Beijing-Kabul Express
Dexter Filkins, my favorite war correspondent, files a great report on Afghanistan’s President Karzai. Two incidents set the scene.
A foretaste of what would be in store for President Hamid Karzai after the election of a new American administration came last February, when Joseph R. Biden Jr., then a senator, sat down to a formal dinner at the palace during a visit here. Between platters of lamb and rice, Mr. Biden and two other American senators questioned Mr. Karzai about corruption in his government, which, by many estimates, is among the worst in the world. Mr. Karzai assured Mr. Biden and the other senators that there was no corruption at all and that, in any case, it was not his fault.
The senators gaped in astonishment. After 45 minutes, Mr. Biden threw down his napkin and stood up.
“This dinner is over,” Mr. Biden announced, according to one of the people in the room at the time. And the three senators walked out, long before the appointed time.
* * *
At a ceremony last month for the first graduates of Afghanistan’s National Military Academy, Mr. Karzai stood and addressed the assembled 84 cadets as well as a group of diplomats, including Mr. Wood. Mr. Karzai turned the occasion into a populist barnburner.
“I told America and the world to give us aircraft — otherwise we will get them from the other place!” Mr. Karzai roared, prompting applause. “I told them to give us the planes soon, that we have no more patience, and that we cannot get along without military aircraft!
“Give us the aircraft sooner or we will get them from the others!” Mr. Karzai roared again. “We told them to bring us tanks, too — otherwise we will get them from other place!”
Mr. Karzai never said what the “other place” was.
Karzai didn’t say, but Parag Khanna, author of The Second World: How Emerging Powers Are Redefining Global Competition in the Twenty-first Century
China’s long-term strategy is clear: It has become the largest investor in Afghanistan, developing highways to connect Iran and the giant Aynak copper mine south of Kabul. The Chinese have likewise financed the deep-water port at Gwadar on Pakistan’s Arabian Sea coast.
From the inception of this blog, I have made the argument that a American Mid East Policy would depend on our soft power–our financial and cultural resources, not our military might. China, with her $2 Trillion surplus from trade and savings is fully capable of deploying her financial clout in every capitol. Her cultural power is far less effective than ours could be (now that George Bush is back in Texas). The day we transfer one third of our military budget to the State Department for development aid, will be the day we understand that fact. As Khanna makes clear, even now we could reorder our miniscule Afghan aid budget.
Rather than spending the civilian portion of the $1.5 billion in promised annual assistance (as foreseen in the Pakistan Enhanced Partnership Act) on USAID’s usual roster of “beltway bandits,” Pakistani-led PRTs should be provided with the cash and supplies to hire thousands of local Pashtun to build roads, hospitals, and schools, and install power generators.
Both President Obama and Secretary Clinton talk about “Smart Power”. Let’s walk the walk.
China invests in infrastructure while we pour billions into occupation.
Europe invests in green energy while we pour billions into foreign oil.
If we don’t change things around in a big way, we’re doomed. What was the purpose in a merely military occupation of Afghanistan? The only plausible answer I can think of is to control and reap the rewards of the opium market.
China invests in infrastructure while we pour billions into occupation.
Europe invests in green energy while we pour billions into foreign oil.
If we don’t change things around in a big way, we’re doomed. What was the purpose in a merely military occupation of Afghanistan? The only plausible answer I can think of is to control and reap the rewards of the opium market.
“Let’s walk the walk.”
Oh, you little hoper you!
“Let’s walk the walk.”
Oh, you little hoper you!
I agree with this article, in that the US must be able to outperform China in our relationships overseas.
I agree with this article, in that the US must be able to outperform China in our relationships overseas.
Not sure what “hope” has to do with it JT. The fact is that we’re so over extended that other nations will emerge as much more dominant super powers and that is going to create some real dissonance for the American Exceptionalism crowd.
The notion that we are a nation of infinite resources seems less believable now than we want to accept. When we can’t even tax ourselves enough to take care of education and basic infrastructure needs I doubt others will see us having the political or monetary capital to be the Alpaha Dog to the rest of the world.
Like Russians after the breakup of the USSR, American’s have some harsh political realities to face, and hope isn’t going to be the word that matters. In fact, if we get too vested in hoping for a restoration of the old order and it proves impossible the risk becomes one of a genuine fascist style nationalistic movement taking root. And that will truly doom us.
American’s have lived with a self delusional belief in our own God given superiority for so long that the possibility of us turning into a rogue nation the rest of the world fears and unites to fight is not unimaginable. It’s important to keep that possibility in mind if we are to recognize and counter the rise of internal demagogues if they start to emerge.
And, if we are deep in a depression, unable to wave our “big stick” and unable to turn around constant assaults as a result of being seen as the “big bully” nation we shouldn’t be too surprised to see the rise of voices pushing “hope” in the form of militant nationalism as a way to restore the economy and the glory years.
We are still relevant on the world stage but we no longer can afford the illusion that we have the capital (political, economic or moral) to pretend we are in charge.
Not sure what “hope” has to do with it JT. The fact is that we’re so over extended that other nations will emerge as much more dominant super powers and that is going to create some real dissonance for the American Exceptionalism crowd.
The notion that we are a nation of infinite resources seems less believable now than we want to accept. When we can’t even tax ourselves enough to take care of education and basic infrastructure needs I doubt others will see us having the political or monetary capital to be the Alpaha Dog to the rest of the world.
Like Russians after the breakup of the USSR, American’s have some harsh political realities to face, and hope isn’t going to be the word that matters. In fact, if we get too vested in hoping for a restoration of the old order and it proves impossible the risk becomes one of a genuine fascist style nationalistic movement taking root. And that will truly doom us.
American’s have lived with a self delusional belief in our own God given superiority for so long that the possibility of us turning into a rogue nation the rest of the world fears and unites to fight is not unimaginable. It’s important to keep that possibility in mind if we are to recognize and counter the rise of internal demagogues if they start to emerge.
And, if we are deep in a depression, unable to wave our “big stick” and unable to turn around constant assaults as a result of being seen as the “big bully” nation we shouldn’t be too surprised to see the rise of voices pushing “hope” in the form of militant nationalism as a way to restore the economy and the glory years.
We are still relevant on the world stage but we no longer can afford the illusion that we have the capital (political, economic or moral) to pretend we are in charge.
The problem with “soft power” in Afghanistan, as the article illustrates, is that at the moment any economic aid will be used to prop up a corrupt, morally bankrupt leadership. The Chinese don’t particularly care about that, which is one of the things that gives them the edge (in addition to their ability to spend).
I completely agree with your thesis, Jon, if applied to other nations. Unfortunately, what we’re seeing here is the result of the decision to go into Afghanistan allied with people like General Dostrum. If you start off with a completely corrupt alliance, you end up with a completely corrupt government.
I think your thesis is well applied to places that have not already been poisoned by US support for corrupt regimes. Where that has already happened, it’s hard to make soft power work.
