Re: The 2012 Presidential Election Part I - The guns of August
Couple of points.
There has not been much argument over whether to maintain or increase military spending on this board as supporters have been silent.
We do need to adjust our military to match our policy (as you and Kep say). But the policy really needs to reflect international reality of today. And that is that the cold war is over, day to day international business now dwarfs political headlines we read here, the world is more democratic, governments more beholden to its people, and the UN has more sway in terms of opinion outside the US than ever before. So an aggressive conventional army military stance was likely overstated during the cold war and has very few outcomes anymore, except making it more difficult for us conduct business overseas.
The benefits derived from military spending is minimal. We may get a once in a generation freeway system type benefit...but there's no evidence that that outcome would not have happened if our military was say 30% smaller. Indeed, there is little or no benefit compared to benefits that directly impact society...esp education..where the ripple effect of real societal benefits could well have resulted in multiple freeway system type benefits. In stark contrast, the vast, vast majority of tanks simply sit in hangers their whole life (except in the extremely rare case where they're killing folks). Likewise, spending is frequently frivolous. I'm sure if the EU wanted to put a massive military base in the middle of Kansas...with the only purpose to drive massive amounts of capital into our great plains...I'm sure we'd shake our heads also.
All this would be less important but we are in a critical time of overspending. And this is of the utmost importance as US taxpayers are burdened with nearly half of the world's military costs...for a military that isn't even designed for the realities of US needs today of antiterror. And this fact is evidence 1A of why true 'fiscal conservatives' are largely an extinct breed (or at least rarely exist on the right). Whether anyone sees it or likes to admit it...nearly everyone has their own pet government project.
Where on earth did you get to be such an expert on the needs, capabilities, lack of planning and nature of our military? So dogmatic. So assured. So wrong. My guess is you wouldn't know an M-16 from an M1A2. I suppose all of the base closures, command restructuring and strategic weapons dismantling has just escaped your attention. How could someone so well informed on defense matters not have noticed?
And in this world of yours where the UN has "more sway," who do you figure is going to pay for all of those paratroopers from Burundi to keep the peace in Afghanistan? And what, exactly, is the UN going to do about Russian military adventurism (we learned just this week they had a nuclear armed Akula cruising in the Gulf)? And what, exactly, is the UN going to do about a nuclear armed Iran? Because there's certainly nothing the UN can or will do to stop them from completing their weapons program. And what, exactly, is the UN planning to do to meet the threat posed by the Chinese?
And what, exactly, did you mean by that gibberish about a "conventional army military stance" that was "likely overstated" in the cold war? Again, being an expert on military matters, you might have noticed that what defined the cold war was the growth and proliferation of strategic nuclear weapons. Our army and conventional forces were always outnumbered by the Warsaw Pact. Naturally, in your analysis the cold war was an "overstatement" by the United States, and not a reaction to efforts at achieving global hegemony by the Soviet Union. We just misunderstood them.
Your posts are generally characterized by dreamy, socialist utopian crapola. But you outdid yourself with your hypothetical about the EU and some giant military installation in America's heartland. What in the world did you mean by that? In your world, I guess, it would be a good thing for foreign governments to establish a military base on our soil if it would help bring capital to Kansas. The concept of sovereignty being just one more thing you need to brush up on.
And your penetrating analysis of our tanks not being used until they're needed could easily be expanded to include every weapons sytem. Heck, every soldier, sailor, airman or marine. We should just start with a clean sheet of paper every time. Why would we want to have all that stuff just sitting around until it's time to "kill some people?" Add preparedness to the list of concepts you need to brush up on.
If the war against global Islamo-fascism was the only threat we faced, then you might have a point (albeit just barely) about our military not being capable of dealing with the "real" threats. But of course Islamo-facism isn't the only threat to the peace or the safe conduct of the world's business. What will your precious UN do when Iran closes the Strait of Hormuz (as they constantly threaten to do)? Send them a note? Embargo Tootsie Rolls? What?
Besides, we have made great strides technologically and organizationally to deal with Islamo-fascists. You may not have noticed (although I don't see how that's possible, given that the President takes credit for it five or six times a day) but our special ops people and their advanced training and weapons made sure Bin Laden took one in the face. And we are daily increasing our capacity and accuracy with drones to reach out and touch these mother effers.
And can we get someone to translate your "point" about military spending would be better suited to education and the creation of "multiple freeway systems." You figure we don't have enough? Would these "multiple freeways" be side by side with the ones we already have or double deckers? The fact that we spend way more per pupil than any nation on earth has obviously also escaped your attention. Our problems in education have nothing to do with the amount we spend on defense. Spending more, at the expense of defense, will not usher in an educational nirvana.
Finally, your assertion that fiscal conservatives "rarely exist on the right," is a howler, even by your semi-informed standards. Are there fiscal conservatives on the left? In the offices of ACORN? Or LaRaza? Or the NAACP? Or SEIU?
The world is a dangerous place. And it has fallen to us to try to ameliorate that danger. And no international body is capable of doing that. Just us. And if, as you say, the world is more democratic now than it has ever been, what do you suppose is largely responsible for that? The United States and its military.
), calls for Federal spending to increase at an annual rate of 4.3%.
