So, McCain promises there will be more wars. I don’t know whether he has anything in mind or whether he is speaking generally. If the latter, it’s a stupid thing to say if you are running to lead a nation exhausted by war since we all know, as in the most basic "Duh!" sense, there will be more wars. It’s part of the human condition. If he has something specific in mind, e.g., where we will go next, he needs to be run out of town now lest we elect someone who comes into office wanting to be the chess master where our kids and siblings and parents are the seemingly-regenerating pawns.
Then, this morning, I wake to see Murtha writing over at Huffington Post. He discusses the cost of this war and the need to spend so many billions in order to get our military back to the level of readiness at which it should be, while paying for the continued costs of this war after it is finished, and the need to expand the size of our military. Meanwhile he takes a little dig at our allies and mentions all the other fiscal problems we have as something in passing.
Wake the fuck up!
We outspend the rest of the world combined in our military expenditures. Does that point to a possible solution to the problem? We arm countries that we know act in ways that destabilize their regions. Does that point to a possible solution? How big a percentage of the government budget is military – whether explicitly in DoD or not? Does that point to a possible solution?
Politicians cannot speak about reductions in the military without fellow party members, opposition party members, the "liberal" press, the punditry and consultants on either side of the aisle, and a majority of Americans accepting the propaganda storm as holy writ erupting in howls of absolutist derision.
Although this is not news to me as a father of a four-year old, the analogy is apt...
Imagine a kid of Pre-K age who sees fruits and vegetables on the kitchen counter. Next to that, the child sees a bag of candy. The parents are around but they cannot watch everything the child does every minute of every day. The parents have their rules in the home that the child can only have one piece of candy after lunch and one after dinner but can have as many pieces of fruit desired. The parents have not used their purported wisdom and authority to move the candy from the counter to a cabinet where the child cannot reach and where it will be out of the sight of the child... although the child will certainly know it is there. Is that child, knowing that the parents will not severely reprimand for such a breech of the rules, indeed they fear the fit to be thrown if the child is restricted from easy sugar, and with a body in need of energy that the body knows is much easier to come by in candy, going to refrain from taking candy? No. And why, after repeated violations and the child not getting the lesson of consistent half-hearted punishments, will the parents not move the candy to the cabinet? They fear the fit.
Now, anyone who wishes to become president wants power. They may not be power mad to the point of this desire overtaking common sense and legal restrictions. However, at heart, the individual wanting to become president is interested in the power that comes with that office because they want to use the authority inherent in that office to get things done that they think are priorities (for the country or for themselves or for their class matters not). Given the momentum with which the legislative titan moves at most times, the president wishes to find a way to get past the 4- or 8-year limit imposed on the office to accomplish those priorities within the power of that office without having to resort too much to the purported equal branch designed to set the priorities. The president has one tool at his/her disposal that usually beats the legislative into complete submission, even before it is used, and the latter has now seemingly accepted the power of this tool and accepted that submission is the precedent, even if only in the face of the threat of its use. It matters not that this tool is destructive of so much more than just the legal duty of the legislative and its lack of sparing use, despite its inefficiencies and indiscriminateness, has led to loathing and fear instead of respect for this country. Congress bows before the almighty, AKA war.
And as long as that tool is available, presidents will use it, i.e., until Congress takes it away or shows that it is no longer cowed by presidents so lacking in diplomacy, brainpower, creativity, credibility, and other powers of persuasion that they must use war to get what they want.
If we halved our military budget, I would imagine we could pay for a national health care system that would better serve our citizens, our businesses, and our future. And, it would eliminate the need for things like Medicare and Medicaid and SCHIP and CHIP programs. We’d probably still have money left over to pay for (re-)education of the non-executive workforce under 50 currently in the MIC who would lose jobs due to the cuts at the Pentagon. We could probably also pay for the full retirement package for those over 50 and, since they would now have full health care, their pensions will be worth that much more. We’d also have to work with the health insurance companies to (re-)educate their work force but I think this would easily be covered under the savings.
Or, we could let new taxes take care of health care (we’d probably all win in the end anyway since a national health care system will have such efficiencies that the taxes needed to collect for such a scheme will cost us less than we pay now to insurance companies) and use the money saved from MIC reductions to (re-)educate folks displaced by governmental sanity and pay down the massively towering debt at vastly accelerated rates and provide funding for entrepreneurs and research leading (or at least desiring to) the way to a greener/ cleaner future which may help employ the out of work mentioned above.
///
For those who claim it is anti-American, I will ask where in our Constitution does it say that we must be belligerent and militaristic? In fact, if the Second Amendment is read by the literate, it would seem to suggest that we weren’t meant to have a standing national military but rather state militias made up of gun-toting citizens that would coalesce at the call of the Commander in Chief under Congressional authority to do so. So, umm, do you want your guns or do you want a full-time, full-forced, professional military? You apparently can’t have both in this nation of laws, with the Constitution as the supreme law of the land, and if you decide on the latter we’ll need to amend the Constitution.
For those who say it sends the wrong signal to our enemies, I will ask why we might have so many dangerous enemies.
For those who say we will not be able to defend ourselves, I say you give too little credit to the flexibility of American entrepreneurship to meet needs in an emergency and too little credit to the American people who will be more than happy to take up arms to defend this country if truly threatened.
For those who say it will make us unable to defend interests overseas, I say that, at least until W, we had enough treaties and allies and sympathies that should a defense of overseas interests be truly warranted or an attack on someone else be necessary, we will have enough of a complement from others that we will have no problem doing what is necessary. I will also respond, Afghanistan v. Iraq... think about it, and note that perhaps our new moves towards a less aggressive stance will bring the former willing back into the fold.
For those who say the president has every right to defend this country with or without congressional approval, I will say that Congress has the ultimate role of deciding for the Executive what is a threat or not and the president’s committing troops into harms way should be one of the loudest alarm bells in Congress to ensure the necessity of an action that can kill, physically maim, and psychologically damage their constituents and their families.
For those who say that military service has educated, rehabilitated, and organized the lives of so many, I will say the money saved can be used to create or supplement programs currently available that do exactly the same thing without the potential for throwing lives into a destructive and potentially wrong effort. Furthermore, a halving of the military budget does not necessarily mean a halving of troop force but perhaps elimination of cold-war era relic weapons and systems or less focus on other high tech waste or base closings around the world or...or...or.
For those who say it is anti-military and pacifist dreaming, I will point out that I am the son of a 30-year man and that I attempted to join up myself. I will also state that a dream of peace when backed up with the power to defend forcefully when necessary is favorable to the dream of an individual in power to use the lives of others to consolidate that power. And, I will point out that there is nothing more anti-military or anti-service than sending troops into conflict for less than specifically defined reasons that point to a true threat to the well being of this country.
Any other ideas related to this are welcome below. Thank you if you’ve gotten this far.