The President, yesterday at the US Naval Academy.
We’ll also ensure you can meet the missions of today, which is why we’ve halted reductions in Navy personnel and increased the size of the Marine Corps. And we will ensure you can meet the missions of tomorrow, which is why we’re investing in the capabilities and technologies of tomorrow — the littoral combat ships, the most advanced submarines and fighter aircraft — so that you have what you need to succeed. In short, we will maintain America’s military dominance and keep you the finest fighting force the world has ever seen.
Yes, what we really need right now more than anything else is a larger, more powerful armed forces. $600B a year just isn’t cutting it. In particular, we need even more advanced submarines and planes, since al Qaeda’s subs and North Korea’s fighters are so awesome.
Geez.
[graph via]
Related posts:
- Late Late Night FDL: The Armed Forces Salute
- Memo to Jay Cost: Obama Won a Larger Percentage of the Popular Vote in 2008 than Reagan in 1980
- Video: Rep. Joe Wilson (R-SC2) Calls Obama “Liar” During Joint Session
- US Forces Linked to Afghanistan Prisoner Massacre, Says Report; DoD Investigation Still MIA
- Fantasy Phone Calls: Roger and Rahm





Spotlight








Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Firedoglake
Advanced search

We will bankrupt the next generation to pay for the military arrogance of this one. It is how empires die.
Only a complete and total financial crisis will make America rethink our absurd “defense” posture relative to the rest of the world.
Oh, wait….
The military is a complete waste of resources. End of Story. We need to downsize it to 1/10th its size. NOW.
I’m amazed we survived eight years of George W. Bush, now I’m wondering if we’ll make it through four of George W. Obama. Enough to make me wish I were religious just so I’d have something to pray to. Although it may be too late for even that. Screwed and getting screweder every day.
makes for cheap
cannon fodderrecruits.Do you have a chart showing defense spending as a percentage of GDP? Because let’s be honest, comparing the U.S. to relatively tiny countries like Israel and Japan is completely meaningless in total dollars spent.
some democrat, what a punk
And leave us not forget this is an army of heterosexuals. Because Adam Lambert lost on American Idol.
If a nation is an empire, what more can one expect. Obama sucks, like W.
I kep telling you people — HE’S BUSH-LITE!!!!!
democrats are punks
Clinton (and Carter) did the same things. Because of course Democrats are told they have to wildly overcompensate to make up for not being masculine military-friendly guys like Nixon and Ike and Reagan and the Bushes.
Israel probably spends more as a percentage of GDP. Then again, a good chunk of Israel’s economy comes from the US
I’m thining we’ve already bankrupted the next generation. We’re working beyond that now.
I believe it’s time to actually eliminate our standing army. We don’t need to be on a permanent war footing. We should go back to the pre-WWII situation where we have a defense force for our nation (National Guard), and next time we want to go to war the politicians can convince the people that they need to raise an army for a just cause. And yes, I know this means giving up all of our foreign bases. But we shouldn’t be pre-positioned all over the world to get involved in regional conflicts. That’s Cold War thinking.
As it is we’re getting dangerously close to creating a permanent military class completely divorced from common society. That is extremely unhealthy and dangerous for a democracy. The Bush government gave us a glimpse of how the professional military class can be used in a harmful manner, both in how they make political decisions and how they are used for propaganda.
carter at least had the excuse of the cold war. clinton and now obama have no such excuse.
And Kennedy and LBJ sent us down the same road.
Of course, when you have the Republicans going for the Joe Sixpack vote with full-court cable TV attacks and ads like this one against Pelosi — ads and attacks which may actually be working — you can see why Democrats from Carter onward (especially those with no military service in their background) feel they have to overcompensate.
Yup. Kennedy felt he had to out-Cold-Warrior Nixon, who nearly beat him in 1960. Hence the Bay of Pigs idiocy and escalating the presence of “advisors” that Ike had sent. (LBJ went down that path, then tried to undo it with the Paris Peace Talks — which Nixon sent Anna Chan Chennault to sabotage.)
He actually sort of got sandbagged on the bay of pigs, it was the Nam that he bought us.
Dr. Murphy is upstairs!
Four People Face Federal Prison for Passing Out Leaflets and Chalking Slogans
