BT!

Morning, Ann.

How about a peace plan? Instead of a military plan? Ok, I’m off to buy some honey and bake my cake!

Good morning, Blue Tex.

I do think Edwards has a valid point on the need to spend more on recruiting and retention. We are losing a terrible proportion of mid-level officers, a loss that is going to take at least a decade to replenish.

Of course it would help if we didn’t send them to senseless wars, and if we treated them well both on the battlefield and when they came home.

This is very troubling and something I tried to pound Gen Clark on… our military is without a mission, is too big and doesn’t belong on 193 bases around the world.

We, as a nation, need to take on the MIC and tell it that it takes too much of our scarce resources and is polluting our planet big time with no consequences.

They have, like a cancer, insinuated themselves into every corner of American life. We need to begin to remove the cancer which is killing us.

Sink the military before it sinks us.

Blue Tex,
I would argue against your point to this small extent: large amounts of the Army’s basic equipment is in bad shape due to the abuse it has been through during the invasion and occupation. “Equipment” purchases are a relatively static cost. Since there is still a large amount of money being wasted on big ticket programs that are wholly unnecessary (”missile defense, “next generation fighters,” etc), the equipment can and should be replaced but can and should be paid for by discontinuing the unneeded big war products.

Good Morning BT, you’re right this is nuts

The world’s policeman, huh? I think we’re well past that.

I would argue against your point to this small extent: large amounts of the Army’s basic equipment is in bad shape due to the abuse it has been through during the invasion and occupation.

We can’t replace basic equipment without spending more than the next 14 countries combined, something no country has done in 500 years?

I read The Pentagon’s New Map by Thomas P. M. Barnett. He divides the world into two parts, the functioning core, which is more or less the nations that engage in substantial trade with each other, and the gap, which can’t or refuses to participate in the global trading system.He says that one of the major functions of the military is to export security to the gap, making it possible for them to participate in the functioning core.

This book seems like a plausible rationale for the constant expansion of the military in the way the Democratic candidates are talking about. I think that the problem is not the money spent directly on the army, for weapons and tanks and vehicles, because that is going to happen. I think the problem is the vast amounts wasted on weaponry we cannot use for any purpose. Missile shields anyone?

I hate to stick up for the jellyfish Rats, but the fact is they’re trying to inoculate themselves against the Pukes painting them as “weak on defense” in the general election. We’ve allowed them to frame the debate in terms of “weak on defense” and “tax and spend”. Until we can re-frame the debate to terms referring to economic responsibility, responsible foreign policy and economic fairness we will be unable to respond to the Pukes’ playground level mocking.

Yes, I realize we’ve all said this a million times.

Hi, Blue Texan! Read the post to which I must ask: But, but, BT, the last seven years the Bush administration has done such damage to the military as to leave it in a current state of shambles. Don’t we need to (not expand!) repair the damage, replace the spent weapons. Are you advocating out of Germany, Kosovo, and Korea? Japan? Don’t we need to get our national guard back stateside and give them back their supplies to be used to fight things like forest fires and floods? I very much would like to start using true diplomacy, but I would also like at least a modicum of an armed force that is not broken to the point that if we were attacked, we couldn’t fight it. Our main claim to safety is that attacking us would be suicidal so nobody would do it. But thanks to GWB, the world knows we have been weakened, so don’t we need to just repair and replace?

That’s a good point about useless weapons systems, especially missile shields. I wonder if someone (John Edwards?) could make an issue of war profiteering and cronyism. It should be easy to ridicule the many failures of the missile shield tests.

I read The Pentagon’s New Map by Thomas P. M. Barnett.

imo that guy is outright scary, creepy scary.

I think its a more complex problem. I’m enough of a keynsian to think that it would be worthwile to spend money, at times, on painting rocks if that allowed increased employment based on “demand side.”

However, the danger is that if you have a gigantic standing military, you will inevitably find opportunities to use it. This problem, over the long haul, is greater with a professional military, than with a citizen military (draft).

On the other hand, I don’t know who is willing to say that we will never encounter another valid threat or, if we do, we’ll take a chance on barely winning.

Aside from the enormous waste of resources, the biggest problem with having a well equipped and robust military is that it is tempting to use.

But thanks to GWB, the world knows we have been weakened, so don’t we need to just repair and replace?

Yes, but as I mentioned above, that should not require expanding the already historically-unprecedented spending. And no, I don’t think we need troops in every time zone on the planet (empire anyone?), and yes, the Guard should be at home guarding us. That’s why they’re called the Guard.

Again, this must not be sinking in, but I’ll try again — we spend more than the next 14 countries–combined–on our armed forces. That’s a hell of a lot more than a “modicum of an armed force.”

If you notice, I did say that the funds to pay for replacing the basic equipment should be spent rather than being wasted on useless big ticket items that are not needed. Those items such as missile defense and next generation fighters etc are the reason why we spend more than the next 14 countries combined.

I’m just countering your argument against Edwards position that increasing spending for equipment is bad.

Makes sense.

But Edwards hasn’t made the larger, more important point — we spend too much on our military now.

If we only had 20,000 more combat troops, we could extend the surge another six months. That would achieve even more success.

I am surprised by Edwards. I can understand re-allocating resources to improve equipment for our soldiers that lead to better safety.

I thought our local grassroots group called Iowans for Sensible priorities had endorsed Edwards for his positions. I have sent an email asking if they have in fact endorsed any of the candidates.

It is creepy, but I think it resonates. It talks about the problem of the “gap” parts of the world as a breeding ground for terrorism and as a new kind of enemy, people who reject our entire way of life. It shows that our way of life is consumerist, and the point of the gap area is that life is about something else. It explains clearly that the point of the military is to protect our way of life, which he defines as commercial. The book almost reads like a justification of use of the military to make the whole world safe for corporations.

Nevertheless, the ideas provided something like justification for the current administration’s policy goal of exporting security to the gap area to prevent another wave of attacks like September 11.