Not that I think the military alternative could work in Afghanistan. Unless it was used to turf the warlords from power and install a decent government.
Alas, that’s the stated objective of the Taliban.
I don’t have a better answer for Afghanistan. What a mess.
The problem with “soft power” in Afghanistan, as the article illustrates, is that at the moment any economic aid will be used to prop up a corrupt, morally bankrupt leadership. The Chinese don’t particularly care about that, which is one of the things that gives them the edge (in addition to their ability to spend).
I completely agree with your thesis, Jon, if applied to other nations. Unfortunately, what we’re seeing here is the result of the decision to go into Afghanistan allied with people like General Dostrum. If you start off with a completely corrupt alliance, you end up with a completely corrupt government.
I think your thesis is well applied to places that have not already been poisoned by US support for corrupt regimes. Where that has already happened, it’s hard to make soft power work.
Not that I think the military alternative could work in Afghanistan. Unless it was used to turf the warlords from power and install a decent government.
Alas, that’s the stated objective of the Taliban.
I don’t have a better answer for Afghanistan. What a mess.
“Outperform China in our relationships oversease.” Do I understand one suggestion to be that “we” give F-16s and attack helicopters and Abrams tanks and Hellfire missiles and all that to the s0-called “Afghan government?” To the so-called “Afghan Army?” As a way of maintaining “our” place in the Great Game of Risk? Because if “we” don’t, the “other place” will?
Does anyone who sees any part of this as anything other than another step on the slippery slope that glissades down into Hell, have anything other than their investments in Lockheed-Martin and Rockwell and Raytheon in mind?
Once again, I have to ask people who would like some clarity, albeit not intentional, on the “Afghan” situation, to take a few hours to read CIA guy Gary Schroen’s auto-panegyric book, “First In.” That book gives a pretty clear picture of what’s up in the place we insist on calling by a totally inaccurate collective noun, “Afghanistan.” And how policy-as-usual in dealing with the Dostrums and Karzais and even the mishmash we collectivize as “The Taliban” will not serve any healthy, survival-based, homeostatic interests of the US of A. Dealing with Karzai et al. seems to me a lot like dealing with the Capo di tutti Capi in the Mob (which doesn’t exist.)
“Outperform China in our relationships oversease.” Do I understand one suggestion to be that “we” give F-16s and attack helicopters and Abrams tanks and Hellfire missiles and all that to the s0-called “Afghan government?” To the so-called “Afghan Army?” As a way of maintaining “our” place in the Great Game of Risk? Because if “we” don’t, the “other place” will?
Does anyone who sees any part of this as anything other than another step on the slippery slope that glissades down into Hell, have anything other than their investments in Lockheed-Martin and Rockwell and Raytheon in mind?
Once again, I have to ask people who would like some clarity, albeit not intentional, on the “Afghan” situation, to take a few hours to read CIA guy Gary Schroen’s auto-panegyric book, “First In.” That book gives a pretty clear picture of what’s up in the place we insist on calling by a totally inaccurate collective noun, “Afghanistan.” And how policy-as-usual in dealing with the Dostrums and Karzais and even the mishmash we collectivize as “The Taliban” will not serve any healthy, survival-based, homeostatic interests of the US of A. Dealing with Karzai et al. seems to me a lot like dealing with the Capo di tutti Capi in the Mob (which doesn’t exist.)
Unfortunately, installing a decent government means establishing a stable system of governance, which includes division of power into independent branches, a free press, universal education, a resilient economy, enforceable property rights, respect for human rights, and so on.
Given that you’re dealing with a large number of illiterate, essentially medieval peasants – very few of whom have experienced life in socially cohesive groups any larger than their own tribes – this is quite a leap. And given that we regard the core of their economic life (opium cultivation) to be a crime, our differences are exceptionally profound.
Knocking out the Taliban for sheltering Al-Quaeda was probably as much as we could achieve. Given a global coalition dedicated to the cause of suppressing these radicals, we may have had a more lasting effect, had we acted more swiftly. But given the goodwill and resources squandered in Iraq by the previous administration, that opportunity is long gone. As is the opportunity we had following the Soviet’s demise. These are clocks we can’t turn back, and realities have changed.
Security is China’s problem now. If they want to invest resources there, they can be the ones to protect them. It makes no sense for us to police – for free – the country in which they’re trying to gain economic advantage.
Nor does it make any sense for us to compete for that advantage when our own standards keep us for operating on an equitable basis After all, are we going to start facilitating Iranian trade?
More broadly, I just don’t see how we could extract commensurate dividends from building roads and schools there when our own infrastructure is in such serious need of rejuvenation. Why not build roads and schools in Somalia, while we’re at it? Or Iraq, for that matter.
Our biggest concern should really be deflating the heroin market, as this is the lynch pin keeping some of the most undemocratic elements in place, while funneling ungodly amounts of cash into the hands of the most dangerous people alive.
(The real irony is that we’re trying to ‘reform’ their unenlightened system of government, while they’re profiting hand over fist from some of the least enlightened aspects of our own government.)
Of course, I’m enormously leery of decriminalization made without serious investments in the addiction treatment infrastructure happening first. So maybe that’s where we should start.
I realize it’s an ugly and depressing problem, but unlike military quagmires, serious advances in addiction education, management, and treatment can pay dividends in a wide range of areas domestically – most notably, with alcohol and gambling issues, which do far more harm to families than the relatively limited number of junkies out there.
This is the proper realm for medical science, state-level policy makers, and social services. In fact, given the complexities of the problem, and the range of factors that determine success, various state-level solutions seem to be an ideal way to experiment, and determine best practices for management.
In the meantime, we keep our military’s powder dry, so that we can maintain the credible threat that has always been the backbone of ‘good diplomacy’, instead of squandering it in regions that defy any engagement whatsoever.
The truth is, democracy develops far more swiftly when an economic base already exists. In terms of our own goals, it makes more sense to let the Chinese do the dirty work of getting Afghanistan from the 14th Century into the 19th. When they’re ready for the 20th, we can help.
In short, Biden got it exactly right; when confronted by a weasel like Karzai, all you can do is stand up and walk away. If he wants to do business with the Chinese, let him. Chances are, the terms won’t be nearly so good.
Unfortunately, installing a decent government means establishing a stable system of governance, which includes division of power into independent branches, a free press, universal education, a resilient economy, enforceable property rights, respect for human rights, and so on.
Given that you’re dealing with a large number of illiterate, essentially medieval peasants – very few of whom have experienced life in socially cohesive groups any larger than their own tribes – this is quite a leap. And given that we regard the core of their economic life (opium cultivation) to be a crime, our differences are exceptionally profound.
Knocking out the Taliban for sheltering Al-Quaeda was probably as much as we could achieve. Given a global coalition dedicated to the cause of suppressing these radicals, we may have had a more lasting effect, had we acted more swiftly. But given the goodwill and resources squandered in Iraq by the previous administration, that opportunity is long gone. As is the opportunity we had following the Soviet’s demise. These are clocks we can’t turn back, and realities have changed.
