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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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*

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.

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.