The actual “size” of our military in terms of active duty soldiers really isn’t all that out-of-whack. However, you are absolutely right that the expense of our military is well beyond comical, and even gives new meaning to the word “absurd.”
The way I like to frame it is, “Apparently North Korea and Iran have much more efficient militaries than the United States. Why? Because, if I’m to believe U.S. officials, they’re able to put together a legitimate existential threat to the United States, and for simply pennies on the dollar compared to what it takes for us to defend ourselves from it.”
The reality is that nuclear arms should have rendered conventional militaries obsolete; as any truly existential conflict is going to result in their use, and any non-existential conflict is going to be guerrilla/insurgent oriented; where a conventional military is all but useless.
My personal opinion on the matter is that on some level the height of the military-industrial complex came to be at precisely the same time that they were fundamentally rendered irrelevant (by nuclear weapons). The behavior we’ve seen from that institution ever since has truly been one of combatting an inferiority complex predicated on that obsolescence. Though I don’t think that condition is actually collectively internalized.
If we weren’t trying to operate an empire we’d probably be best served by maintaining a nuclear arsenal to keep the threat of M.A.D. on the table, and simply move our traditional military to a model like Switzerland uses which would act as our national-defense.
oh come on, Obama campaigned on such pledges to increase military expenditures, to ”… start with enhancing the finest military in the history of the world. As Commander in Chief, I will begin by giving a military overstretched by Iraq the support it needs.” . . .
from The World Beyond Iraq
Senator Barack Obama
March 19, 2008
no second guessing now! most of you supported him and would have voted for him if he had picked Joe Lieberman as VP.
pay up! your Progressive Leader plans to funnel more of your tax dollars to the MIC, so they can drop HE and white phosphorous on civilians in Afghanistan, Iraq, and maybe Pakistan and Iran, when he gets around to it.
you chose this candidate off the menu, so don’t be surprised when the waiter brings you this:
http://www.latimes.com/news/na…..otogallery
George Washington defeated the most powerful military on earth with a band of ill equiped patriotic volunteers. _WTF
…and the French.
Well heck, this posting is pretty much done for, too bad I missed it earlier.
During the campaign Obama would mention national service of some sort for all (young people coming of age I took it to mean). I started then to worry about compulsory war service, having my grandkids in mind, especially the boys in early 20’s. That and this job-loss/home-loss economy combined, make me wonder if someone thinks increasing the manpower of the services vastly is one really neat solution to that problem; that and being able to attack Iran, Pakistan, and all the other stans and China and N. Korea and South Korea and any African nation, you name it, at the drop of a bullet.Two birds/one stone.
Why, a couple or even more wars with lots and lots of cannonfodderpeons like us to go fight (and productively and honorably give a limb or a brain or die) would just be a peachy solution all around wouldn’t it? Get the unemployed testosteronistos out of the country under military command and control, and out of the way of temptation to protest– perhaps violently, as things get worse. OF course congress will gladly fund new recruits, though won’t give them proper equipment, or quarters, or health care when they come home all broken. but indeed, they will cooperate with the initial grunt pay, especially all the repuglikuns and several bluedoggies. They will LIke that. Yeah, that’s it, outsource the depression, getem OUT OF HERE to a nice productive war and voila many problemas on way to being solved!
good grief i am sooo disappointed and sorry for supporting Obama. will i never learn! it just piles higher and higher and soon his good action pile will be dwarfed, by his bad action pile (sort of like US vs Venezuala on the chart above). 8(
The only reason we need bigger armed forces is to fight more and longer wars.
See former SecNav Lehman on C-span this weekend, makes more sense, but not much. He trys though, even showed how the chain of command works from the White House to Abu G. Now, John about that 9/11 Ommission Report.
I thought O-bombya was busting down the $300 million dollar apiece F-22?
Of course, who could tear down Jimmy Carters’ favorite Sea Wolf submarine, that Jimmy was a whiz in the Looking Glass bird. Why don’t we put him in orbit over Af/Paky-stan and zoom those Predators & F/A-18’s in on some more kids to make sure that pipeline gets through and the CIA dope.