Security is China’s problem now. If they want to invest resources there, they can be the ones to protect them. It makes no sense for us to police – for free – the country in which they’re trying to gain economic advantage.
Nor does it make any sense for us to compete for that advantage when our own standards keep us for operating on an equitable basis After all, are we going to start facilitating Iranian trade?
More broadly, I just don’t see how we could extract commensurate dividends from building roads and schools there when our own infrastructure is in such serious need of rejuvenation. Why not build roads and schools in Somalia, while we’re at it? Or Iraq, for that matter.
Our biggest concern should really be deflating the heroin market, as this is the lynch pin keeping some of the most undemocratic elements in place, while funneling ungodly amounts of cash into the hands of the most dangerous people alive.
(The real irony is that we’re trying to ‘reform’ their unenlightened system of government, while they’re profiting hand over fist from some of the least enlightened aspects of our own government.)
Of course, I’m enormously leery of decriminalization made without serious investments in the addiction treatment infrastructure happening first. So maybe that’s where we should start.
I realize it’s an ugly and depressing problem, but unlike military quagmires, serious advances in addiction education, management, and treatment can pay dividends in a wide range of areas domestically – most notably, with alcohol and gambling issues, which do far more harm to families than the relatively limited number of junkies out there.
This is the proper realm for medical science, state-level policy makers, and social services. In fact, given the complexities of the problem, and the range of factors that determine success, various state-level solutions seem to be an ideal way to experiment, and determine best practices for management.
In the meantime, we keep our military’s powder dry, so that we can maintain the credible threat that has always been the backbone of ‘good diplomacy’, instead of squandering it in regions that defy any engagement whatsoever.
The truth is, democracy develops far more swiftly when an economic base already exists. In terms of our own goals, it makes more sense to let the Chinese do the dirty work of getting Afghanistan from the 14th Century into the 19th. When they’re ready for the 20th, we can help.
In short, Biden got it exactly right; when confronted by a weasel like Karzai, all you can do is stand up and walk away. If he wants to do business with the Chinese, let him. Chances are, the terms won’t be nearly so good.
On that note, why are we subsidizing security for Europe, with bases in Germany, Korea, with the DMZ, and so on?
More specifically, what credible threats do we face that couldn’t be addressed with a carrier group, and the cooperation of our allies with regard to airspace?
Given that 40% of the world’s population lives within 100km of a coastline, and that these people carry a disproportionate amount of economic influence, can’t we already project any necessary power where we like by sea alone?
And if things are truly dire, can’t we build temporary inland bases as needed by simply occupying whatever patch of land is called for, and delivering supplies by air?
Sun Tzu pointed out that no ruler had ever benefited from a protracted war. That was 2,000 years ago, but I’m not sure he’s been disproved since.
What am I missing?
On that note, why are we subsidizing security for Europe, with bases in Germany, Korea, with the DMZ, and so on?
More specifically, what credible threats do we face that couldn’t be addressed with a carrier group, and the cooperation of our allies with regard to airspace?
Given that 40% of the world’s population lives within 100km of a coastline, and that these people carry a disproportionate amount of economic influence, can’t we already project any necessary power where we like by sea alone?
And if things are truly dire, can’t we build temporary inland bases as needed by simply occupying whatever patch of land is called for, and delivering supplies by air?
Sun Tzu pointed out that no ruler had ever benefited from a protracted war. That was 2,000 years ago, but I’m not sure he’s been disproved since.
What am I missing?
On that note, why are we subsidizing security for Europe, with bases in Germany, Korea, with the DMZ, and so on?
More specifically, what credible threats do we face that couldn’t be addressed with a carrier group, and the cooperation of our allies with regard to airspace?
Given that 40% of the world’s population lives within 100km of a coastline, and that these people carry a disproportionate amount of economic influence, can’t we already project any necessary power where we like by sea alone?
And if things are truly dire, can’t we build temporary inland bases as needed by simply occupying whatever patch of land is called for, and delivering supplies by air?
Sun Tzu pointed out that no ruler had ever benefited from a protracted war. That was 2,000 years ago, but I’m not sure he’s been disproved since.
What am I missing?
>what credible threats do we face that >couldn’t be addressed with a carrier group
Carriers are not the force they once were, modern missiles are cheap and capable enough to make overwhelming the defences of naval forces foolish enough to come too close quite easy.
Not to mention the idea that standing off and beating people into to submission with airstrikes is thinking Jon is arguing would be better replaced with making friends and influencing people positively.
>what credible threats do we face that >couldn’t be addressed with a carrier group
Carriers are not the force they once were, modern missiles are cheap and capable enough to make overwhelming the defences of naval forces foolish enough to come too close quite easy.
Not to mention the idea that standing off and beating people into to submission with airstrikes is thinking Jon is arguing would be better replaced with making friends and influencing people positively.
>what credible threats do we face that >couldn’t be addressed with a carrier group
Carriers are not the force they once were, modern missiles are cheap and capable enough to make overwhelming the defences of naval forces foolish enough to come too close quite easy.
Not to mention the idea that standing off and beating people into to submission with airstrikes is thinking Jon is arguing would be better replaced with making friends and influencing people positively.
“No ruler had ever benefited from a protracted war.” Maybe up to the run-up to “1984,” with the stupendously expensive Sitzkrieg we called the Cold War. That kept a lot of “rulers” in beer and skittles for many decades, still does (see V-22, F-22, F-37, 13 carrier groups, Sgt. York DIVAD, all those new Rooskie and Chink weapon systems, etc., etc.), along with a set of business and political structures that if you diagram them out, kind of look like a glioma, a particularly nasty form of brain cancer with a very low survival rate.
And since the Cold War world view is so seductive and virulent and metastatic, it’s not too surprising that folks like Albert Camus could opine that “I do not give the human race more than one chance in a thousand.” But of course he went on, hopefully, “But I should not be a man if I did not operate on that one chance.”
Carrier groups: How many times does it have to be shown that Seversy’s wet dream of “air power” is actually a pipe dream? Kids blow the heads off frogs with fire crackers — some of them grow up to be Curtis Lemay, some Barack Obama. Blowing shit up is really neat — check out “Future Weapons” on your cable channels. But you don’t make a home for the Family of Man by equipping each member like a Gheg warrior.
“Project our power?” Has the ability to dump a bunker-buster or stick a Hellfire up some supposed bad guy’s ass or direct a “smart bomb” down the flue of some villager’s hearth done a damn bit of good for “us?” Making death HAS provided a number of us with a very good living (be sure to add YOUR voice,) including some nice retirement benefits and the right to keep subsidized shopping at the military Base and Post Exchanges and Commissaries. I gotta say that “our” ability to “project power” to attack or what was it Biden said, “prevent, not pre-empt” those “credible threats” too often proved to be made up by the MIC, has not done much for increasing humanity’s survival chances or the general well being of our culture or its own chances of success or survival. Anyone remember the chimerical “bomber gap,” “missile gap” or “window of vulnerability,” all of which were just bullshit made up to advance the MIC’s addictions to new toys and promotion of a world view that does nothing but encourage their opposite numbers on the other side of the “Iron or Bamboo or whatever Curtain” to keep trying to run up the down escalator.
