wars will be bloodless and or stay in financially draining conflicts like those in Afghanistan and Iraq indefinitely.

As I have stated before, the strategy employed by the CIA and the Defense Department is about increasing their share of the federal budget. Neither the CIA or Defense Department wants to mention al-Qaida's online capabalilities, since it can be hacked into by domestic crime fighting organizations such as the FBI. Unfortunately, Obama seems to be taking advice about fighting terrorism from the CIA and the Defense Department without realizing that it is in their own self interest to keep the "war," on terrorism going.

Robert Gates may have axed obsolete weapons, but he helped to continue two strategically useless wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Moreover the technological advances in the military that occurred under Gates, such as the expanded use of drones, made these wars more politically acceptable since casualties are relatively small in these conflicts. As a result the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq continue to drain the United States financially without any political outcry in congress.

I also meant to add the CIA as well as the military in the previous post, since John Brennan has worked for that organization. The CIA like the military wants a "war," on terrorism in order to increase its budget.

David Brooks, is a typical conservative, in that he believes in a strong military and a weak government. Brooks wants a limit on grandiose talk when it comes to improving the lives of ordinary people, which is the reason why he lavished praise on Chris Christie and Rahm Emmanuel for their draconian budget cuts. But I really do not believe that Brooks has changed his stance about American greatness being based on military power.

I think that COIN was so popular with the American military because it allowed them to win one minor tactical victory after another, without engaging in a multilateral and diplomatic approach that would have reached a politcal settlement in Afghanistan. Ever since the Kosovo War in 1999 the US military has despised multilateralism and diplomacy and this has hindered America's military effectiveness in the past decade. A majority of the American military supported Bush's undiplomatic and unilateral invasion of Iraq, and the US armed forces work poorly with other Western allies in Afghanistan. COIN offered the way for the American military to avoid a diplomatic and multilateral solution to the Afghan war. In the future, policy makers really need to ignore advice from the American military since they do not believe in either multilateralism or diplomacy, but would rather win small tactical victories without developing a grand strategy.

To Fuster 1.According to many different reports, the Chinese gave 50 Jf-17s free of charge to Pakistan. Also 36 J-10s will be delivered to Pakistan in 2014-2015. Plus the Japan Times reports that the Chinese are helping the Pakistanis on multiple infrastructure projects. Americans need to face the fact that Pakistan no longer needs us anymore. 2. Do you suggest that we bribe or intimidate the non-Pashtuns in Afghanistan? They still will remain more loyal to their linguistic brothers in Iran than to foreign Westerners like the Americans. 3. Iran's nuclear weapons program started under the Shah of Iran so it is reasonable to expect a non-theocratic government continuing the program. Moreover it is ludricrous to expect the Iranians would to give a newly aquired nuclear weapon to Hezbollah and Hamas since that would be meet with an Israeli nuclear attack on Iran, and I doubt any Iranian government official is stupid enough to follow that course.

To fuster First of all, the United States can do very little to influence the Pakistani government since they get a lot of their financial and military aid from the Chinese, and are no longer dependent on the Americans. But by talking with the Iranians that would get the Pakistani government to change their ways since they fear Indian and Iranian influence in Afghanistan. Secondly, the Iranians already have a large amount of influence with the northern non-Pashtun ethnic groups, and by talking to them, it will not increase the Iranian influence that already exists in Afghanistan. Thirdly, the Americans and the Iranians have a common enemy in the Taliban. It would only make sense in joining sides to fight a common enemy. The United States has sided with regimes led by the likes of Stalin, Tito, and Mao, and by somewhat allying ourselves with the Iranians it would not set a precedent.

James Webb seems to be more of a Libertarian than either a Democrat or a Republican. James Webb was originally Reagan's Secretary of the Navy, but he then resigned from that post and about twenty years later became the Democratic Senator from Virgnia in which he declined to run for a second term. Webb opposes any type of interventionism abroad, but he is also the sole Democrat to vote for Paul Ryan's radical plan to abolish Medicare.

The Obama administration has been too reliant on military force in order to achieve a political settlement in Afghanistan. There is no way that the Pashtun and non-Pashtun ethnic groups are going to accept a large American presence in their country. The only way out of Afghanistan is through diplomacy which involves negotiating directly with the Iranians. Iran is the only other Muslim country that can combat Pakistani influence in Afghanistan. If some sort of American-Iranian cooperation existed on Afghanistan that would put pressure on the Pashtun dominated Taliban to agree to a political settlement.