• About
  • The Poetry of Protest

Show Me Progress

~ covering government and politics in Missouri – since 2007

Show Me Progress

Tag Archives: military spending

Rep. Vicky Hartzler (r): fuzzy math

25 Wednesday Mar 2015

Posted by Michael Bersin in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

4th Congressional District, budget, military spending, missouri, Vicky Hartzler

This past week:

Analysis: Republicans’ budget plans require creative arithmetic to add up

By RICHARD RUBIN, ERIK WASSON AND HEIDI PRZYBYLA

Bloomberg NewsMarch 19, 2015

WASHINGTON – Republicans in the U.S. House and Senate say their budget proposals add up. It takes some creative math and logic to make that true.

The plans unveiled this week call for the U.S. government to collect more than $1 trillion in taxes in the next decade that Republicans have little or no intention of collecting. Some of that revenue comes straight from taxes to pay for Obamacare – which they want to repeal….

[….]

…. The House proposal includes about $94 billion for a special war-funding account that isn’t subject to spending limits set by Congress in 2011. The Senate plan includes $58 billion in war funding, the same amount requested by President Barack Obama.

Price of Georgia would boost defense spending through something called the Overseas Contingency Operations account, which funds military activities in Iraq and Afghanistan, and which critics call a slush fund.

Such spending is exempt from budget limits because it is supposed to be for activities related to overseas conflicts. Price initially set a spending level $36 billion above the president’s request.

Earlier this month, 70 House Republicans signed a letter saying they would block the budget if military spending wasn’t increased. Representative Mike Turner of Ohio, a member of the House Armed Services Committee who organized the letter, said he would vote against Price’s reserve-fund approach and called it “funny money….”

[….]

The budgets also call for repealing the 2010 health care law known as Obamacare, which was funded by a capital gains tax increase, a tax increase on top earners’ wages and levies on medical devices, health insurers and pharmaceutical companies. The budgets assume the revenue will continue to flow in.

Republicans could replace the Obamacare revenue with a U.S. tax code revision they have been discussing for more than four years and haven’t brought to a committee vote.

“They’re committed to the policy of repealing the Affordable Care Act, but they need the revenue in order to make their budget balance,” said Rep. John Yarmuth, a Kentucky Democrat on the House Budget Committee. “So they’re just doing it and saying it makes sense. And it clearly doesn’t make sense….”

[….]

They won’t let actual math stop them.

Today, from Representative Vicky Hartzler (r):

Representative Vicky Hartzler (r): ….Thank you. Thank you very much, uh, chairman. Uh, you’re a, a wonderful chairman and have helped us, uh, pro, produce a, a wonderful, responsible, uh, budget. And this budget goes a long way to address the out of control spending problem and crushing debt the administration has fostered over the last few years. Unlike the President’s proposal, though, our budget contains pro growth economic reforms, repeals Obamacare, and it balances. Most importantly, Price two restores harmful defense cuts and provides the necessary resources our war fighters need. The threats facing this nation and the world right now are vast, real, and expanding. ISIL has proclaimed a caliphate in the middle east and it is now looking to expand into other countries. Russia is continually making headlines with aggression and invasions in the Ukraine and surrounding areas. China continues to build its military as it gains more and more power globally. And Islamic extremism continues to spread to more and more countries. We as representatives of the people are  charged with providing for the common defense. Given the size, reach, and increasingly brutal nature of the threats we face we should feel obliged to make sure that we create a budget that gives our military the tools necessary to address today’s threats and to be fully prepared to address the threats of tomorrow whatever they may be and wherever they may come from. As the only member to sit on both the House Budget Committee and the House Armed Services Committee I am proud that these two committees have came together, uh, come together for Price two to provide total defense funding above the President’s request. Missouri’s fourth congressional district is proud to be one of our nation’s most military intensive congressional districts, home of two major military installations, Whiteman Air Force Base and Fort Leonard Wood, and thousands of dedicated military families sacrificing so much to keep us safe. Providing our military the resources necessary to safeguard our liberties and protect our shores is one of the top legislative priorities I have. And I’m proud that these resources are provided in Price two. Again, I thank Chairman Price for his leadership on this committee and in this process and I urge my colleagues to vote yes on Price two….      

“…Most importantly, Price two restores harmful defense cuts…”

Inigo Montoya: You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

“…Russia is continually making headlines with aggression and invasions in the Ukraine and surrounding areas…”

Uh, as far as we know, the occupation portion portion of the crisis currently only involves area within the Ukraine. Besides, we thought republicans were enthralled with Vladimir Putin. Go figure.