And a number of our own wonks are less than convinced that US-style “democracy (sic)” is a disease the whole world ought to catch. It may be a nice catch phrase, “spreading freedom and democracy,” but that is most often a cover for good old “Realpolitik” as practiced by the sneaks and destabilizers and folks who are actually pushing some economic advantage for private interests. “Spreading Communism” as practiced in the Soviet or Chicom style hasn’t worked too well for those cultures either, last I looked.
As for “defending stuff,” let us remember that great proxy fight in Angola, where US-funded, -armed, -”trained” INSURGENTS attacked US multinational-owned mining interests that were in turn defended for many years by Soviet-sponsored CUBAN troops.
As to “squandering” stuff like opportunities and “good will,” has anyone paid any attention to PALLET-LOADS, as in the kind that fit in the bellies of C-5s and C-7s, stacked with hundreds of billions in US CASH, in $100 bills, that got flown by our MATS to Iraq, taken to loading docks, and then just “disappeared?” into the Fog of War, I guess. As one small example of how “business as usual” actually gets worked out in “spreading Democracy.” Like to the former Iraqi Secretary of Defense, who is jetting around the world in his own Gulfstream IV or some such, bought with money sucked out of the Noah’s Flood of American Real Wealth that’s gone forever into the “War on Terror.”
Keeping track? It’s enough to drive you crazy. And make you sink back into the lazy habits of thought that revolve around grand Zero-Sum games and slogans like “Spreading Democracy” and “projecting power” and “threat analysis” that are cute and quaint but that completely hide the detail as the tumors metastasize. Our leaders are like doctors who prescribe Vitamin C and Krebiozen to make the cancers go away.
“No ruler had ever benefited from a protracted war.” Maybe up to the run-up to “1984,” with the stupendously expensive Sitzkrieg we called the Cold War. That kept a lot of “rulers” in beer and skittles for many decades, still does (see V-22, F-22, F-37, 13 carrier groups, Sgt. York DIVAD, all those new Rooskie and Chink weapon systems, etc., etc.), along with a set of business and political structures that if you diagram them out, kind of look like a glioma, a particularly nasty form of brain cancer with a very low survival rate.
And since the Cold War world view is so seductive and virulent and metastatic, it’s not too surprising that folks like Albert Camus could opine that “I do not give the human race more than one chance in a thousand.” But of course he went on, hopefully, “But I should not be a man if I did not operate on that one chance.”
Carrier groups: How many times does it have to be shown that Seversy’s wet dream of “air power” is actually a pipe dream? Kids blow the heads off frogs with fire crackers — some of them grow up to be Curtis Lemay, some Barack Obama. Blowing shit up is really neat — check out “Future Weapons” on your cable channels. But you don’t make a home for the Family of Man by equipping each member like a Gheg warrior.
“Project our power?” Has the ability to dump a bunker-buster or stick a Hellfire up some supposed bad guy’s ass or direct a “smart bomb” down the flue of some villager’s hearth done a damn bit of good for “us?” Making death HAS provided a number of us with a very good living (be sure to add YOUR voice,) including some nice retirement benefits and the right to keep subsidized shopping at the military Base and Post Exchanges and Commissaries. I gotta say that “our” ability to “project power” to attack or what was it Biden said, “prevent, not pre-empt” those “credible threats” too often proved to be made up by the MIC, has not done much for increasing humanity’s survival chances or the general well being of our culture or its own chances of success or survival. Anyone remember the chimerical “bomber gap,” “missile gap” or “window of vulnerability,” all of which were just bullshit made up to advance the MIC’s addictions to new toys and promotion of a world view that does nothing but encourage their opposite numbers on the other side of the “Iron or Bamboo or whatever Curtain” to keep trying to run up the down escalator.
And a number of our own wonks are less than convinced that US-style “democracy (sic)” is a disease the whole world ought to catch. It may be a nice catch phrase, “spreading freedom and democracy,” but that is most often a cover for good old “Realpolitik” as practiced by the sneaks and destabilizers and folks who are actually pushing some economic advantage for private interests. “Spreading Communism” as practiced in the Soviet or Chicom style hasn’t worked too well for those cultures either, last I looked.
As for “defending stuff,” let us remember that great proxy fight in Angola, where US-funded, -armed, -”trained” INSURGENTS attacked US multinational-owned mining interests that were in turn defended for many years by Soviet-sponsored CUBAN troops.
As to “squandering” stuff like opportunities and “good will,” has anyone paid any attention to PALLET-LOADS, as in the kind that fit in the bellies of C-5s and C-7s, stacked with hundreds of billions in US CASH, in $100 bills, that got flown by our MATS to Iraq, taken to loading docks, and then just “disappeared?” into the Fog of War, I guess. As one small example of how “business as usual” actually gets worked out in “spreading Democracy.” Like to the former Iraqi Secretary of Defense, who is jetting around the world in his own Gulfstream IV or some such, bought with money sucked out of the Noah’s Flood of American Real Wealth that’s gone forever into the “War on Terror.”
Keeping track? It’s enough to drive you crazy. And make you sink back into the lazy habits of thought that revolve around grand Zero-Sum games and slogans like “Spreading Democracy” and “projecting power” and “threat analysis” that are cute and quaint but that completely hide the detail as the tumors metastasize. Our leaders are like doctors who prescribe Vitamin C and Krebiozen to make the cancers go away.
“No ruler had ever benefited from a protracted war.” Maybe up to the run-up to “1984,” with the stupendously expensive Sitzkrieg we called the Cold War. That kept a lot of “rulers” in beer and skittles for many decades, still does (see V-22, F-22, F-37, 13 carrier groups, Sgt. York DIVAD, all those new Rooskie and Chink weapon systems, etc., etc.), along with a set of business and political structures that if you diagram them out, kind of look like a glioma, a particularly nasty form of brain cancer with a very low survival rate.
And since the Cold War world view is so seductive and virulent and metastatic, it’s not too surprising that folks like Albert Camus could opine that “I do not give the human race more than one chance in a thousand.” But of course he went on, hopefully, “But I should not be a man if I did not operate on that one chance.”
Carrier groups: How many times does it have to be shown that Seversy’s wet dream of “air power” is actually a pipe dream? Kids blow the heads off frogs with fire crackers — some of them grow up to be Curtis Lemay, some Barack Obama. Blowing shit up is really neat — check out “Future Weapons” on your cable channels. But you don’t make a home for the Family of Man by equipping each member like a Gheg warrior.
