Russia and the BoB/Pacific debate...

On Russia...

Your points are understood, and I feel they are perfectly valid. I'm not suggesting that we do anything to slow or stop Russia's economic or military ascendancy... that is their sovereign right to pursue as a nation and a society.

My concerns stem from the FACT that the Russian leadership (now seen in the Putin/Medvedev model) is seemingly more than willing and able to make the efforts to secure and maintain Russia's prominence in world affairs and security, while our American leadership (Obama, Clinton and our current Congressional makeup) seems more than willing to pass that torch on to whomever is willing to take it up. In other words, Medvedev is taking a "Russia First" position, just like Putin did before him... while Obama seemingly wants to do all he can to distance himself from any position or policy that might be called "America First".

Obviously, I'm marginally more comfortable with the thought of Russia having that role than I am with the Chinese... but there is no question that the society that is best suited to be the "go-to" man on the block with the BIG STICK is the US, and no one else. The EU, the UN... even the UK have shown tendencies since the end of WWII that reflect an attitude of ambivalence towards tyranny and despotism in favor of cultural understanding and political "isolationism".

So, while Russia works day-in and day-out to put themselves in the political, military and diplomatic "driver's seat", we see America preparing to recede further and further into the background while deferring all opportunities to support or promote a greater role to other nations and/or organizations. Both Putin and Medvedev have promised to "update" and improve their nuclear weapons technology, while our stated policy has become one of reduction and removal of nuclear arms. Medvedev has continued the Putin policy of greater and more available military hardware across the board, while our position (since Obama's election) has been one of "less, less, less". In areas of crisis and unrest, we see Russian intervention just as prominent as we do American (Somali pirate protection, for example), while domestic policy continues to improve the economy of greater Russia as ours flounders in debt and stagnation.

Jambo asked the question (not in his post): Russia is facing the prospect of sixteen years of "Russia-first" leadership in the Putin/Medvedev party. When was the last time we could point to an American leader and KNOW he was working to keep "America first"? Do we have to go all the way back to Reagan? Clinton is obviously out of the question, and I think Bush Jr. is too. Bush Sr. did an awful lot of talking about "new world orders" and "a thousand points of light"... so I think his position here is questionable, too. Reagan, from the moment he took his place in the Oval Office, never backed off of the position that America was the only nation that COULD be a sole superpower, let alone SHOULD be the sole superpower. Was he the last "America First" President? How far back do we have to go to find one before Reagan?

On "Pacific"...

I haven't seen the whole series to-date yet, so I can't make a final claim about which is "better". What I have seen tells me that I'm kind of glad that "Pacific" didn't follow the BoB/Private Ryan-format of gritty, live-action sort of footage... it was great for those shows, but this series needs to stand on its own and NOT be seen as a BoB, Part 2.

I also agree that the War in the Pacific was considered, and rightly so, a different kind of war. The war against Germany and Italy was fought between cultures that all shared common roots and origins, and while I don't want to take away from the effort and sacrifice made by those men that fought in Europe, the fight that was waged in the Pacific was (in my most humble opinion) a total war from start to finish. The Imperial Japanese Army and Navy were prepared, trained and equipped to fight and win a war of extermination and conquest that would have cost millions of lives before it was over of its own accord, and did cost millions of lives once the Allies committed to fighting the aggressor state of Japan.

I have no doubt (at all) that the cause that was winning WWII was a just cause, and that the US did what needed to be done from start to finish. I'm not saying mistakes weren't made or that every man fought with the same intentions or reasons as the nation and society as a whole... but the effort was just and good, and that is why we WON where the Axis couldn't. How often have we said that Germany was doomed because she fought on two fronts? Japan did the same thing (multiple theater actions that couldn't be sustained long-term) and lost as a result. Why did we win? More manpower? More resources? Better training? Better leadership? All contributed, yes... but combine them all and they don't outweigh the FACT that we were fighting for justice, freedom and individual liberty that is proved by the fact that once the war was over, we worked just as hard to rebuild our former enemy states into functioning societies capable of providing for the needs of their people as we did to destroy them in the first place.

I sound like a cheerleader, I know... but it is still true. In all of the Far East, we have no greater ally than Japan, and in Europe (especially during the Cold War) no firmer ally than Germany. In the 30 years after the war, these nations had so completely recovered as to rival the US in economic capacity, and still constitute vibrant, vital global markets fully 65 years after the end of the war. What greater testament can be made to the just nature of our cause in WWII than that?