“…we should feel obliged to make sure that we create a budget that gives our military the tools necessary to address today’s threats and to be fully prepared to address the threats of tomorrow…”

Uh, the United States spends the greatest amount of money on the military (by far) than any other nation on the planet.

Wait a minute, who is that in the background on the video? Why, yes, it’s Representative Joe Wilson (r).

Representatives Vicky Hartzler (r) and Joe Wilson (r) in Warrensburg, Missouri on September 18, 2012 [file photo].

We half expected him to yell something from the floor of the House.

Previously:

Rep. Vicky Hartzler (r) and Rep. Joe Wilson (r) in Warrensburg on defense sequestration (September 18, 2012)

Our World Beyond 9/11

26 Thursday May 2011

Posted by Michael Bersin in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

American Empire, global community, International security, military spending, Peace, sustainability

“Humanity is on the threshold of a true global community–in the midst of this cultural convergence we have the historic opportunity to compose evolutionary principles for a more sustainable expression of civilization, a government of life and for all life.” ~ Global Peace Solution (2004)

A teardrop of water fell from the ceiling sky landing in the ceremonial pool below slowly sending ripples and rings outward to the installation’s coping.  Eleven Tears is a memorial work of art to 9/11 victims at the World Financial Center building overlooking the ongoing One World Trade Center construction site. On Sunday, May Day, I visited Ground Zero for the first time. It was a somber pilgrimage–and little did I realize–while there, the attack on Osama Bin Laden’s compound was taking place.

Like for so many others, 9/11 had been a life shattering, and ultimately, life transforming event for me–hearing of Bin Laden’s death brought up conflicting emotions of elation and sadness. All the trauma and travail of the last ten years came rushing forward. A sudden attack on home soil, 3000 dead, the absolute determined brutality of the hijackers-being rid of the individual who inspired multiple acts of mass murder was a relief–but how could the healing begin?

9/11 fundamentally changed our way of life, the way we travel, it instigated wars leading to hundreds of thousands of dead, wounded, displaced; we’ve wiretapped without warrant, tortured, and sent the drones in. Protected civil liberties have been sacrificed for security.

The war on terror has brought our nation to an existential precipice upon which we stare down into an abyss of overreaching militarism and secrecy–both enemies of republican democracy–which would forever be left behind should we now succumb to the gravity of fear.

With the leader of Al Qaeda now dead, we have come to a crossroads in which our nation’s larger priorities can, and should be, examined.

Taking Inventory

“Life carries us hither and thither and destiny moves us from one place to another. We see not save the obstacle set in our path; neither do we hear, save a voice that makes us to fear.” ~ Kahlil Gibran

A friend of mine once gave sage advice. People do what’s important to them. This axiom can equally be applied to nations–as America proceeds into the 21st century, examining some of our outstanding attributes and what makes us unique in the eyes of others, can help better equip us to deal with an increasingly interconnected and interdependent world.

President Calvin Coolidge’s famous aphorism-the business of America is business-is an apt description of a particular American mindset, but certainly an attitude found in many other countries. When compared to the rest of the world, the United States does have a noteworthy emblematic pursuit, not merely business, but the business of war.

Business of War

Discussing the pros and cons of globalization–whether the triple-bottom line, inequitable economic policies, or trends toward “enlightened capitalism”–is a topic I’ll save for later. But the Pentagon, as a corporate-handled global military hegemon, or leader, is chief among unique characteristics of our national enterprise. We currently maintain, at an exorbitant expense, military superiority over much of the planet with 7000 bases (6000 here, 1000 abroad), and U.S. troops stationed in a shocking 77% of Earth’s nations. The United States military spending exceeds the next 45 highest spending countries in the world, combined. Totaling over $1.5 trillion dollars per annum.

Some lesser well-known facts to consider about the U.S. global system of war:

* U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) is the worst polluter on the planet, producing more hazardous waste than the five largest U.S. chemical corporations combined

* DoD is the largest employer in the United States, with over 1.4 million men and women on active duty, and 718,000 civilian personnel

* Half of all Federal tax dollars go to military spending: base budget, emergency supplemental funding for Iraq and Af-Pak wars, veteran benefits, classified “black” ops, and interest on past war debt

The World as a Neighborhood

“The 2011 military budget, by the way, is the largest in history, not just in actual dollars, but in inflation-adjusted dollars, exceeding even the spending in World War II, when the nation was on an all-out military footing.” ~ Dave Lindorff, Your Tax Dollars at War

To put current U.S. military spending into perspective, as a thought experiment, imagine for a moment that our world community is a suburban neighborhood of about twenty homes.