“Project our power?” Has the ability to dump a bunker-buster or stick a Hellfire up some supposed bad guy’s ass or direct a “smart bomb” down the flue of some villager’s hearth done a damn bit of good for “us?” Making death HAS provided a number of us with a very good living (be sure to add YOUR voice,) including some nice retirement benefits and the right to keep subsidized shopping at the military Base and Post Exchanges and Commissaries. I gotta say that “our” ability to “project power” to attack or what was it Biden said, “prevent, not pre-empt” those “credible threats” too often proved to be made up by the MIC, has not done much for increasing humanity’s survival chances or the general well being of our culture or its own chances of success or survival. Anyone remember the chimerical “bomber gap,” “missile gap” or “window of vulnerability,” all of which were just bullshit made up to advance the MIC’s addictions to new toys and promotion of a world view that does nothing but encourage their opposite numbers on the other side of the “Iron or Bamboo or whatever Curtain” to keep trying to run up the down escalator.
And a number of our own wonks are less than convinced that US-style “democracy (sic)” is a disease the whole world ought to catch. It may be a nice catch phrase, “spreading freedom and democracy,” but that is most often a cover for good old “Realpolitik” as practiced by the sneaks and destabilizers and folks who are actually pushing some economic advantage for private interests. “Spreading Communism” as practiced in the Soviet or Chicom style hasn’t worked too well for those cultures either, last I looked.
As for “defending stuff,” let us remember that great proxy fight in Angola, where US-funded, -armed, -”trained” INSURGENTS attacked US multinational-owned mining interests that were in turn defended for many years by Soviet-sponsored CUBAN troops.
As to “squandering” stuff like opportunities and “good will,” has anyone paid any attention to PALLET-LOADS, as in the kind that fit in the bellies of C-5s and C-7s, stacked with hundreds of billions in US CASH, in $100 bills, that got flown by our MATS to Iraq, taken to loading docks, and then just “disappeared?” into the Fog of War, I guess. As one small example of how “business as usual” actually gets worked out in “spreading Democracy.” Like to the former Iraqi Secretary of Defense, who is jetting around the world in his own Gulfstream IV or some such, bought with money sucked out of the Noah’s Flood of American Real Wealth that’s gone forever into the “War on Terror.”
Keeping track? It’s enough to drive you crazy. And make you sink back into the lazy habits of thought that revolve around grand Zero-Sum games and slogans like “Spreading Democracy” and “projecting power” and “threat analysis” that are cute and quaint but that completely hide the detail as the tumors metastasize. Our leaders are like doctors who prescribe Vitamin C and Krebiozen to make the cancers go away.
“Security is China’s problem now. If they want to invest resources there, they can be the ones to protect them. It makes no sense for us to police – for free – the country in which they’re trying to gain economic advantage.”
Sometimes the more cynical side of me wonders if a deal has been struck: China continues to pump excess capital into our economy, and we continue to police Afghanistan and look the other way while they do whatever it is they do.
“Security is China’s problem now. If they want to invest resources there, they can be the ones to protect them. It makes no sense for us to police – for free – the country in which they’re trying to gain economic advantage.”
Sometimes the more cynical side of me wonders if a deal has been struck: China continues to pump excess capital into our economy, and we continue to police Afghanistan and look the other way while they do whatever it is they do.
How does a nation or government apply “soft power”? To what? To what end?
How does a nation or government apply “soft power”? To what? To what end?
Maybe with rubber bullets?
What ever happened to that old crap about “leading by example?” Probably got lost while wandering around in that “Shining City on the Hill.”
Maybe with rubber bullets?
What ever happened to that old crap about “leading by example?” Probably got lost while wandering around in that “Shining City on the Hill.”
Yea, JTMcP, we certainly showed them an example of what our democratic capitalizm can do for them.
Yea, JTMcP, we certainly showed them an example of what our democratic capitalizm can do for them.
Yea, JTMcP, we certainly showed them an example of what our democratic capitalizm can do for them.
Infrastructure means jobs. Jobs mean food and fatigue. One disipates anger, the other disipates time, eroding the roots of extremism. Will Chinese backed jobs help lessen extremism toward the West?
Infrastructure means jobs. Jobs mean food and fatigue. One disipates anger, the other disipates time, eroding the roots of extremism. Will Chinese backed jobs help lessen extremism toward the West?
Infrastructure means jobs. Jobs mean food and fatigue. One disipates anger, the other disipates time, eroding the roots of extremism. Will Chinese backed jobs help lessen extremism toward the West?
Wow JT, I really poked a stick in it.
Fentex raised a good point about the vulnerability of ships, but if there’s a good place for fancy missile defense, that seems to be it.
My larger point was actually about a de-escalation, and winding down our commitments. This may be too simplistic a line of thought, but if the role played by our permanent bases was abandoned in favor of a more mobile floating force, it seems that we’d introduce a measure of flexibility to our operations that permanent bases don’t offer.
When I was growing up, I had a very fierce cat that was the terror of birds and squirrels and rabbits throughout the neighborhood. But as he got older, he left the house less often, for progressively shorter periods, and gave up attacking dogs altogether. Eventually he retired to a sunbeam that he’d follow across the kitchen, with the day’s biggest burst of activity reserved for dinner at five.
Given that the Cold War went on for some 40 years, I can understand how the MIC would have a hard time letting go overnight. But it’s been more than 20 years since we faced a credible threat to our national security (I’m sorry, but there’s absolutely no comparison between 9/11 and, say, the Cuban Missile Crisis).
The biggest problem I see with the MIC, in terms of economic recovery, is that while they may create a lot of jobs, those jobs don’t result in a product that anyone else can make further use of. Unlike a highway system, a broadband infrastructure, or even an insurance program for loss of earnings, the only benefit is jobs, and the consumption level of the people who have them.
Some would say that national security is a benefit that we can build on, but that’s true only to a point. When we spend more on our military than the rest of the world combined, it’s safe to say that a major reduction (say, 80%) would not only leave us with a bigger budget than China and Russia combined (forgetting, for a moment, that neither poses a credible threat to our territorial integrity), it would pay for the entire bailout before the next Presidential election, and leave us with a $2 trillion surplus by 2016.
That’s assuming we didn’t any more on the bailout than we’re currently spending. That’s not going to happen. And more importantly, it’s not like the Army is going to go get jobs at retail – especially with retail evaporating. But there’s a major job to be done in terms of our national infrastructure. And unlike money poured into secret fighter jets and DMZ’s, this is stuff on top of which people without Beltway connections can actually capitalize.
I realize that this is a trillion dollar version of the swords into plows argument, but isn’t it about time? You know, not letting a good crisis go to waste, and all that.
Now that the figure “$700 Billion” has achieved a place in the forefront of the national consciousness, it’s worth noting that that’s slightly less than what our military costs us every single year.
One good thing about this crisis is that it may (finally) put that eye-popping sum into terms that people can finally grasp.
Wow JT, I really poked a stick in it.
Fentex raised a good point about the vulnerability of ships, but if there’s a good place for fancy missile defense, that seems to be it.
