Because, whether the President is a Democrat or a Republican, having an “invade anywhere anytime” military is like giving a loaded revolver and amphetamines to a toddler:
Sen. Joseph Lieberman, (I-Conn) a renowned hawk and one of the foremost champions of the invasion of Iraq, warned on Sunday that the United States faced “danger” unless it pre-emptively acts to curb the rise of terrorism in Yemen.
“Somebody in our government said to me in Sana’a, the capital of Yemen, Iraq was yesterday’s war. Afghanistan is today’s war. If we don’t act preemptively, Yemen will be tomorrow’s war,” Lieberman said, during an appearance on “Fox News Sunday”. “That’s the danger we face.”
(emphasis mine)
The problem with having a military that is able to invade anywhere, anytime, for any reason, is that there are people, including Joe Lieberman and whoever, “Somebody in our government,” is with small brains, and even smaller penises, who will use military power with all the forethought of the aforementioned child on speed.
If you build the military, they will use it recklessly, to the detriment of both the nation and to the military itself.
The current “seabasing” concept being developed in the Pentagon is just the sort of “invasion in a box” that will make this even easier to do, and hence more likely.
The capabilities that we implement actually increase the military death toll, because they encourage insane strategies by the civilian and senior military leadership.
What’s more, they starve our economy, it will be costing in excess of $1 million a year per soldier in Afghanistan, and they starve the social safety net, killing our own citizens through lack of healthcare, and over the longer term, through a lack of investment in infrastructure and education.
H/t Attackerman.
Well said.
So true, and so rarely said – certainly not from Nobel peace prize winner Obama, but also not from his mainstream progressive critics.
Krugman is complaining today in his blog about Medicare Part D costing 9.4 trillion dollars over 75 years. The "defense" budget costs 9.4 trillion in under 20 years, and while Part D provides medication to the elderly (even if at ridiculously inflated cost), "defense" is almost all about killing people – hardly a progressive goal (even if those people are usually Arab).
85% isn't possible because there's as far as I know a good chunk of veterans costs included in the budget and even downsizing itself would require a huge budget for 1-2 years if we take the post-WW2 demobilization as an example.
The defence of CONUS + Hawaii doesn't need to cost more than a $ 100 bn/yr. Half of the navy's air power plus the army national guard – that's it.
Even the addition of a moderate maritime trade protection wouldn't add more than $ 20-40 bn/yr.
The problem is that the policy is not about "defense". It's about having a "big stick" for foreign policy.
The British taught the U.S. about the necessity for a big stick in the late 19th century when the Brits essentially said "So what?" to Pres. Cleveland in the knowledge that their Royal Navy could enforce their interests in a Latin American crisis.
The Brits were bluffing.
The Royal Admiralty knew from 1863 on that it could not compete with the US shipbuilding industry if it took to a full war footing.
If I understand the numbers on Wikipedia correctly, Veteran Affairs and veteran benefits and services budgets total about $110G and are in addition to the DoD budget ($660G).
As for the "big stick" – it is not a necessity, it is a bully's habit. The US has grown used to always having its way, and the only way to always have your way is to threaten everybody into submission (and carry out the occasional violent demonstrative lesson to "maintain credibility").
This needs to stop – international relations should and can be conducted on the basis of mutual respect and the international law.
Of course, even with a tenth of the current military budget the US would still remain a major power not to be trifled with. Scenarios in which the US is credibly threatened by other countries occur only in the fantasies of the paranoid (many of which inhabit the military and civilian corridors of power).
"international relations should and can be conducted on the basis of mutual respect and the international law"
Been watching The West Wing again, have we?
That might be a nice sentiment, but it's best to plan for the affairs of nations to be first governed by national self-interest.
> Been watching The West Wing again, have we?
No – I don't care for the ads and the formulaic drama. But you can get much the same ideas by reading the UN charter.
> it's best to plan for the affairs of nations to be first governed by national self-interest.