Many homes in the neighborhood are little wooden shacks without electricity, running water, or basic sanitation. About five of the twenty have green lawns and internet access. The United States, with nearly 5% of the global population, is one of these homes–but it doesn’t look anything like the others in the neighborhood.

While some homes may have a curbed sidewalk or white picket fence bordering them, ours is a sprawling compound surrounded by a 20-foot concrete security wall topped with coiled razor wire. Turrets and watchtowers frame every corner with carbon-arc searchlights and guards manning machine gun nests. But it doesn’t stop there.

Remote control aerial drones with CCD cameras venture forth from our property patrolling the neighborhood to keep an eye on potential or “emerging” burglars; an assortment of motor vehicles ranging from electric golf carts to up-armored Chevy Suburbans with dark tinted windows tool around the subdivision, street-by-street, armed with rent-a-cops ready to fight or carry out “preventive missions”. To top it off at any given moment at least two manned hot air balloons fly thousands of feet in the air over the entire neighborhood to provide extra surveillance 24/7.

If you weren’t a “citizen of the compound”, how would you feel about the people that lived there?

Maybe a little freaked out?

Hyper-Vigilance to the Point of Overreach

“We cannot wait for the final proof-the smoking gun-that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud.” ~ George Bush, in run-up to the Iraq War (Oct 7, 2002)

Uber-skeptic Michael Shermer recently wrote a Wall Street Journal op-ed about why prophecies of doom are so commonplace in human history. He explains that this propensity to see catastrophe everywhere is directly linked to the evolution of the human brain as a “pattern-seeking belief engine”.

Simply put, if our ancestors did not heed the rustling in the grass just beyond sight as being made by a dangerous predator, sometimes, they became lunch. Our thinking and survival strategies eventually evolved to respond to all imagined threats as real danger.

When this tendency toward hyper-vigilance is exploited through politics of fear–and then combined with backdoor alliances between Wall Street, Washington, and the defense industry–a perfect storm in runaway militarism is created.

Military “Empire” as Fait Accompli

I don’t mean to m
inimize the importance of successful strategies for defense, or the service provided by our Armed Forces. In fact, the military superiority that the United States maintains over the planet could even be rationalized as being the unavoidable product of a constitutional mandate.

Essentially, what we know as the Manhattan Project, the top-secret race to develop the world’s first working atomic weapons, never ended. The United States emerged from WWII with its industrial base intact and was the only nation to possess the atomic bomb. But when the Soviet Union exploded its first nuclear weapon in 1949, the threat of nuclear conflagration became real.

This triggered a comprehensive arms race to maintain military and technological superiority to guarantee survival, as our Constitution’s preamble commands, “…provide for the common defence…and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity…”.

George Friedman explains the spoils of military superiority in The Next 100 Years,

“…every ship in the world moves under the eyes of American satellites in space and its movement is guaranteed-or denied-at will by the U.S. Navy… This has never happened before in human history…This has meant that the United States could invade other countries-but never be invaded. It has meant in the final analysis the United States controls international trade. It has become the foundation of American security and American wealth.”

Global military empire has been a constitutional fait accompli; and the price tag, trillions upon trillions. But there have been long-term costs-cultural, environmental, and spiritual-for our nation to have constructed, maintain, and continue to expand the most massive military machine ever assembled in the history of humankind. Of all the trillions spent, think about the missed investment opportunities to better our schools, health care, or modernize our infrastructure here at home.

In 2011, we are still playing out the World War II / Cold War narrative–but it’s quickly coming to a close. As we move forward, re-tooling our national security apparatus for the 21st century starts with re-examining the best way to achieve long-term security-simply, we have to find other, more creative and innovative ways to, “secure the blessings of liberty for ourselves and our posterity.”

Transforming the New World Order

The liberal international order that emerged after World War II was lead by the United States. This system has been framed by post-war agreements, and institutions like the United Nations, G-8 & G-20, WTO, etc. It is characterized by Westphalian principles of sovereignty, rule of law, territorial integrity, and noninterference. But this world order is changing, and nation’s roles shifting. As America moved the international order forward in the latter half of the 20th century, now, she can take on a more reserved leadership position sharing responsibilities with rising economic powerhouses like Brazil, China, and India. However, this movement should not only apply to changing economic roles, but also to security responsibilities as well.  