My larger point was actually about a de-escalation, and winding down our commitments. This may be too simplistic a line of thought, but if the role played by our permanent bases was abandoned in favor of a more mobile floating force, it seems that we’d introduce a measure of flexibility to our operations that permanent bases don’t offer.
When I was growing up, I had a very fierce cat that was the terror of birds and squirrels and rabbits throughout the neighborhood. But as he got older, he left the house less often, for progressively shorter periods, and gave up attacking dogs altogether. Eventually he retired to a sunbeam that he’d follow across the kitchen, with the day’s biggest burst of activity reserved for dinner at five.
Given that the Cold War went on for some 40 years, I can understand how the MIC would have a hard time letting go overnight. But it’s been more than 20 years since we faced a credible threat to our national security (I’m sorry, but there’s absolutely no comparison between 9/11 and, say, the Cuban Missile Crisis).
The biggest problem I see with the MIC, in terms of economic recovery, is that while they may create a lot of jobs, those jobs don’t result in a product that anyone else can make further use of. Unlike a highway system, a broadband infrastructure, or even an insurance program for loss of earnings, the only benefit is jobs, and the consumption level of the people who have them.
Some would say that national security is a benefit that we can build on, but that’s true only to a point. When we spend more on our military than the rest of the world combined, it’s safe to say that a major reduction (say, 80%) would not only leave us with a bigger budget than China and Russia combined (forgetting, for a moment, that neither poses a credible threat to our territorial integrity), it would pay for the entire bailout before the next Presidential election, and leave us with a $2 trillion surplus by 2016.
That’s assuming we didn’t any more on the bailout than we’re currently spending. That’s not going to happen. And more importantly, it’s not like the Army is going to go get jobs at retail – especially with retail evaporating. But there’s a major job to be done in terms of our national infrastructure. And unlike money poured into secret fighter jets and DMZ’s, this is stuff on top of which people without Beltway connections can actually capitalize.
I realize that this is a trillion dollar version of the swords into plows argument, but isn’t it about time? You know, not letting a good crisis go to waste, and all that.
Now that the figure “$700 Billion” has achieved a place in the forefront of the national consciousness, it’s worth noting that that’s slightly less than what our military costs us every single year.
One good thing about this crisis is that it may (finally) put that eye-popping sum into terms that people can finally grasp.
Wow JT, I really poked a stick in it.
Fentex raised a good point about the vulnerability of ships, but if there’s a good place for fancy missile defense, that seems to be it.
My larger point was actually about a de-escalation, and winding down our commitments. This may be too simplistic a line of thought, but if the role played by our permanent bases was abandoned in favor of a more mobile floating force, it seems that we’d introduce a measure of flexibility to our operations that permanent bases don’t offer.
When I was growing up, I had a very fierce cat that was the terror of birds and squirrels and rabbits throughout the neighborhood. But as he got older, he left the house less often, for progressively shorter periods, and gave up attacking dogs altogether. Eventually he retired to a sunbeam that he’d follow across the kitchen, with the day’s biggest burst of activity reserved for dinner at five.
Given that the Cold War went on for some 40 years, I can understand how the MIC would have a hard time letting go overnight. But it’s been more than 20 years since we faced a credible threat to our national security (I’m sorry, but there’s absolutely no comparison between 9/11 and, say, the Cuban Missile Crisis).
The biggest problem I see with the MIC, in terms of economic recovery, is that while they may create a lot of jobs, those jobs don’t result in a product that anyone else can make further use of. Unlike a highway system, a broadband infrastructure, or even an insurance program for loss of earnings, the only benefit is jobs, and the consumption level of the people who have them.
Some would say that national security is a benefit that we can build on, but that’s true only to a point. When we spend more on our military than the rest of the world combined, it’s safe to say that a major reduction (say, 80%) would not only leave us with a bigger budget than China and Russia combined (forgetting, for a moment, that neither poses a credible threat to our territorial integrity), it would pay for the entire bailout before the next Presidential election, and leave us with a $2 trillion surplus by 2016.
That’s assuming we didn’t any more on the bailout than we’re currently spending. That’s not going to happen. And more importantly, it’s not like the Army is going to go get jobs at retail – especially with retail evaporating. But there’s a major job to be done in terms of our national infrastructure. And unlike money poured into secret fighter jets and DMZ’s, this is stuff on top of which people without Beltway connections can actually capitalize.
I realize that this is a trillion dollar version of the swords into plows argument, but isn’t it about time? You know, not letting a good crisis go to waste, and all that.
Now that the figure “$700 Billion” has achieved a place in the forefront of the national consciousness, it’s worth noting that that’s slightly less than what our military costs us every single year.
One good thing about this crisis is that it may (finally) put that eye-popping sum into terms that people can finally grasp.
My god! Look, this is from the CIA factbook on Afganistan:
Afghanistan is extremely poor, landlocked, and highly dependent on foreign aid, agriculture, and trade with neighboring countries. Much of the population continues to suffer from shortages of housing, clean water, electricity, medical care, and jobs. Criminality, insecurity, and the Afghan Government’s inability to extend rule of law to all parts of the country pose challenges to future economic growth. It will probably take the remainder of the decade and continuing donor aid and attention to significantly raise Afghanistan’s living standards from its current level, among the lowest in the world.
Get the picture? Like Bob Dylan says, “When you got nothin’, you got nothin’ to loose.”
That being said, how does America compete in foreign relations against the Chinese who have the advantages of being closer, having money (somewhat less these days, I should think) to invest, and generally a fairly stable government with a longer term world view they we’ve had for decades? Imagine how much cheaper it would be to just pay off the war lords? Imagine just buying the opium to convert to medical needs. It’d be a hell of lot cheaper than our current operation, and I can about guarantee that fewer people would die.
My god! Look, this is from the CIA factbook on Afganistan:
Afghanistan is extremely poor, landlocked, and highly dependent on foreign aid, agriculture, and trade with neighboring countries. Much of the population continues to suffer from shortages of housing, clean water, electricity, medical care, and jobs. Criminality, insecurity, and the Afghan Government’s inability to extend rule of law to all parts of the country pose challenges to future economic growth. It will probably take the remainder of the decade and continuing donor aid and attention to significantly raise Afghanistan’s living standards from its current level, among the lowest in the world.
Get the picture? Like Bob Dylan says, “When you got nothin’, you got nothin’ to loose.”
That being said, how does America compete in foreign relations against the Chinese who have the advantages of being closer, having money (somewhat less these days, I should think) to invest, and generally a fairly stable government with a longer term world view they we’ve had for decades? Imagine how much cheaper it would be to just pay off the war lords? Imagine just buying the opium to convert to medical needs. It’d be a hell of lot cheaper than our current operation, and I can about guarantee that fewer people would die.
Sid, “we” are already paying off the warlords, “we” just haven’t been able to get our white Judeo-Christian CIA guys to figure out how to get it across to the “Taliban” warlords. See the recent article on one wise CIA guy figuring out that a warlord could be bought, or at least rented, for a handful of Viagra pills.