This is a broad and reflexive argument that you are making. Reprioritizing the expenditures is not the same thing as continuing to spend in the same ways as Bush has done.

The number of overseas bases is more in the range of 800, according to Chalmers Johnson of Common Dreams.

Imagine what we’d think if the Chinese had that many overseas bases.

World’s policeman? We can’t even enforce our own Congressional subpoenas. We need more sargents at arms.

Who is going to attack us? The only serious damage that a belligerent could do is by use of ICBMs; that’s China and Russia. I don’t see that happening, as it’s not in anyone’s interest. That’s what’s so ridiculous about the whole fight them over there or we fight them over here argument. Will the scary terra men launch a D-Day style amphibious invasion on the East coast?

Geographically, the US is virtually impregnable. All we really need is a sub-based nuclear deterrent and a well equipped, flexible military that can be deployed anywhere quickly to take care of anything that might blow up. We don’t need a missile “shield”.

Here is Glenn today:

America spends more on our military than every other nation in the world combined, and invades, interferes in and bombs other countries far more than anyone else — it’s not even close. That’s just factually true. Yet the leading Democratic candidates do not even touch on challenging any of that, instead proposing that we expand military spending further still. And none even think about challenging even the most extreme and destructive aspects of the odious War on Drugs.

Since we all know that — unlike Paul — the leading Democratic candidates are very, very sane, psychologically healthy and serious, is there any chance that mainstream Democrats could catch a little of the sickness, insanity, derangement, and demented fringe radicalism of the sort Paul exhibited yesterday? As Marsh observes, there is obviously a strong constituency among perfectly normal, mainstream Americans for these disastrous bipartisan orthodoxies to be challenged.

I’ll say again, the idea of exporting security to the rest of the world is one with resonance in policy circles in both parties.

Not to detract from the main point, but we do have a couple of candidates who make these points, Gravel and Kucinich. See how fast the powers that be knock them out of the playing field.

If Edwards, arguably the closest of the front-runners to supporting a reduced military, were to actually support such a policy, he would be removed quickly from coverage or tolerance by the MSM.

Which is why (I hope) he is making these statements.

Not to detract from the main point, but we do have a couple of candidates who make these points, Gravel and Kucinich. See how fast the powers that be knock them out of the playing field.

Yeah, but they’re just fringe kooky weirdos.

/snark

I think Edwards is already receiving the barest of minimum coverage as a front runner because he is the candidate most feared by the TradMed and enablers. It would be rather difficult for them to give him less coverage at this point.

Actually, we do need a bigger military. It needs to grow now by exactly the number of Bush family members eligible to serve.

I think Edwards is already receiving the barest of minimum coverage as a front runner because he is the candidate most feared by the TradMed and enablers. It would be rather difficult for them to give him less coverage at this point.

I think you’re right dakine, they sure give him the cold shoulder.

They’re trying for those mythical about-to-bolt-the-party Republicans?

Seriously, I don’t understand why they can’t say that we’ve blown our defense budget for the next twenty years already, just on Iraq. I know the Pentagon treats systems like toys (always wanting something newer and fancier) but that can’t continue.

I was reading the other day, and it said something like:
When weapons are cheap, plentiful, and easy to maintain and use, then democracy flourishes, because the rulers have to pay attention to the ruled, or have those weapons used on them. When weapons are expensive and require lots fo training to use and maintain, you get aristocracies.

Where are we on that scale?

Patriotism is a powerful motivator as are jobs which is one thing the military industrial complex provides. We can only hope the candidates are smart enough to know the large commitment to defense is ruining the country, though they profess to support MIC to get elected. That’s not exactly the idea behind representative democracy, but they wouldn’t be the first to say one thing on the campaign trail and do the opposite after they are elected.

But are their assumptions correct? Is running against military spending a recipe for defeat? That’s a problem of representative democracy. No one really knows where the majority stands.

De-lurking. Badwater’s comment is a zinger.

How about Romney’s kids being included in that military force expansion?

Return to lurk position.

thank you Blue Texan – great post on one of my biggest frustrations with my party.

we are already spending more than enough, we don’t need to spend even more on equipment or recruiting – the only thing we need to spend more on is veterans services (especially health care).

i encourage everyone who doubts me to read some chuck spinney. or, for a great intro, listen to george kenney’s superb interview podcast with spinney – which is both hilarious, infuriating and extremely educational. here’s george’s intro:

Nobody knows why the Black Knight guards his bridge, or for that matter Draco his gold. Seemingly irrational, they nevertheless represent real obstacles to be overcome. Conceived in bureaucratic terms it’s the difference between the formal bureaucratic hierarchy and the informal network that really keeps things moving: understanding the latter takes a certain kind of genius. A maverick. For decades at the Pentagon Chuck Spinney—an insider’s insider—fought the good fight, mostly (but not entirely) over budget issues. Good government advocates have recognized his contributions, as has Congress in inviting his testimony (PDF). A kindred spirit of everyman, he brings extraordinary common sense to problems that seem to go beyond the scope of ordinary men. We cover Iraq, the Defense budget, and how the budget and policy interact. I’m quite honored to talk with Chuck and found his perspective both true and in parts extremely funny. Please also note a site Chuck helped found, Defense and the National Interest. Total runtime here of an hour and thirty three minutes. Enjoy!

That sounds like it was written by the NRA or the writers of Red Dawn.

oh, and chalmers johnson’s trilogy (blowback, sorrows, nemesis) is an excellent description of the dangers of our militarized economy, politics and culture.

Glenn’s shoutout in Salon to this post:

(7) Over at FDL, Blue Texan examines the foreign policy platforms of the three leading Democratic presidential candidates, and concludes: “Sorry, this is nuts. These three Democrats have watched 7 years of Bush and Cheney’s wars and exploding military spending and all concluded, ‘We need to spend more and make it even bigger!’”