Embracing this shift from economic globalization to global community should also include spreading out the security responsibilities currently shouldered by the United States Department of Defense and the American people. An interdependent and shared international security infrastructure will bring a more robust and deeper sense of security. This is already occurring in the martial sphere with the continued expansion of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). NATO recently deployed troops from 45 nations under one command in Afghanistan-the most ever in history-as reported by Global Research in “Afghan War: NATO Builds History’s First Global Army”.

Largely, the American people are still saddled with the financial obligations of building this international security network, protecting its shipping lanes for trade, and therefore, guaranteeing the stability of the global economic system. This stability translates into massive profits for transnational interests, and although these benefits due not accrue to everyday Americans directly, in some cynical way, our military commitment protecting the global system does satisfy the axiom, “the business of America is business.” Nevertheless, it is not sustainable to continue to burden one nation’s citizens with the responsibility of securing, maintaining, and expanding the transnational corporatocracy-something must give.

Old Skool Systems Analysis

“The struggles of the present age require new modes of thought for new ideas-not old wineskins. New forms and expressions of an interconnected human consciousness demand the transcendence of the boundaries of the past.” ~ Terrence E. Paupp, Exodus from Empire

Finding solutions to new problems starts with challenging previously held assumptions in order to begin to find the quintessential “right question”. Shaking up the status quo isn’t as revolutionary as it sounds because there have been organizations doing just that advising U.S. policy for decades. “Systems analysis” is a methodology developed after World War II by the think-tank RAND Corporation to tackle large, complex dilemmas. Solutions are sought by empirically breaking down problems into individual components and statistics, and then through a multi-disciplinary approach, arriving at the right answers.

Alex Abella’s book about RAND, Soldiers of Reason, describes systems analysis as being “American to the core” and refusing “to be constrained by existing reality…the crux of systems analysis lies in a careful examination of the assumptions that gird the so-called right question, for the moment of greatest danger in a project is when unexamined criteria define the answers we want to extract.”

In a world moving beyond 9/11, we need to scrutinize old premises to find the new questions and answers to succeed in our objective of national and global security. Many in the left, or anti-war/peace movement, talk about dismantling the U.S system of war and oppose it in the same manner-through direct opposition–that that system itself has mastered–an exceedingly difficult task.

A different question for the anti-war movement might be: how do we transform a global system of war toward a community-based system of interconnected, cooperative security?

Changing the trajectory of a system that feeds off the mastery of direct confrontation has to involve an evolved, inverse expression of power; composing solutions on a new field of battle so-to-speak, and not fighting on old terrain.

Joshua Cooper Ramo in The Age of the Unthinkable relates this idea through a 1974 Nobel speech by Austrian economist Friedrich August Von Hayek,

“Politicians and thinkers would be wise not to try to bend history as “the craftsman shapes his handiwork, but rather to cultivate growth by providing the appropriate environment, in the manner a gardener does for his plants.” To see the world this way, as a ceaselessly complex and adaptive system, requires a revolution. It involves changing the role we imagine for ourselves, from architects of a system we can control and manage to gardeners in a living, shifting ecosystem.”

Seeds of peace sown at all levels of political, social, and corporate power-throughout global civil society-will be the connective tissue filling any vacuum of power created by re-tooling our national security infrastructure. The exponential growth of non-governmental organizations (it is said that 90 per cent of all NGOs were created in the last ten years) will provide th
e organizational vehicles engaging people to participate in moving civilization to higher levels of consciousness.

For example, this is the vision of the Euphrates Institute’s upcoming Warriors for Peace program; inviting “individuals who are not afraid of taking on today’s biggest challenges–who get that overcoming divides, ending conflict, and ameliorating the globe’s environmental challenges require relentless energy and a new set of weapons and strategies.”

Deeper Security through Shared Destiny

“Treat those who are good with goodness, and also treat those who are not good with goodness. Thus goodness is attained. Be honest to those who are honest, and be also honest to those who are not honest. Thus honesty is attained.” ~ Lao Tzu

In a former life as a recording engineer and producer, we would spend hours mixing hundreds of elements together to make one singular, coherent expression of music. A good mix begins with building a sound stage from the bottom-up and through additive synthesis, making adjustments on the fly to reach harmonious balance. It’s not unlike tending a garden-and it provides some insight into how to bring balance to our national priorities. We may not know the exact ratio of hard and soft power to invest in, but knowing which knobs to “tweak-up” and which to “tweak-down” to make a solid mix is pretty obvious.  