Alex, “national security” is one of those weird phrases that morphs in the mouth of the speaker. How does killing the families of Pashtun warriors who get their shootin’ kicks with one or another of these groups, tirbes, what have you increase “national security?” Are you bored and have some Webtime to waste? Want to revisit some of the great thoughts and strategies and tactics and doctrines of yore? spend some hours going through these sources from 2001 (remember way back then?)
How does selling and shipping more weapons, big and small, all over the planet, and holding the top spot in such weapons sales, contribute to “national security?” Is “national security” what it takes to be absolutely sure that no foreign national with bad intentionis crosses any of our borders? Does “national security” come from dumping a major fraction of the nation’s budget into stupid but really keen zoomie-wow weapon systems like the F-22 (about $200 million EACH) and F-37 (about way more than $200 million each) and Bradley Fighting Vehicles and all those carrier task groups at say, $70 billion with all weapons and supporting vessels? So what is that “national security that is a benefit we can build on?” I don’t see it at all.
My guess is that the $700 billion is an accounting understatement. It hardly covers the “black budget” or what it costs to deal with the damaged GIs or pay to clean up via more sensible policies and actions the messes that the military necessarily makes. Or what the lost “opportunity cost” of all that money is, so the folks on the gravy train can keep riding.
Oh well, as the young people say (I think they still say it, anyway), “What-ever!”
Sid, “we” are already paying off the warlords, “we” just haven’t been able to get our white Judeo-Christian CIA guys to figure out how to get it across to the “Taliban” warlords. See the recent article on one wise CIA guy figuring out that a warlord could be bought, or at least rented, for a handful of Viagra pills.
Alex, “national security” is one of those weird phrases that morphs in the mouth of the speaker. How does killing the families of Pashtun warriors who get their shootin’ kicks with one or another of these groups, tirbes, what have you increase “national security?” Are you bored and have some Webtime to waste? Want to revisit some of the great thoughts and strategies and tactics and doctrines of yore? spend some hours going through these sources from 2001 (remember way back then?)
How does selling and shipping more weapons, big and small, all over the planet, and holding the top spot in such weapons sales, contribute to “national security?” Is “national security” what it takes to be absolutely sure that no foreign national with bad intentionis crosses any of our borders? Does “national security” come from dumping a major fraction of the nation’s budget into stupid but really keen zoomie-wow weapon systems like the F-22 (about $200 million EACH) and F-37 (about way more than $200 million each) and Bradley Fighting Vehicles and all those carrier task groups at say, $70 billion with all weapons and supporting vessels? So what is that “national security that is a benefit we can build on?” I don’t see it at all.
My guess is that the $700 billion is an accounting understatement. It hardly covers the “black budget” or what it costs to deal with the damaged GIs or pay to clean up via more sensible policies and actions the messes that the military necessarily makes. Or what the lost “opportunity cost” of all that money is, so the folks on the gravy train can keep riding.
Oh well, as the young people say (I think they still say it, anyway), “What-ever!”
Sid, “we” are already paying off the warlords, “we” just haven’t been able to get our white Judeo-Christian CIA guys to figure out how to get it across to the “Taliban” warlords. See the recent article on one wise CIA guy figuring out that a warlord could be bought, or at least rented, for a handful of Viagra pills.
Alex, “national security” is one of those weird phrases that morphs in the mouth of the speaker. How does killing the families of Pashtun warriors who get their shootin’ kicks with one or another of these groups, tirbes, what have you increase “national security?” Are you bored and have some Webtime to waste? Want to revisit some of the great thoughts and strategies and tactics and doctrines of yore? spend some hours going through these sources from 2001 (remember way back then?)
How does selling and shipping more weapons, big and small, all over the planet, and holding the top spot in such weapons sales, contribute to “national security?” Is “national security” what it takes to be absolutely sure that no foreign national with bad intentionis crosses any of our borders? Does “national security” come from dumping a major fraction of the nation’s budget into stupid but really keen zoomie-wow weapon systems like the F-22 (about $200 million EACH) and F-37 (about way more than $200 million each) and Bradley Fighting Vehicles and all those carrier task groups at say, $70 billion with all weapons and supporting vessels? So what is that “national security that is a benefit we can build on?” I don’t see it at all.
My guess is that the $700 billion is an accounting understatement. It hardly covers the “black budget” or what it costs to deal with the damaged GIs or pay to clean up via more sensible policies and actions the messes that the military necessarily makes. Or what the lost “opportunity cost” of all that money is, so the folks on the gravy train can keep riding.
Oh well, as the young people say (I think they still say it, anyway), “What-ever!”
JTM – I think you may have missed my point. I’m not advocating for any of what we’re doing anywhere in the Middle East (or in Germany, Korea, and who knows where else, for that matter). Quite the contrary. We seem to be getting a rotten ROI.
In fact, I was thinking that we have an enormous amount of money going into a very unproductive place. As in bailout-size enormous. Tax cuts are clearly ill-advised, but with incomes dropping, and the need for individual savings suddenly spiking, the idea of tax increases seems very unpalatable as well.
Instead, I’m suggesting we cash in, say, 50% of our military, redirecting some $350 billion per year into a new energy infrastructure that will reduce dependence on oil in general (foreign or otherwise) instead of sending troops into the god-forsaken corners of the world like Afghanistan, where the per capita income hovers around $730 per year (about 1.5% of American’s – whatever else this place may be, a nascent democracy it’s not.)
ABout that 50% – easier said than done, I know, which is why it seems important to start questioning how ‘critical’ it is for us to be to vastly overpowered in the military sphere, at the expense of so much else that’s frankly, far more valuable. Not to mention, essential. Also, profitable for the country in general, and not just a few, well-connected beltway bandits.
So do take another look. I think you’ll find we’re saying the same thing.
JTM – I think you may have missed my point. I’m not advocating for any of what we’re doing anywhere in the Middle East (or in Germany, Korea, and who knows where else, for that matter). Quite the contrary. We seem to be getting a rotten ROI.
In fact, I was thinking that we have an enormous amount of money going into a very unproductive place. As in bailout-size enormous. Tax cuts are clearly ill-advised, but with incomes dropping, and the need for individual savings suddenly spiking, the idea of tax increases seems very unpalatable as well.
Instead, I’m suggesting we cash in, say, 50% of our military, redirecting some $350 billion per year into a new energy infrastructure that will reduce dependence on oil in general (foreign or otherwise) instead of sending troops into the god-forsaken corners of the world like Afghanistan, where the per capita income hovers around $730 per year (about 1.5% of American’s – whatever else this place may be, a nascent democracy it’s not.)
ABout that 50% – easier said than done, I know, which is why it seems important to start questioning how ‘critical’ it is for us to be to vastly overpowered in the military sphere, at the expense of so much else that’s frankly, far more valuable. Not to mention, essential. Also, profitable for the country in general, and not just a few, well-connected beltway bandits.
