..out of the dark

..The rhetoric used in the "diplomatic" effort, as described in a recent post, when having the military as a diplomatic stick, is something essential to US foreign policy. As it is with any country with or without enemies, of course. But it has also been, for the last couple of years, the driving force for the insistently aggressive foreign policy of the US. In Iraq, towards Iran, North Korea, etc. I.e, that as long as the military is seen as invincible, the US cannot be opposed, and that this brings with it certain opportunities to dictate terms, etc.

Now, on the other hand - what Rumsfeld and Congress actually has done in the last couple of years, like many other forces around the world (like the norwegian and german army), is to streamline the military and make it more "agile". Or into rapid deployment forces, rather than a standing army. This has been one of the more reasonable approaches to the military in modern times if you want to keep the military available for certain strike- missions, but not have the cost of a bigger army that does absolutely nothing. And something which can be commended as a good step in making the military less imposing on the part of some nations, since it implies any larger operations must have international consensus to even be viable. Or, something that makes it more likely the army will be abused for politically convinient missions on the other side of the world, of course.. depending on your outlook.

But in the White House, the presumption still seems to be that this smaller army still is capable of sustained operations for longer amounts of time, and that any suggestion that it cannot do so is, if not treacherous, undercutting their "diplomatic efforts".

Perhaps it's not so curious that Donald Rumsfeld was fired now that things are turning badly for the Bush- administration, after all.