Francois Rabelais said, “Nature abhors a vacuum”, and in this light, seeking a higher degree of diversification and balance for the way we ensure domestic security would be wise. With overreaching military spending on the traditional accoutrements of power-bullets, bombs, tanks, planes-and falling victim to the classic blunder of preparing for the “last war”, we need to turn-down military overreach and turn-up new modes of dynamic diplomacy and engagement.

Simply put, meeting force with force alone, responding to violence with more violence, is only half of a balanced security portfolio-to wit, you can fight fire with fire, but you also can fight fire with water; squelching the flames of conflict before they ignite. The “water” in this case means amplifying a particular worldview-increasing the number of people who look through an intercultural lens of shared destiny to thwart conflict.

Throughout human history, the co-mingling of destinies for neighboring peoples has proven to be a successful peacemaking tool, either through intermarriage, trade or co-habitation. Directing a portion of our current enormous defense spending toward building bridges of peace, connection, and creating a common narrative of “shared destiny” will be a more effective national strategy delivering a deeper, resilient form of security for our world beyond 9/11.

In a recent interview I conducted with Rabbi Michael Lerner at J Street he laid out the purpose of shared destiny,

“…to help people get away from the fantasy that the way to get homeland security is through domination and control of other people, when in fact, the only way we can really be secure as a nation in the United States is through a policy of generosity and caring for others. In the 21st century we need to recognize that our well-being depends upon the well-being of everyone else on the planet, and that the only possibility of survival is for us to come together as a global community and address the tremendous damage we’ve done to the environment and work in environmental districts to develop ways to compensate and repair the damage we’ve done-both to the planet-and each other.”

Many observers have attempted to articulate the Copernican shift that’s taking place around the world moving from military Empire and “dominance-over” toward global community, interdependence, and cooperation. It is transformation hastened by people-to-people communication tools as interlaced networks of people spring up all around the world. The idea of the United States’ security being directly dependent upon the security of everyone on the planet seems to defy conventional logic, as does quantum mechanics or concepts like chaos theory. But the simple fact is finding safety for others will bring a more lasting and deeper security for us.

Joshua Cooper Ramo explores an idea called “Deep Security” as an attempt to frame a new grand strategy taking into account a world of increasing complexity and inter-conductivity. Old mechanistic models for organizing civilization with rigid inputs and outputs like that of a factory assembly line are giving way to more adaptive models that mirror the only examples of true sustainability we know of: natural ecosystems.

Ramo echoes this idea of mirroring natural systems,

“What we need now, both for our world and in each of our lives, is a way of living that resembles nothing so much as a global immune system: always ready, capable of dealing with the unexpected, as dynamic as the world itself. An immune system can’t prevent the existence of a disease, but without one even the slightest of germs have deadly implications.”

Deep Security embodies a philosophical and political shape-shift from a classic Newtonian and mechanistic view of the world, to the deeper universe of the Quanta, where the impossible not only becomes possible, but probable; it morphs the politic of leading from the center, left, or right, toward leading from below. It pops a third dimension into what currently is a very two-dimensional political world.

Preparing for Peace

“Success depends upon previous preparation, and without such preparation there is sure to be failure.” ~ Kung Fu-tzu (Confucius)

I remember hearing a story evangelizing about the promise of President Eisenhower’s 1950s Interstate Highway System: “If you’re in the middle of nowhere in the plains of Kansas paving another lonely mile-don’t think you’re wasting your time.”

Certainly laying the asphalt and concrete of the U.S. Interstate Highway, foot-by-foot, mile-by-mile, was an act of perseverance and vision that, in sum, materialized as the largest public works program in history, facilitating an era of prosperity and advancement.

The incremental work of building cultural bridges of peace-one person at a time-may seem like laying pitch in the middle of the desert, but don’t think it’s a waste of time. It will be these connections between individuals who make global peace and sustainability their personal business, which will save civilization. The relationships that are developed today will pay peace dividends tomorrow by sending ripples and rings out into the world like the Eleven Tears install at Ground Zero.

“Nitzahon la shalom tze lechem l’chaim”-the victory of peace is the bread of life.

(“Our World Beyond 9/11” by Byron DeLear, Progressive Examiner, as published on Examiner.com)

Afghan war debate and the business of American empire

16 Friday Oct 2009

Posted by Michael Bersin in Uncategorized

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

Afghanistan, diplomacy, Empire, militarism, military spending, resource deprivation

As a point of information to perhaps gain some perspective on the business of Empire in the middle of Afghan-war debate, some facts to consider:

• In 2007, there were 22,000 deaths globally due to acts of terrorism; over half were Muslim.

