Why aren’t any of our Congressmen talking about more than token cutbacks in this area? As the old saying goes, there’s a reason for everything. In this case: How efficiently military spending has been integrated into the larger economy.
First things, first: I want to come right out and say: A 50% reduction in our military expenditures will not pose any threat whatsoever to our national security. In fact, that security will be further enhanced by such a cutback. There will be chickens-little out there who will bellow and fume: “Our enemies will see this as a sign of weakness.” These same folks tried to justify US intervention in Nicaragua with: “If we don’t stop the communists there, we’ll have to fight that much harder to stop them when they reach the Rio Grande.”
Indented Comment: The only threat we’re trying to parry at the Rio Grande is a flood of illegal immigrants. Oddly enough, that flood was increased due to our interventions south of the border. More to the point: If we can’t even maintain our own border against what have become routine violations, then how can we pretend to be able to police the whole world? And that’s what our grand “defense” strategy is really all about.
To these chickens-little, I can only remind them: “We’re supposed to be the land of the free and the home of the [dramatic pause] brave. So why don’t you act the part and stop letting doomsayers scare you?”
As for the “larger economy”
Military contractors like to spread out their operations to cover as many congressional districts as possible. That way, they increase their influence over a large number of congressmen. If, for instance, all military spending had been concentrated in (say) only one state, it would be easy for Congress to pare back expenses. But since militarily-related economic activity has been so thoroughly interwoven into the economies of so many cities and states, it’s that much harder to cut back.
Don’t get me wrong…Congressmen would love to reduce military spending but, “Just not in my district.” And that’s the point.
The major resistance to halving our military will come from those who will trot out the “national security” argument. A second line of resistance: From those who will cite adverse economic impact. I will address both.
National security
National security is not well-served by finding excuses to outspend the rest of the world. Didn’t Osama bin Laden say his goal was to win by bankrupting the United States into spending more for “defense” than it could afford? By the way, “defense” is not what’s being purchased – overkill offensive capability is the goal. However, in all fairness, there are many who claim “The best defense is a good offense.” In greater fairness: “The best defense is a thorough understanding and appreciation of the game as a whole, how that game ‘plays’ in relation to other games – and the wide variety of players of all of these games.”
As for that “best defense” stuff: There is no such thing as being absolutely secure. For instance, I always assumed that the US and Russia had managed, decades ago, to secretly plant nukes in each other’s biggest cities. Why rely only on ICMB’s or other delivery systems? Those can go wrong, be compromised or (possibly) thwarted by a yet-to-be discovered technology. However, nukes hidden in basements strategically located throughout the world would represent the most ideal security arrangement – in a Dr. Strangelovian sense.
In fact, I thought the greatest danger would be from our own Elites detonating such weapons they themselves had hidden within our borders. I still think that’s the greatest danger. As soon as they think there’s a good enough reason to throw a scare into their own people (or to thin the population), believe me – they’ll have no problem killing tens of millions of us. One such “good reason?” An inability to pay for the retirement benefits and medical care for an aging population. That inability, if left unanswered, will destroy the house of cards known as our market-based economy. [BTW, it’s not a market-based economy; it’s a politically-motivated one.]
The only way to obtain greater security is to stop thinking only of ourselves. If we halve our military budget, that would reduce our deficit and free up capital to provide goods and services (and opportunities). The rest of the world will profit from this as well as us. And when a greater number of people share in prosperity, there will be less of a chance of going to war. Not to mention the ratcheting down of tension this RIF would represent.
Adverse economic impact
If the US were to close all of its foreign military bases, there would definitely be an adverse impact to those local economies. Not to mention 700,000 of our soldiers suddenly becoming unemployed. Not to mention all of those defense-related industries having a reduced feed at the public trough.
I freely admit there will be adverse economic impacts. But I refuse to believe it makes sense to maintain a force of 1.5 million able-bodied citizens who do absolutely nothing to contribute to the economy. They don’t make anything. They don’t provide any services that half their number couldn’t easily provide. They don’t have any economically useful skills.
As for our weapons manufacturers: They don’t provide stable, long-term employment. To be sure, whenever a new weapons system is developed, there is an uptick in hiring. But then come the layoffs after the job is done. Which means the newly-unemployed will (again) become a burden on society. Until, that is, the next round of weapons upgrading, which will (again) divert precious resources from better destinations.
Maintaining a bloated defense establishment makes as much sense as the government hiring millions of “workers” to pick up road side trash. If we really need to pay a lot of people to do nothing, all the while thinking that’s a high priority, we had better rethink what makes a good economy. And if redistribution of the wealth has to be part of that discussion, so be it.
Steven Searle for US President in 2012
Founder of The Independent Contractors’ Party
“All I’m asking is that we challenge our basic assumptions instead of marching like lemmings to the sea.”
Contact me at bpa_cinc@yahoo.com
No comments:
Post a Comment