(Same link as my 26.)

And not a single one of those 14 countries could be considered even remotely a threat.

great glenn quote and perfectly on topic.

Wouldn’t US security be greatly enhanced, and cheaply, by having a president that is not an idiot?

Wouldn’t US security be greatly enhanced, and cheaply, by having a president that is not an idiot?

And by having a Congress that would stand up to an idiot…?

And Glenn makes this important point (my bold):

I’m not someone who believes that there are no meaningful differences between the two parties. There are some. And it’s vital, for countless reasons, that Republicans be removed from power.

But that doesn’t mean that the similarities and shared bipartisan diseases should be ignored, especially now, particularly since they apply to some of our most significant national problems. The result of having both parties agree on these orthodoxies is that they are then removed from our political debates and simply continue uninterrupted, while our elections are determined instead by vapid personality chatter and isolated, side wedge issues – all at the expense of challenging the real factions running the country and examining the most significant policies and assumptions that shape who we are as a nation and the role we play in the world.

(Same link as my 26.)

Wouldn’t US security be greatly enhanced, and cheaply, by having a president that is not an idiot?

And by having a Congress that would stand up to an idiot…?

Let’s get back to real-world thinking, shall we?
/snark

Ron Paul and Timmeh:

REP. PAUL: To operate our total foreign policy, when you add up everything, there’s been a good study on this, it’s nearly a trillion dollars a year. So I would think if you brought our troops home, you could save hundreds of billions of dollars. It’s, you know, it’s six months or one year or two year, but you can start saving immediately by changing the foreign policy and not be the policeman over the world. We should have the foreign policy that George Bush ran on. You know, no nation building, no policing of the world, a humble foreign policy. We don’t need to be starting wars. That’s my argument.

MR. RUSSERT: How many troops do we have overseas right now?

REP. PAUL: I don’t know the exact number, but more than we need. We don’t need any.

MR. RUSSERT: It’s 572,000. And you’d bring them all home?

REP. PAUL: As quickly as possible. We–they will not serve our interests to be overseas. They get us into trouble. And we can defend this country without troops in Germany, troops in Japan. How do they help our national defense? Doesn’t make any sense to me. Troops in Korea since I’ve been in high school?

MR. RUSSERT: How many troops do we have overseas right now?

REP. PAUL: I don’t know the exact number, but more than we need. We don’t need any.

MR. RUSSERT: It’s 572,000. And you’d bring them all home?

REP. PAUL: As quickly as possible. We–they will not serve our interests to be overseas. They get us into trouble. And we can defend this country without troops in Germany, troops in Japan. How do they help our national defense? Doesn’t make any sense to me. Troops in Korea since I’ve been in high school?

Video here.

Ron Paul is a real threat to the Dems at this point. If he runs on these themes, with the Democratic nominee running as the incumbent (Clinton) or as a “centrist” (Obama), Ralph Nader’s numbers will look like Pat Paulsen’s.

The Beltway plan to contest this election on domestic issues–Republicans talking about immigration, and democrats about health care and the economy–is going to be hard to pull off a third party candidate with money is able to raise issues of American imperialism. See Taylor Marsh(via Glenzilla) for the appeal Paul has to Republican voters. But this is also a message that would appeal to Gravel and Kucinich supporters.

If the Democrats really plan to maintain an imperialist American mission, then they are going to miss an enormous change opportunity. Foreign aid has never been widely supported. The story of threats against America doesn’t hold up to even cursory examination. The presence, as Taylor says in comments, of occupying forces in Korea Germany or Japan cannot be justified.

It’s insane to be running huge deficits to support an imperialist mission that has no impact on US security, and drains resources away from domestic programs. We could have national free wifi and universal health care for much less than we spend on needless national defense projects and presence.

Almost forgot — here’s my present to the Dem leadership, starting with an opening statement by Chris Dodd to Harry Reid”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V8DX_8-uXUk

But Paul is against abortion. Therefore, his opinions on national security are to be ignored.

Sorry, I can’t help it.

I guess it’s the least Chimpy can do:

Filed at 10:55 a.m. ET

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Bush made Christmas Eve calls to 10 U.S. troops serving in Iraq, Afghanistan and other spots around the world, thanking them for their sacrifice and wishing them a happy holiday even though they’ll be far away from their families and friends.

The president made his calls Monday from the Camp David presidential retreat in the Maryland mountains, where he is spending Christmas. He spoke with members of the Army, Navy, Marines, Air Force and U.S. Coast Guard,including seven serving in Iraq.

Calls to only 10 troops?

But Edwards hasn’t made the larger, more important point — we spend too much on our military now.

I see the difference as, before we didn’t have to spend as much as we did. When we had a perfectly functional armed force, and virtually no enemies, paring down made sense. But now, I’m concerned with repairing and replacing the spent weaponry and troop levels to a reasonable level, even if that level is smaller than before, and more of a defensive nature than aggressive. That means I want the troops to have such new weaponry as the Trophy system.

That’s as high as he can count. He only has 10 fingers.

i’m afraid that if the current dem leadership worked themselves up to want a fight – their fight would be with us, and not the republicans (see reid & dodd on fisa, see congress on moveon and betrayus, see pelosi on stark, see pelosi on code pink).

Ron Paul is a real threat to the Dems at this point. If he runs on these themes, with the Democratic nominee running as the incumbent (Clinton) or as a “centrist” (Obama), Ralph Nader’s numbers will look like Pat Paulsen’s.

Agree. But there ain’t no way in hell Ron Paul will–or can–be the Repug nominee.

And why isn’t Kucinich a front runner? Because not enough people are willing to vote for him. He is without question the most progressive candidate running. If everyone who shared his values voted for Kucinich he would be a front runner if not the eventual winner. Why then won’t progessives vote for the candidate whose vision for our country is closest to their own? It makes no sense to me.