• Each year, 9,125,000 human beings die due to poverty and malnutrition.

At the risk of being accused of over-simplifying the issue, in light of the above stats, the point of our funding priorities has to be brought up.

It strikes me that in regard to US foreign policy one of the best things we could focus on, aside from solely defending American interests, is to make a difference by saving lives and improving people’s quality of life for those most threatened. This, in turn, helps America because it gains us friends showing a responsible and balanced direction of our intention to do the most good in the world.

What are we doing in Afghanistan? Why are we there?

Putting aside reasons like economic strategy or chess-like positioning to counter world powers for a moment, consider the terrorism arguments (the most popular justifications given in the main stream).

We are in Afghanistan not to prevent the unpreventable, say, an isolated suicide bombing here in America. We are in Afghanistan to stop the re-emergence of a terrorist “safe-haven” that would eventually mount an attack on America rivaling 9/11.

This is where “fighting terrorism” as a justification for prolonged military occupation doesn’t hold water.

Because a counter argument that’s just as plausible immediately pops out, that being, an American military Empire conducting combat operations in multiple countries in the Near East and Middle East, will guarantee heightened motivation for our enemies to attack back — here at home. The longer the occupation, the greater the chances for backfire. From this perspective, at a certain point, maybe after eight or nine years of being in country, withdrawal is the best course.

Interminable militaristic behavior will always create determined opposition. Geopolitics, in this way, follows a well-known rule in physics: for every action, there’s an equal and opposite reaction. In the case of our enemies, human ingenuity will find a way to exact revenge and more violence. There’s a moment when “running out the clock” and hoping things will get better won’t work for our current posture in Iraq and Afghanistan, because the clock that’s really ticking in the minds of our detractors, is:

When will the United States implode economically because it can no longer borrow money to make war?

We are a debtor nation like no other, and all our “banking creativity” not only caused the recent global economic crisis, but allowing US debt to rise exponentially has produced an Achilles heel that could bring down the giant.

What branch of the Department of Defense deals with this threat to national security?

Domestic manufacturing dismantled, industry pieced out, good jobs shipped overseas – all this paints a picture of the strong self-reliant American eagle slowly boiling into a paper tiger. Producers morphed into dependent debt-ridden consumers.

This is a potentially much greater tragedy for our nation; much greater than the difficult task of looking in the mirror, taking inventory and redefining the manner in which our country makes decisions on how to spend tax payer’s money or how we project force. The economic, military and real collapse of over-extended Empires is well trodden ground in world history: British, Roman, Ottoman, et al.

We currently maintain, at an exorbitant expense, military superiority over much of the planet with 7000 bases (6000 here, 1000 abroad), and US troops stationed in a shocking 77% of Earth’s nations. The United States military spending exceeds the next 45 highest spending countries in the world, combined. Totaling nearly $1.5 trillion dollars. So this, then, brings up the subject of why we’re really “over there”. And why we spend more money on war preparation and defense than anyone now, or ever.

Are there benefits gained by select interests in perpetuating US addiction to war?

Yes. Over the decades, Eisenhower’s prophesied “complex” has equaled trillions of dollars of benefit.

Are the results of those benefits and the political manipulations that captured them at odds with what would be good overall for America?

Proof’s in the pudding: considering the direction we’ve been taken and the state of the Republic, yes.

Do those select interests have power to direct US foreign and economic policy vis a vis Washington and Congress?

Yes. Money is power. When the famous Supreme Court case Buckley vs. Valeo said money is free speech, the inevitable coalescing of political power around Big Money was enthroned. Free Speech is for sale — someone richer can “buy” a lot more First Amendment than someone else — and that goes for multi-national corporations as well, legally acting as “corporate persons“, another court ruling coercing concentrations of political power straight to the top. Hence, the ability to control the public mind “every bit as much as an army regiments the bodies of its soldiers”, became merely a question of how large the PR campaign. The more cash used to steer opinion, the more predictable the results. This is just one way how our Republic has been replaced with a Corporatocracy.

A peculiar dysfunction of practiced economics is the need for limitless growth. When combined with the bottomless well of the US Treasury to fund mindless military expansion, this weak spot is an irresistible target vulnerable to profiteers and fiscal opportunists. This dilemma brings everyday Americans to where we are today, faced with wresting back control of our corridors of power to restore the Republic — we must not ignore these parasites compromising our body politic.

It’s my suggestion that, in the big picture, our hand is being forced. Our economy and long-term prosperity is threatened by the fantasy that the US can forever maintain an increasingly expensive war enterprise. We need to ramp down this business of Empire before Lady Liberty gets the wind knocked out of her permanently.