So do take another look. I think you’ll find we’re saying the same thing.
JTM – I think you may have missed my point. I’m not advocating for any of what we’re doing anywhere in the Middle East (or in Germany, Korea, and who knows where else, for that matter). Quite the contrary. We seem to be getting a rotten ROI.
In fact, I was thinking that we have an enormous amount of money going into a very unproductive place. As in bailout-size enormous. Tax cuts are clearly ill-advised, but with incomes dropping, and the need for individual savings suddenly spiking, the idea of tax increases seems very unpalatable as well.
Instead, I’m suggesting we cash in, say, 50% of our military, redirecting some $350 billion per year into a new energy infrastructure that will reduce dependence on oil in general (foreign or otherwise) instead of sending troops into the god-forsaken corners of the world like Afghanistan, where the per capita income hovers around $730 per year (about 1.5% of American’s – whatever else this place may be, a nascent democracy it’s not.)
ABout that 50% – easier said than done, I know, which is why it seems important to start questioning how ‘critical’ it is for us to be to vastly overpowered in the military sphere, at the expense of so much else that’s frankly, far more valuable. Not to mention, essential. Also, profitable for the country in general, and not just a few, well-connected beltway bandits.
So do take another look. I think you’ll find we’re saying the same thing.
Alex, we are really on the same page. “Defense” spending is largely just wealth transfer on a huge scale, with, as you point out, a pretty crappy ROI. I would say that the ROI is actually a huge negative number, but that’s just a guess from trying to integrate in my untutored economic mind the costs and the costs (hard to find benefits) of “military spending.”
My frustrated idiot’s notion that we can do better leads me to think in sarcasm and irony and all those other ugly tropes, which comes across when I write and obviously clouds my message.
The bit about “national security” was just an effort to point out, as so many others have fruitlessly done, what a chimera the phrase is, and how those who profit from scaring the ignorant and uninformed rest of us have so easily been able to spout the phrase as justification for every kind of theft and abuse and futility.
Ever since the incoming Cold Warriors had the inspiration in 1949 to change the name of the entity from “War Department” to “Department of Defense,” they have been able to skim the nation’s wealth and real security so a few hot dogs can fly hot jets, admirals have more carriers with paneled wardrooms and servants to fly their personal flags from, and war gamers have ever more complex “battle space” and now “space battle” toys to play with. And so us “real patriots” who subscribe to Popular Mechanics can get a buzz off the cover stories of V-F-22-37-tanks-Fighting Vehicles zipping across the landscape and spitting fire from every orifice. The PR coup of the century, in my mind. Because after all, what sane person could be against “defense?”
You got any sense that there will be any redirection of the flood of Real Wealth out of the path to perdition it currently follows and into some more productive ventures? I see from the new administration that military programs are not likely looking at any significant “de-funding.” How do we get the managers of weapons design and procurement invested in, oh, say, solar or wind technology or other ways to address and reduce the human footprint on the health of Planet Earth? That kind of stuff is so much less exciting than deadly Multiple Kill Vehicles and deep penetration bombs and fuel-air explosives and nanotechnology and biotechnology weapons that actually kill people rather than just make their lives a little easier and kinder.
Alex, we are really on the same page. “Defense” spending is largely just wealth transfer on a huge scale, with, as you point out, a pretty crappy ROI. I would say that the ROI is actually a huge negative number, but that’s just a guess from trying to integrate in my untutored economic mind the costs and the costs (hard to find benefits) of “military spending.”
My frustrated idiot’s notion that we can do better leads me to think in sarcasm and irony and all those other ugly tropes, which comes across when I write and obviously clouds my message.
The bit about “national security” was just an effort to point out, as so many others have fruitlessly done, what a chimera the phrase is, and how those who profit from scaring the ignorant and uninformed rest of us have so easily been able to spout the phrase as justification for every kind of theft and abuse and futility.
Ever since the incoming Cold Warriors had the inspiration in 1949 to change the name of the entity from “War Department” to “Department of Defense,” they have been able to skim the nation’s wealth and real security so a few hot dogs can fly hot jets, admirals have more carriers with paneled wardrooms and servants to fly their personal flags from, and war gamers have ever more complex “battle space” and now “space battle” toys to play with. And so us “real patriots” who subscribe to Popular Mechanics can get a buzz off the cover stories of V-F-22-37-tanks-Fighting Vehicles zipping across the landscape and spitting fire from every orifice. The PR coup of the century, in my mind. Because after all, what sane person could be against “defense?”
You got any sense that there will be any redirection of the flood of Real Wealth out of the path to perdition it currently follows and into some more productive ventures? I see from the new administration that military programs are not likely looking at any significant “de-funding.” How do we get the managers of weapons design and procurement invested in, oh, say, solar or wind technology or other ways to address and reduce the human footprint on the health of Planet Earth? That kind of stuff is so much less exciting than deadly Multiple Kill Vehicles and deep penetration bombs and fuel-air explosives and nanotechnology and biotechnology weapons that actually kill people rather than just make their lives a little easier and kinder.
Alex, we are really on the same page. “Defense” spending is largely just wealth transfer on a huge scale, with, as you point out, a pretty crappy ROI. I would say that the ROI is actually a huge negative number, but that’s just a guess from trying to integrate in my untutored economic mind the costs and the costs (hard to find benefits) of “military spending.”
My frustrated idiot’s notion that we can do better leads me to think in sarcasm and irony and all those other ugly tropes, which comes across when I write and obviously clouds my message.
The bit about “national security” was just an effort to point out, as so many others have fruitlessly done, what a chimera the phrase is, and how those who profit from scaring the ignorant and uninformed rest of us have so easily been able to spout the phrase as justification for every kind of theft and abuse and futility.
Ever since the incoming Cold Warriors had the inspiration in 1949 to change the name of the entity from “War Department” to “Department of Defense,” they have been able to skim the nation’s wealth and real security so a few hot dogs can fly hot jets, admirals have more carriers with paneled wardrooms and servants to fly their personal flags from, and war gamers have ever more complex “battle space” and now “space battle” toys to play with. And so us “real patriots” who subscribe to Popular Mechanics can get a buzz off the cover stories of V-F-22-37-tanks-Fighting Vehicles zipping across the landscape and spitting fire from every orifice. The PR coup of the century, in my mind. Because after all, what sane person could be against “defense?”
You got any sense that there will be any redirection of the flood of Real Wealth out of the path to perdition it currently follows and into some more productive ventures? I see from the new administration that military programs are not likely looking at any significant “de-funding.” How do we get the managers of weapons design and procurement invested in, oh, say, solar or wind technology or other ways to address and reduce the human footprint on the health of Planet Earth? That kind of stuff is so much less exciting than deadly Multiple Kill Vehicles and deep penetration bombs and fuel-air explosives and nanotechnology and biotechnology weapons that actually kill people rather than just make their lives a little easier and kinder.