And these extreme platitudes from Perino via Chimpy:

White House press secretary Dana Perino said Bush knows it is difficult for the children of U.S. servicemen and women to understand why their fathers and mothers cannot be home for the holidays. Bush said that when the children are older, he hopes they’ll understand and appreciate their parents’ sacrifice, Perino said.

”He said he couldn’t thank them enough for their contribution to their country, hopes they are in high spirits, and that they are serving a cause that is very noble,” Perino said. ”He said, `I know that you miss your family.”’

(Same link as my 51.)

And these extreme platitudes from Perino via Chimpy:

How would Bush know? It’s not as if he ever served overseas.

BlueTexan:

Harry Reid is against abortion. Therefore his views on national security are honored and rewarded.

And this:

Bush also exchanged holiday greetings on the phone with Russian President Vladimir Putin and spoke with Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan. National Security Council spokesman Gordon Johndroe said that Bush and Erdogan discussed their efforts to fight terrorism and the importance of the United States, Turkey and Iraq working together to confront the PKK.

Oh yeah? They’re working together? News to me.

(Same link as my 51.)

i can tell you why i’m not supporting kucinich this time around.

in 2004 and i gave him some money early (my very first political contribution ever). and what did he do? he undermines progressives by first pretending we have a home in the democratic party and then when he gets to the democratic national convention he follows the kerry “rules” and never mentions the war, let alone try to fight of a statement in the party platform.

i don’t see him running a real campaign and i don’t see him challenging the party. big waste of time – and i’m a kucinich fan. i agree with most of his positions and i lived in cleveland when he was mayor (so i know what he did for the city and the personal price he had to pay to do it).

proxy conflict with china?

I think that you are reading to much into the statement “more than the next 14 nations combined”. 1-We need to replace all of the worn out and damaged equipment. 2-we need toreequip both the national guard and the reserve units who no longer have operational equipment 3-granted several expensive systems are not really needed, but as the saying goes, the pentagon always trains for the last war, and the last war that the military trained for is war with the USSR in europe. 4-ALL the army troops need to be retrained(the worst thing that gwb has done, because of the lack of manpower, is to take highly trained troops and turn them all into basically infantry. I have heard people in TRADOC(training and doctrine) estimate that it will cost about $20B more per year for the next 10 years-assuming we get out of Iraq-just to bring the Army(active/guard/reserve) back to the point we were in 2003) 5-IMO we need to reinstate a draft. One with no execptions, and one that gets everyone involved once more. I entered(vol.) service in 1968, some of the people that I trained with were college grads, came from all levels of society and all races. That service(talking to those who were drafted in the 50’s) was a way to bring the country together, and a way to help instill patriotism and a sense of shared sacrifice-currently, the only people who are sacrificing are those who have a family member in military service. As for the rest of us gwb says the way for the rest of us to sacrifice is to buy more stuff. This is so wrong. My point is that just saying that we spend more money than the next 14 countries combined is not a valid arguement. Only 4 other countries in the world have aircraft carrier battle groups, and the US has more than all other countries combined. Our high tech equipment, from M1A2 tanks, to F-22 aircraft, to C-17 cargo planes, are all expensive, and maintenance and spare parts are very expensive. What would you eliminate? Equipment? Spares? Maintenance? Training? Manpower? Just about everyone agrees that the Army needs more bodies, and it will cost a lot of money to enlist, train, equip, and maintain these people. Again, what would you cut? Eliminate the entire Army? Its a nasty world out there, and you have to have at least the threat of force to make diplomacy work. You also have to have a viable threat of force to allow US citizens to be mostly safe thruout the world. That force does not have to be used, but is has to be there, without that threat the US is just a paper tiger, a country that other countries can steamroll without any fear of reprisal. Pirates are starting to make a comeback in the far east, without a Navy we can not protect our shipping. That is only 1 of many arguements that I can make about the state of the world

selise @ 62:

Re: proxy conflict with China:

Perhaps. But Israel is also in there supporting the Kurds. Proxy or notm, the politics of that region is in flux, and shifts every few years or so. No nation in that region really wants an independent Kurdistan. And neither do the US and Russia.

My mantra, recently, has been “at some point, you have to conclude they believe in what they vote for.”

This cycle is the perfect time to break the upward spiral of the military industrial complex. There are no enemies out there. The fear-mongering has become self-parodying. The budget and the debt load are both in seriously bad shape. The limitations of military power to achieve diplomatic ends can not have been more vividly illustrated, and the polls show an American people ripe for a massive reduction in military expenditure, and military commitment overseas.

It would be easy for a candidate (like Edwards) to run a populist campaign that calls for closing the bases in Korea, Japan and Germany, and eliminating other bases around the world. It would be easy for a candidate to make a commitment to withdrawal from Iraq.

There are no downsides to these positions politically in this cycle. Claims that military force keeps Americans safe can be directly and easily rebutted. Populist themes attacking the media and big business would be necessary for this work.

You have to conclude that the Democratic candidates for president in progressive positions on foreign policy. The idea that they have to take tough positions to win the general is simply not supported by current polling data, nor on, well, reality.

For some time I have been hoping Edwards would, out of desperation if nothing else, would adopt this tack. But it is clear that he too is committed to the continued expansion of a military that is already insanely large, filled with insane programs with no conceivable mission.

There’s a point where you have conclude that problem doesn’t lie in the beltway consultants, but in the candidates themselves.

OT:

Sorry. I am referring back to the last post. If California has 18,000 deaths a year from lack of health care then in eight years that would be 1,152,000 deaths in the United States over all. This is a rough figure since I only took the percent of population in California and did some multiplication. The 18,000 is the official number. Who knows what the real number is. And since Bush has been denying health care to thousands of children the figure will be much higher. The obvious point is the huge number of deaths. The other point I want to make is that this is more killing than has gone on in Iraq. Neither country deserves what they have gotten from the powers that run this country.
/rant

bernhard describes two power blocks of kurds who are in conflict with each other. not sure which israel was working with.