We don't apply "personal self-interest" (in the sense of might-makes-right) in interpersonal relations, why should we apply "national self-interest" in international relations?
No. US Defense spending is roughly 1/2 of the whole world's spending, and it makes us weaker, because:
* Excessive defense spending weakens our economy and society (see Soviet Union, former)
* By creating a military that is geared toward rapid and unilateral invasion, we create institutional incentives for ill thought-out military adventurism (See Iraq and Neocons).
My argument is not that the world is not a dangerous place, but that the Department of Defense, as currently funded and structured, makes us weaker, both in terms of foreign relations (which, as von Clausewitz noted includes the making of war) and economically.
Well if the UN charter is your basis in thought, we know how you're living the dream of Kasey Kasem, by keeping your feet on the ground and reaching for the stars.
The difference between individuals and nations is that other individuals typically don't stand in the way of my making a living, or taking my family out for a night of entertainment at the movies, or threaten my very right to exist as a human being. While there are always exceptions, typically, if another individual just doesn't like me, the "not liking me" is usually where it begins and ends.
A nation, however, that "doesn't like you" can all of a sudden decide to attempt to kidnap you (Iraq-Kuwait), or point over 1,500 missiles at you in an attempt to browbeat you into not "going out on your own" to do as you will (China-Taiwan) or fund terrorist organizations to kill your citizens or, if that's not enough, themselves outright threaten to wipe you off the map (Iran – Israel).
If you want to reform the procurement disease in the Pentagon, be my guest. $700M LCS's are an embarassment beyond belief. Twenty-five years to produce at a cost of $140M fly-away/$350M program cost jet fighters are insane. The real crime is replacing ten planes with three, or four ships with one. I don't see having a military that is readily deployable as a weakness, but rather a strength that should be judiciously used on only the circumstances where there is no other alternative. Both parties, many many decades ago, went by an old spirit that said we only go to war when our national interests call for it, and that coincided with a time when the nation was more economically self-sufficient. Maybe if we concentrated on that latter part, the need to galavant around the globe wouldn't be as justifiable as it seems to be now.
> The difference between individuals and nations is that other individuals typically don't stand in the way of my making a living […]
The potential for might-makes-right in interpersonal relations exists just as much as it exists in international relations. We, as a society, chose to reject this mode of interaction, and that is the reason that you can enjoy relatively peaceful existence. (There is still, of course, a considerable way to go in civilizing interpersonal relations, and regression on this front is an ever present threat.)
The reason that the U.S. and its clients can pound their opponents into dust and take their resources is that we have not civilized international relations to the extent that we have intra-national relations.
(By the way, I hope that it is clear to you that when you say "national interest" you really mean the interests of the ruling elite.)
As for the process of weapons making process in the U.S. – we would all be in a better state if it was even more inefficient.
(By the way, I hope that it is clear to you that when you say "national interest" you really mean the interests of the ruling elite.)
Funny, but when I consider a "ruling elite", the primary examples from the "civilized" world that come to mind are the burgeoning experiment in multi-level bureaucracy coming out of Brussels and what exists in NYC under the auspices of the UN., which when I read the following comments…
international relations should and can be conducted on the basis of mutual respect and the international law.
-and-
The reason that the U.S. and its clients can pound their opponents into dust and take their resources is that we have not civilized international relations to the extent that we have intra-national relations.
…is what I'm sure you'd much prefer to have as opposed to all this bothersome nationalism that only causes problems. After all, the U.S. is little more than a common thief & our allies muggers, both in need of being "civilized", from where you sit. Many thanks for showing your cards, I thought it might take longer to see them.
I was not aware that I was hiding any cards – in general I try to make my positions as clear and as explicit as possible.
Brussels and the UN are ruling elites along the same lines of the US government and function along the same rules of conduct. The US, however, being the strongest, is being the biggest bully.
Civilization of international relations will likely require democratization at the national and international level.
> (See Iraq and Neocons)
You don't have to go as far back as 2003 – Obama, 2009 (Afghanistan, Yemen) serves just as well.