There are easier and less expensive ways to diplomatically achieve our objectives. President Obama speaks of increased engagement with the international c
ommunity – continued reliance on unilateral military solutions would not be part of that portfolio. Obama the candidate and Obama the President are not entirely congruent – in the case of Afghanistan, maybe some of these inconsistencies can work in our favor. In running for President, we heard that Iraq was the dumb war and Afghanistan “just and necessary” countering accusations of Obama being a weak Commander-in-Chief. Some saw this as political positioning, rather than the true aims of our President.

Well, now that he is President, maybe Obama could act on his nuanced understanding of the situation in Afghanistan and Iraq instead of plunging America deeper into endless war.

President Obama should bring the majority of our ground troops home in Afghanistan and maintain an active collaboration with the Afghan military including over-watch responsibilities with air superiority and intelligence to insure no terrorist “safe-haven” would emerge. Special forces could be utilized on the ground in mission-specific operations to insure terrorist containment focusing on the porous 1,500 mile border with Pakistan. No permanent old-school military occupations to fight this asymmetrical and decentralized foe.

This would answer the ‘fighting terrorism’ question with regard to Afghanistan — but other questions remain.

Should we continue to rely so heavily on military solutions and force projection to answer America’s geopolitical challenges into the 21st Century?

How do we as a national family deal with increasing military budgets and escalating force commitments with no end in sight?

In other words, even if we wanted to continue overdependence on militarism, considering our economically weakened condition, is that a burden too heavy to bear? — the risks of fatal economic collapse too great? Do we have a choice, can we even afford continued military expansion?

These are soul searching questions that dig deep down into who and what we are as a people. Avoiding these difficult issues and pretending we’re still in the springtime of America might be easier, summer soldiers sunshine patriots and all. Many activists have experienced at one time or another the life-draining frustrations associated with attempting to unpack the status quo. It is certainly much easier to just decide not to climb that mountain; to acquiesce and to not stand against the river’s mighty flow.

But as Paine said,

He that stands it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman… what we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly: it is dearness only that gives everything its value.

America is dear to us all. The idea of America and what it stands for is sacred, and as forces have led her astray, we are compelled to think, speak and act anew to help straighten her course. It is time to face the music of American Empire sounded, and to make sure she doesn’t play out her last coda.

“We shall nobly save, or meanly lose, the last best hope of earth.” ~ Abraham Lincoln

Cut military spending.

22 Sunday Feb 2009

Posted by Michael Bersin in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Barney Frank, military spending, missouri

Under Ronald Reagan the war budget (also known as the defense budget) increased by a staggering 43 percent. It’s done nothing but go up since then. That’s why I felt like applauding in the privacy of my living room when I read Barney Frank’s article in The Nation.

I am a great believer in freedom of expression and am proud of those times when I have been one of a few members of Congress to oppose censorship. I still hold close to an absolutist position, but I have been tempted recently to make an exception, not by banning speech but by requiring it. I would be very happy if there was some way to make it a misdemeanor for people to talk about reducing the budget deficit without including a recommendation that we substantially cut military spending.

Frank points out that it isn’t just conservatives who are unwilling to consider cutting this bloated creature. But he feels it is critical that we do so.

Current plans call for us not only to spend hundreds of billions more in Iraq but to continue to spend even more over the next few years producing new weapons that might have been useful against the Soviet Union. Many of these weapons are technological marvels, but they have a central flaw: no conceivable enemy. It ought to be a requirement in spending all this money for a weapon that there be some need for it. In some cases we are developing weapons–in part because of nothing more than momentum–that lack not only a current military need but even a plausible use in any foreseeable future.

It is possible to debate how strong America should be militarily in relation to the rest of the world. But that is not a debate that needs to be entered into to reduce the military budget by a large amount. If, beginning one year from now, we were to cut military spending by 25 percent from its projected levels, we would still be immeasurably stronger than any combination of nations with whom we might be engaged.

(……)

The math is compelling: if we do not make reductions approximating 25 percent of the military budget starting fairly soon, it will be impossible to continue to fund an adequate level of domestic activity even with a repeal of Bush’s tax cuts for the very wealthy.

Hear, hear! And read, read … the rest of the (short) article.