Find out what Christy really wants for Christmas in the new thread upstairs.

or in an economy so fragile that such a plan, if not supported by the raytheons, lockheeds,…, would throw the country into at least a bad recession.

don’t know if it would work, but i’ve been advocating for some time that we buy the MIC off with promises of replacing their weapons research, development and manufacturing contracts with the $ equivalent in alternative energies, greenhouse gas sequestration and environmental clean up.

In actual fact I don’t think they really care about people dying. I believe that getting rid of the poor is on their agenda, but they can’t give voice to it… ethnic cleansing and genocide and all that. They let Katrina happen to turn it into a new biz opportunity. They couldn’t care less about the poor blacks dying and being dispersed. They lived on some cool real estate.

Gentrification here we come!

There are no enemies out there.

I’m not so concerned that we have enemies out there as I am that some other countries would see us as a dangerous enemy due to our past behavior. If they see us as a threat to their own safety because of our nutso president’s saber rattling, and they see us as in a weakened position, they may think they would rather pool their resources against us now than wait until we decide to wage a “preemptive war” against them. Especially in the ME.

Oh, and, what Timr said, thank you. My feelings too.

1-We need to replace all of the worn out and damaged equipment.
2-we need toreequip both the national guard and the reserve units who no longer have operational equipment
3-granted several expensive systems are not really needed, but as the saying goes, the pentagon always trains for the last war, and the last war that the military trained for is war with the USSR in europe.
4-ALL the army troops need to be retrained(the worst thing that gwb has done, because of the lack of manpower, is to take highly trained troops and turn them all into basically infantry. I have heard people in TRADOC(training and doctrine) estimate that it will cost about $20B more per year for the next 10 years-assuming we get out of Iraq-just to bring the Army(active/guard/reserve) back to the point we were in 2003)
5-IMO we need to reinstate a draft. One with no execptions, and one that gets everyone involved once more. I entered(vol.) service in 1968, some of the people that I trained with were college grads, came from all levels of society and all races.

Why?

Why does the US need to be on a war footing? What is the threat that requires doing anything other than attritting troop levels?

Canada is in exactly the same position the US is in the world, geo-politically speaking. Why does the US need to spend more on defense than Canada, per capita?

What is the purpose of bases in Korea, Germany, and Japan? What harm would come to the US in closing those bases?

You say that the Pentagon still has in place programs designed to fight a cold war that end almost 20 years ago, and wistfully indicate that’s just the way it is. Isn’t there a point when the US should stop designing new nuclear bombers and fighter jets that have no use? We’ve been pursuing a chimerical anti-missile defense system for over 25 years, with nothing to show for it except money poured down a rat hole. As the threat from such missiles continues to diminish, do you think, perhaps, we could examine that program?

Its a nasty world out there, and you have to have at least the threat of force to make diplomacy work. You also have to have a viable threat of force to allow US citizens to be mostly safe thruout the world. That force does not have to be used, but is has to be there, without that threat the US is just a paper tiger, a country that other countries can steamroll without any fear of reprisal.

No, it’s not a nasty world out there. It’s as nice a world as it has ever been. Communism is dead. There’s a broad commitment to democratic processes and to open trade. You can now drive from Lisbon to Estonia without even showing a passport. Americans can travel almost anywhere in the world and be welcomed. A country that the US ravaged for fifteen years, Vietnam, is now the trading partner it would have been a decade or more ago, but for that ill-starred war.

The previously greatest threats to the US are now bound to us by economic ties. The threat of terrorism is trivial–marginally greater than it was in 1975, and best addressed by leaving the angry people alone, so they’ll calm down.

I never understand why it is that people who proclaim their patriotism do not believe in America–in freedom, democracy, capitalism and self-determination. The reason the marchers in Tianamen Square carried a statue of liberty was not because our military prowess made us admirable.

Why do we have to buy them off, why don’t we buy them OUT and turn them into companies own by and for the people and not their shareholders and of course turn them into producing energy efficient transport products. Keep the workers, buy off the shareholders, get rid of the bloated management and manufacture something with a social pupose!

Good bye MIC Good Buy MIC

What Jayackroyd said:

WHY???????????????????????

morning all, just a thought…if the dems canidates start spouting to reduce our presents overseas…(which I am in favor of) wouldn’t that put our personnel in the spotlight? Do we really want to get them all excited about the possiblity of them the us leaving their countries? Wouldn’t it be more wise to do this on the downlow?

Long live the Refundazione!

Sure do it on the down low or low down but we don’t gain a thing from troops in other nations.

We don’t gain a thing from battle groups patrolling the world’s oceans.

Can we look at the world and how it is and stop with this 18th century view of “the battlefield” where enemies are out to take your “land”? Please!

Whoa.

So NOW the argument is that the US is locked into a threatening military posture because the US has been bad in the past?

Look, Ann, Canada’s getting by without threatening to nuke Iran. And, believe me, Iran doesn’t want a war with the US. Or with anybody. It’s bizarre.

People!! Get a grip. It’s over. The US idea won. People want to live in modern, consumerist societies where they can get the stuff they want and not have to worry about getting locked up or shot for no good reason.

It’s over. They can’t take the oil away, because there is an international market in oil, denominated in dollars. They don’t hate our freedom. They want some for themselves, perhaps, and they’d appreciate, perhaps the US supporting those freedoms instead of their rulers.

C’mon. Declare victory. You’ve won. You CAN beat those swords into plowshares now. You don’t have to pick fights with third world nations. You don’t have to have a military force sufficient to ward off an evil empire.

There are no more evil empires.

We’ve won. Now lets start living like we have. The Europeans are.

What, you think the German citizenry is going to rise up if the US leaves?

There are certainly some places where the US is propping up a bad regime that would require some planning to reduce military presence and aid for those regimes. And there are the really messed up places like Iraq and Saudi Arabia.