Recent Posts

  • Halo
  • Bait and switch
  • Campaign Finance: every little bit counts
  • You shouldn’t have started the war in the first place, dumbass
  • Yep

Recent Comments

Uh, in case you were… on Some right wingnuts with money…
Winning at losing… on Passing the gas – Donald…
TACO Tuesday | Show… on TACO or Mushrooms?
TACO Tuesday | Show… on So much winning
So much winning | Sh… on Passing the gas – Donald…

Archives

  • June 2026
  • May 2026
  • April 2026
  • March 2026
  • February 2026
  • January 2026
  • December 2025
  • November 2025
  • October 2025
  • September 2025
  • August 2025
  • July 2025
  • June 2025
  • May 2025
  • April 2025
  • March 2025
  • February 2025
  • January 2025
  • December 2024
  • November 2024
  • October 2024
  • September 2024
  • August 2024
  • July 2024
  • June 2024
  • May 2024
  • April 2024
  • March 2024
  • February 2024
  • January 2024
  • December 2023
  • November 2023
  • October 2023
  • September 2023
  • August 2023
  • July 2023
  • June 2023
  • May 2023
  • April 2023
  • March 2023
  • February 2023
  • January 2023
  • December 2022
  • November 2022
  • October 2022
  • September 2022
  • August 2022
  • July 2022
  • June 2022
  • May 2022
  • April 2022
  • March 2022
  • February 2022
  • January 2022
  • December 2021
  • November 2021
  • October 2021
  • September 2021
  • August 2021
  • July 2021
  • June 2021
  • May 2021
  • April 2021
  • March 2021
  • February 2021
  • January 2021
  • December 2020
  • November 2020
  • October 2020
  • September 2020
  • August 2020
  • July 2020
  • June 2020
  • May 2020
  • April 2020
  • March 2020
  • February 2020
  • January 2020
  • December 2019
  • November 2019
  • October 2019
  • September 2019
  • August 2019
  • July 2019
  • June 2019
  • May 2019
  • April 2019
  • March 2019
  • February 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • March 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • October 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • October 2015
  • September 2015
  • August 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • October 2014
  • September 2014
  • August 2014
  • July 2014
  • June 2014
  • May 2014
  • April 2014
  • March 2014
  • February 2014
  • January 2014
  • December 2013
  • November 2013
  • October 2013
  • September 2013
  • August 2013
  • July 2013
  • June 2013
  • May 2013
  • April 2013
  • March 2013
  • February 2013
  • January 2013
  • December 2012
  • November 2012
  • October 2012
  • September 2012
  • August 2012
  • July 2012
  • June 2012
  • May 2012
  • April 2012
  • March 2012
  • February 2012
  • January 2012
  • December 2011
  • November 2011
  • October 2011
  • September 2011
  • August 2011
  • July 2011
  • June 2011
  • May 2011
  • April 2011
  • March 2011
  • February 2011
  • January 2011
  • December 2010
  • November 2010
  • October 2010
  • September 2010
  • August 2010
  • July 2010
  • June 2010
  • May 2010
  • April 2010
  • March 2010
  • February 2010
  • January 2010
  • December 2009
  • November 2009
  • October 2009
  • September 2009
  • August 2009
  • July 2009
  • June 2009
  • May 2009
  • April 2009
  • March 2009
  • February 2009
  • January 2009
  • December 2008
  • November 2008
  • October 2008
  • September 2008
  • August 2008
  • July 2008
  • June 2008
  • May 2008
  • April 2008
  • March 2008
  • February 2008
  • January 2008
  • December 2007
  • November 2007
  • October 2007
  • September 2007
  • August 2007

Categories

  • campaign finance
  • Claire McCaskill
  • Congress
  • Democratic Party News
  • Eric Schmitt
  • Healthcare
  • Hillary Clinton
  • Interview
  • Jason Smith
  • Josh Hawley
  • Mark Alford
  • media criticism
  • meta
  • Missouri General Assembly
  • Missouri Governor
  • Missouri House
  • Missouri Senate
  • Resist
  • Roy Blunt
  • social media
  • Standing Rock
  • Town Hall
  • Uncategorized
  • US Senate

Meta

  • Log in
  • Entries feed
  • Comments feed
  • WordPress.org

Blogroll

  • Balloon Juice
  • Crooks and Liars
  • Digby
  • I Spy With My Little Eye
  • Lawyers, Guns, and Money
  • No More Mister Nice Blog
  • The Great Orange Satan
  • Washington Monthly
  • Yael Abouhalkah

Donate to Show Me Progress via PayPal

Your modest support helps keep the lights on. Click on the button:

Blog Stats

  • 1,050,245 hits

Powered by WordPress.com.

Loading Comments...