But by and large, aside from the people who benefit economically, leaving would be fine with them. This is about force projection, not occupation.

Ann @ 71

get real no nation or group wants to attack/invade or defeat the USA.

At best, worst they want to be left alone.

USA out of ME, Out of Asia, Out of Latin America, Out of the Caribbean, Out of Africa… these are the cries of those peoples.

And why are we “out”? Because we are still wanting to plunder what they have! Exploit their cheap labor and dump are rubbish on them in the same way that companies get you hooked in with credit buying shit you can’t afford and probably don’t need, like damns and so forth. We’ll just lend you the money and we’ll build you the stuff with the money we lent you and you pay us rip off interest or will take your… well uranium, bauxite, oil or somefin else you got there.

The MIC is a money scheme to bilk the taxpayers… simpe as that and they make up threats to justify their stealing.

There is no threat. END OF STORY.

You might take a look at my comments @10 and 22. The book I cite is well worth reading, as I think it resonates with the military and the policy elites. It justifies the strength of our armed forces by saying that we are exporting security, making our consumerist way of life possible. It should make sense to you, given your own description of our society @78.

Of course, it is depressing that we have deteriorated as a society to the point that our best export is security. America, Mercenary to the World! is not a slogan that does much for me. But, cloaked by Frank Luntz instead of Barnett, I bet it could be sold.

perhaps i should read the book you reference… at least so i can get a better clue what our “leaders” are talking about.

but at a superficial level the thesis seems unsupportable – i don’t recall us exporting security to china as a prerequisit for their inclusion in the wto. is it not possible that the justification of “exporting security” is actually a rationalization and not a justification at all?

But mention Kucinich and all the “serious” Democrats (like Kos) act like he’s nuts.

Selise, China is included in the functional core. Barnett says that they are unlikely to attack anyone ever. They just want to make money. The gap countries are most of Africa, the southern tier of Asia, but not India, and most of South America except Brazil and one or two other countries there.

I think reading the book gives a good insight into the issues as the policy elites of both parties see them. How could Edwards or any other candidate call for a reduction in the military without a powerful working theory to counteract this and the other theories accepted by the elites? Heaven knows progressives don’t have anything to counteract this one.

or maybe kos is nuts.

has china always been considered part of the functional core?

if our “exporting security” is required for becoming a member of the functional core, then latin america should be long time members. but the fact remains that the countries we’ve done the most “exporting” to are the ones that are furthest from being member of the a functional core (see haiti, nicaragua, el salvador, guatemala, columbia).

i’m not doubting you that our elite see the world this way… i am saying it seems absurd on it’s face.

It’s because we don’t believe the rest of the electorate would vote for him.

I’m voting in Indiana this year, if Dodds is still running at the time of the primary I’ll be voting for him. If Dodds has dropped out I’m thinking a protest vote to Kucinich is my choice. I see exercising my franchise as a way of indicating to the parties what they should be doing – that they pay some heed to minority blocks that take the time to participate. it’s somewhat naive and idealistic, but I do think that way.

Many progressives calculate along the lines of who among the candidates with a chance of winning is least evil, operative phrase is “chance of winning”. This is something that is manufactured well before campaigning starts. And progressives don’t have near as much influence as we would like in that process (manufacturing the front runners).

I’m proud of the fact that I have never voted for the lessor of evils for president. I do understand the logic of it… I worked for Baron Hill over Mike Sodrel in 2006, knowing that Hill was likely to be as bad as he was in his first term. Not happening this year.

I think that primary fights for Congress are where we can have the biggest impact. I’m voting and contributing money and volunteer labor to that end.

I’m with the crazey guy, Kucinichi (is that russian or something?), never mind. Anyway let’s just impeach what we already have and then catch the next UFO outa here and let the politicos have the whole stinking place and head for Gore land where there is no polution.

Some of the folks over at KOS are just about as radical as they come over at DRUDGE .

has anyone considered injecting a bit of democracy into the federal constitution? you know, rule ‘by the people’. kucinich maybe is a good man, but gravel is wiser: he has a good plan.

get involved in the ‘initiative for democracy’, and when the people rule, you won’t have to worry so much about crazy old men starting wars and tapping your phones, because they won’t have the power to do it.

simple, really, i’m amazed a ‘democratic’ people haven’t figured this out.

I think that the true solution to military spending (and aventurism) was proposed at the original Constitutional convention…an amendment to prohibit a standing military. If the congress would only allow enough of a military for the defense of the nation, instead of the current military which is sufficient to commence war in two separate theaters of operations, then the President would have to request the military with which to begin his adventures. Not that it couldn’t happen that he would make a request and receive it, like what happened in the Mexico war, but it would not be something that he could do without having to ask Congress for a formal declaration.

Blue Texan, I think you’re missing the point here. There are several issues here, and it’s not just a question of a bigger military. Our military is broken, and whomever ends up in the White House is going to have to pay serious attention to repairing 8 years of systematic abuse by the “Strong on Defense” geniuses who’ve run it into the ground.

I’ve got a family member in the Air Force, so I tend to track USAF stories. The average age of the fleet is 25 years; F-15 models A-D have been grounded because they’ve started breaking up in the air. We’re flying C-130s in Iraq that go back to the Vietnam War. The Air Force is this close to having the entire KC-135 aerial refueling fleet grounded – and all the missions that need that capability will be curtailed. Purchase of newer, more capable aircraft that are more reliable keeps getting trimmed back.

The Coast Guard is having problems of its own. They were supposed to be getting new cutters to replace an aging fleet. Instead crony contracting stuck them with ships that can’t stay at sea as long as they were supposed to, tend to develop serious hull cracks, and are just badly designed.

Our ground forces are wearing out their equipment, and it’s not being replaced. I don’t know how the Navy is making out, but I would not be surprised to find they have similar problems.

The human costs are out of control. I’m sure you’re well aware that the health care and benefits our troops are getting are no where what they should be. The Air Force has several bases where a notorious but well-connected contractor has been wasting millions while totally failing to rebuild base housing (and bankrupting local businesses by not paying them.)

More than one recent news story has focused on how the Army’s own West Pointers are increasingly serving their minimum time and getting out. A whole generation of officers is opting out of the military. Other news stories keep bringing troubling reports to light that the Air Force Academy has been turned into an indoctrination camp for Fundie “God’s Warriors.”

Let’s not forget the corrosive impact on a military that has been tasked to operate prisons where torture is a mainstay and the Geneva Conventions have been thrown by the wayside. Let’s not forget a Pentagon where the upper officer corps has been systematically culled to leave only sycophants in charge, accountability in tatters, and professionalism discarded for expediency.

And, of course, we have such conservative follies as a missile shield system that has consumed billions, never passed a real test, but has managed to piss off Vladamir Putin and stimulated him to revive the cold war.

What has happened to our military under Bush, Cheney, and the neo-cons is the equivalent of a corporate hostile take-over. They’ve cannibalized the assets, indulged in follies that can’t be sustained, trashed the work force and the company culture, and at the end of the day will walk away to do it all over again after giving themselves and their cronies huge payoffs as a reward for their management ’skills’.

To add insult to injury, they’ll claim it’s all the fault of the Democrats – and probably get away with it.

IF Clinton, Obama, Edwards were really thinking strategically, right now they’d be starting a narrative that our military is in serious trouble after years of abuse and mis-management, because like it or not, we are going to need a functioning military (thanks to the neo-cons and Bush) to protectus in a more hostile world while we try to rebuild our diplomatic bridges.

With all due respect, I see nothing in your post about why we have to spend as much as the rest of next 14 countries combined, something that no country has done in 500 years, or why we have to have forces in every time zone in the world.

I agree that Bush/Cheney have abused the military and that there are serious problems with it, but to argue that it needs to be “expanded” is nutty.

Boy, am I sorry that I missed this thread!

And, that soo-pee-nee crack was the best snark I’ve read all day.

The MIC is draining us dry, and most people are oblivious to it.
If we could stop the warmongering, the pie-in-the-sky Star Wars projects and
corrupt contracting deals, we could probably reduce the defense budget by 50% easy.

BT-a breath of fresh progressive air for this Larue. Nicely done.

I haven’t done the math, but I’d bet that for every petroturd scheckel we’ve spent on Afghan, Iraq and had stolen by Halliburton/KBR and the 1% Rulers we could have fed, clothed, housed and educated every single person in this faded and jaded republic of ours.

Instead, we as a republic are falling apart, we are as a people TORN apart, our infrastructure sags, we are a disgrace to the rest of the planet and we are headed for hard times as our dollar plummets miserably.

Kuch is the man, but he’s been marginalized while the Beltway Threesome have been elevated to a false Priesthood on the sacrificial dias of our lives.

Harumph.

BT – bring it on. We need MORE doses of reality, and not the notsokewlaid juices of Beltway Elitism. I REMEMBER Jim Jones And People’s Temple. I refuse to drink the shit.

BRING ME MY COGNAC, SOMEONE! *G*

Aside from the enormous waste of resources, the biggest problem with having a well equipped and robust military is that it is tempting to use.

It’s tempting to make that same argument with regard to the entire federal government budget. It’s so big, isn’t it just a temptation to Republicans to misuse it or steal it? Maybe we need a government small enough, so they won’t be able to misuse it much? Calling Grover Norquist!

No, I think we responsible Democrats need to do what is best and just govern properly. If the Republicans want to mess things up that’s their problem. The public will realize quick enough and remove them from office [ at least ideally ].

I don’t know about you, but I recall during the 1990s when there was a call for a military capable of winning two wars concurrently. I wondered why. Now we all know. They were planning for Afghanistan and Iraq.

Now, we have to reconstitute the military and return to shrinking it, as Bill Clinton was doing. As many here are saying, there isn’t such a huge need for this gargantuan military. So, we need to clearly define the need and then shape the military to that. After the cold war and the Saddam era there isn’t much to fear except nukes and a distant imagined possibility of a resurgent Russia or China.

I suspect any Dem would do better with the military just now, but I fear the sabre rattling of Clinton and the greenness of Obama. I wouldn’t be surprised if this is one of the strongest issues for the Repub nominee next year. Of course, none of them is a prize.

Intelligent leadership is needed, not ideology and fear-mongering.

It explains clearly that the point of the military is to protect our way of life, which he defines as commercial. The book almost reads like a justification of use of the military to make the whole world safe for corporations.

Consider that idea and our entire foreign policy since WWI. What if our entire military foreign policy has been aimed at pacifying and capitalizing the entire world, bit by bit over time, to make it safe for commerce?

We did Europe (first Western, then Eastern). We did some of Asia (Pacific Rim). We did Central & South America. Now we’re tackling the Muslim world (the Middle East from Morocco to the Philippines).

Is this imperialism, world domination, self protection or Liberating?

Certainly the recent effort against Iraq was disgusting and illegal. But, were the earlier efforts (excluding VietNam) awful?

Seen in that light, what do you think the next step (of our corporate overlords) would be? I’m sure hoping it’s not to take over all the countries of the world where there is oil or to swing into full nuclear mode. I’d prefer a safer transition to bio-fuels and cooperation with other nations.

Of course, there are also those pesky radical militant Muslims. What can we make of them? Are they just employees of Big Power or are they sincere and dangerous?

Wouldn’t US security be greatly enhanced, and cheaply, by having a president that is not an idiot?
reply

Bush isn’t the brightest guy in the world, but he is part of the family and an oil man and this War to maintain OIL as the primary energy supply has made a lot of money for some people, but hasn’t changed the underlying fundamentals. We simply can’t afford to continue on with gasoline in the quantities we’re currently using. As regards this issue it wouldn’t matter if Bush remained president for 50 years, gasoline has to go. Some things you can’t force your will on.

We need hybrids to use batteries just as quick as we can. All these idling engines burning gasoline at stop lights is insane.

I’d love to see a worldwide competition of governments, universities and others to develop better cars. We aren’t going back to horse & buggy and we aren’t all going to ride motorcycles or motorbikes or bicycles, so we might as well find other technologies which are safe, clean and effective.

I have been hoping Edwards would, out of desperation if nothing else, would adopt this tack. But it is clear that he too is committed to the continued expansion of a military that is already insanely large

Can you cite a quote?

I think he wants to rebuild, but I haven’t heard him say he wants to expand it.

We’ve won. Now lets start living like we have. The Europeans are.

I think the Democrats realize that. If you will recall the Clinton era was pretty good. If we can get on with that the whole world will be much happier.

But, I’ll ‘let’ you can tell the oil companies.

How could Edwards or any other candidate call for a reduction in the military without a powerful working theory to counteract this and the other theories accepted by the elites? Heaven knows progressives don’t have anything to counteract this one.

The theory you cite isn’t the one accepted by the American public. They have always felt the military was for self defense for us and our treaty allies.

The Democrats want to cooperate and work together with anybody who is for peace and prosperity. It’s intelligent leadership, not ideology and idiots.

Let’s get real here.

I agree we as a country are spending far too much on the military – and we’re not even pretending to pay for it. But, how much IS enough? And for what? And how do you walk away from it?

Like it or not, our economy, our political structure, and the international balance of power is highly distorted by the military industrial complex that has built up over the years. Trying to go cold turkey is liable to create as many problems as it solves. And, whether you like it or not, there is a place for a military in a world in which we do not have a monopoly on sociopathic types like Bush and Cheney.

Using the U.N. to settle the problem of the collapse of Yugoslavia wouldn’t have gotten very far if the U.S. and Europe hadn’t provided military muscle to back up diplomacy. Gulf War One worked on the basis of careful coalition building as well as military force – and we were able to get our partners to pick up the tab. Of course back then we had politicians who were aware military force doesn’t operate in a vacuum; it’s properly a single element in an entire matrix of efforts.

What’s made the burden really unsupportable is that crazy people are in charge right now who think the military is like a magic sword they can wave to make the world do what they want – and all they have to do is make a wish. They won’t pay for it, they won’t serve in it, but they sure love to make money off it and they love to use it to glorify themselves and act out their fantasies. They’ve also spent decades screaming that the world is a dangerous place and the only way we can survive is by being the biggest and meanest sunuvvabitch on the planet.

Forget that 911 happened because these same types were asleep at the switch and not paying attention to their own propaganda. They’ve used 911 ever since to say “See? We told you so.”

Now imagine yourself as Clinton, Obama, or Edwards. What’s rule number 1 regarding Democrats and the military? Oh yeah: Democrats are weak on defense. It’s a core Republican playbook charge. Give them a chance to use it, and they’ll go to town via all their message outlets. We saw them turn a decorated combat veteran like John Kerry into a wimp. They’ll keep pounding that meme till the troops come home. (If ever.)

We’ve been hearing that lie for decades and it’s become the common wisdom. The Democratic candidates know that to talk about cutting back on the military is political suicide; the press, the consultants, the Very Serious People, all the usual suspects will just start shaking their heads and talk about how the Dirty Fucking Hippies are about to make America helpless and can’t be trusted to keep America safe.

So, no Democrat dares leave themselves vulnerable to this attack. When Clinton, Edwards, Obama talk about expanding the military, and modernizing it, remember that they’re talking to families who’ve seen their sons, daughters, fathers, husbands deployed again and again. They’re talking to people who know firsthand how stretched tight the military is, how the equipment is wearing out, and there are just not enough bodies in uniform to handle the missions they’ve been tasked with. They’re tired and they want to hear help is coming.

When the Democrats talk about spending more on the military, they’re talking about things like higher pay and better benefits for the troops – and better care for veterans, not just bigger and better weapons systems.

Democrats are never going to prevail on military matters by arguing the military is too big and too expensive as long as the Republicans can keep calling them weak on defense and get away with it. Democrats are going to have to move the battle off the emotional battlefield the Republicans are so strong on to one where Democrats have an advantage. Instead of making it “Strong versus Weak” they have to make it “Smart versus Stupid.”

You can get people just as angry and motivated to vote Democratic by showing them them Republicans are paying too much for policies that don’t support our troops, don’t make the country any safer, and are in fact making us weaker by bankrupting us – but you can’t get to there if you start by saying we have to cut back our military spending. You do it by showing the waste. You do it by showing the corruption. You do it by showing the abuse of our troops – and you do it in the face of a GOP-controlled press that will be screaming you’re hurting the troops.

The first step is going to have to be getting the crazy people away from the controls – and then discrediting them and their policies as they’ve been doing to Democrats for decades, or they’ll be right back. If you can inject sanity into the process, then you can expect to start reshaping the end result.

This is why you are NOT going to hear the Democratic candidates appearing to attack the military industrial complex, at least not explicitly at this time. They simply don’t have political room to maneuver in that space yet. It’s up to progressives to shift the Overton window in that direction so they eventually will have that opportunity. The GOP has shoved the country so far right by pushing messages from the rightwing fringes so that the GOP regular wingnuts appear moderate and reasonable by contrast.

I’m not so worried about Clinton, Obama, Edwards talking about more military spending so much as I’m worried about their inability or unwillingness to call out the Republicans at how badly they spend. If we can shift the debate in that direction, then we can start talking about how much we’re actually spending and if there aren’t better uses for that money. As long as Republicans and the press can keep it centered on “We have to keep doing what we’re doing or we’re all going to die,” we’re not going to see progress from any direction.