Policing the World
We could save a lot of money if America adopted a policy designed for defense rather than policing the world.
With an election approaching and at least some Americans upset about irresponsible spending, the president has finally expressed a political interest in cutting something. He says the Pentagon will spend "only" $525 billion next year. That's slightly less than the current $531 billion.
A cut is good, but this will barely dent the deficit. We could save much more if America assumed a military policy designed for defense rather than policing the world.
Presidential candidate Ron Paul gets criticized for advocating that. Paul's opponents, including many of my colleagues, complain about his "isolationist foreign policy."
But shrinking the military's role isn't the same as isolation. America can have a huge impact in the world without deploying our military. We already do. By all means, let our movies and music alarm mullahs. Let our websites and books disseminate ideas that autocrats consider dangerous. Above all, let's trade with everyone.
It's said that when goods don't cross borders, armies will. There's plenty of evidence to support that. A report funded by European governments says armed conflict in Muslim countries is far lower today than it was two decades ago. A reason? Trade.
Richard Cobden, a 19th-century British liberal statesman, said, "The progress of freedom depends more upon the maintenance of peace, the spread of commerce and the diffusion of education than upon the labors of Cabinets or foreign offices."
I agree. American music and consumer goods did more to bring down the Berlin Wall than our military did.
Ron Paul doesn't say that we shouldn't defend ourselves. He supported our retaliation in Afghanistan after 9/11. He says if we are attacked, or clearly threatened with attack, America should fight. That's defense. That's different from policing the world.
Today, America spends more on the military than we did when Russia threatened us with missiles. That's irrational. And we can't afford it.
Still, I am uncomfortable writing about defense. I'm surrounded by smart people who say America needs to spend more on the military. Some studied war for years. I haven't. My instinct is to believe the hawks.
Except, I covered markets. I watched government try to improve on them. Doing that, I learned that government doesn't do anything well. Why would that be different for military policy?
It isn't. In 2004, the U.S. military sent $12 billion in shrink-wrapped $100 bills to Iraq. That money disappeared. We don't know what happened to it. The U.S. official in charge said there was so much cash flying around his office that the staff called the packages "footballs" and threw passes to one another.
There is no cure for military inefficiency any more than there's a cure for waste at the post office. The point is that we should rely on government central planning as little as possible.
Today, some people want the military to contain China, chase terrorists, train foreign militaries to chase terrorists, protect sea lanes, keep oil cheap, stop genocide, protect foreign states from aggression, spread goodwill through humanitarian missions, respond to natural disasters, secure the Internet, police the Mexican border and transform failed states into democracies.
Politicians have a hard time saying no to such noble-sounding goals. But the list is endless, which is part of the problem.
Transforming states—nation-building—is the worst form of central planning.
Running for president 11 years ago, George W. Bush called for a "humble" foreign policy and said, "I don't think that our troops ought to be used for nation-building." Yet four years later, he was nation-building in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Candidate Bush, rather than President Bush, had the right idea. We have tried to build a working democracy in Afghanistan for more than 10 years now. Have we won hearts and minds? No. A recent poll of Afghans found just 43 percent had a favorable impression of the United States, way down from 83 percent in 2005.
Nations are too complex for outsiders to "build." Nations are organic bottom-up things. Saying no to nation-building is not isolationism.
Ron Paul is in good company when he says an interventionist foreign policy makes enemies and provokes danger to ourselves. It's time we stopped confusing defense with policing the world.
COPYRIGHT 2012 BY JFS PRODUCTIONS, INC.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
fsirt
aslway
lsat
Dcouhe
cared
Except, I covered markets. I watched government try to improve on them. Doing that, I learned that government doesn’t do anything well. Why would that be different for military policy?
That’s awfully retarded logic there, Mr. Stossel.
I hate it when I hit “submit” before getting to the main point of my post, too.
Or was that all you actually had to offer?
Let’s see. I observed A acting on B. I observed A failing in its every effort to improve B. Asked to evaluate A’s prospects for improving C, I am left asking what other factors might improve A’s performance that were not present in its attempts with B.
This logic is retarded because we sucked in statism at mommy’s tits?
Politicians have a hard time saying no to such noble-sounding goals. But the list is endless, which is part of the problem.
And that’s a big part of the problem–too many people take the Clausewitzian notion of war as a continuation of policy and triumph of the will, and apply that idea to the interpretation that the military should be used as a tool to enforce whatever geo-political hobbyhorse they happen to be obsessed with. The idea that a military should be limited to a Swiss-style defense force never even enters their minds.
The idea that a military should be limited to a Swiss-style defense force never even enters their minds.
ftfy
But but but we’re Americans?!
We invented For Your Own Good?, Good Intentions?, and Bomb You Till You Love Us?!!!!!
FUCK YEAH!
“Today, some people want the military to contain China, chase terrorists, train foreign militaries to chase terrorists, protect sea lanes, keep oil cheap, stop genocide, protect foreign states from aggression, spread goodwill through humanitarian missions, respond to natural disasters, secure the Internet, police the Mexican border and transform failed states into democracies.”
You left out ” shoot down asteroids”.
What about “Stop the Cyber-Terrorists”
oops, missed that secure the internet
DEVELOP GREEN ENERGY!
SPUTNIK MOMENT!
Round up dissident Americans?
Round up their body parts, maybe.
“I agree. American music and consumer goods did more to bring down the Berlin Wall than our military did.”
This is very true, but consider that that wall would not have been there in the first place had it not been for our military. That wall represented the place where we stopped them and held the line with guns, not records. Our culture is very persuasive, yes, but sometimes people are not in the mood to be persuaded.
Were it not for our military, all of korea would be like north korea. It is a hard choice to make; stand by and watch genocide because it isnt our business, or send our sons and daughters off to fix someone else’s problems.
The “its to stop genocide” is pure nonsense, America went to Korea and all the other places to protect its interests (whether they were real or imagined).
The excuses used to justify war in Iran are frankly pathetic, sadly they seem to work, gullibility is something that is never in short supply.
Interests vs genocide: why can’t it be both?
Because the United States has never once prevented a genocide and has never once pretended to be interested in stopping one.
It is rumored that we may have had a hand in stopping one little incidence of genocide that took place in europe back in the forties…..
Maybe a couple taking place in asia around the same time….
Oh? We prevented the Holocaust, the killing fields of Cambodia, the North VC from invading South VC? I should buy a new textbook.
I was only commenting on our motivations regarding the Korean war.
Hitler and Himmler certainly would have continued with their ‘final solution’ if the war hadn’t gotten in the way.
And whose to say that the US wouldn’t have left them to it if war hadn’t gotten in the way? I seem to remember being bombed into the war.
Too bad for africa that they don’t have anything to offer the US or are any kind of threat, otherwise we might have stepped in when genocide was going down (the UN isn’t the same thing).
You didn’t prevent the fkn Holocaust. Millions of Jews, gypsies, homosexuals and gypsies died. You didn’t prevent jack shit.
The past actions did not stop genocide. As for the future, if there is a sincere interest to stop genocide, write it into the US constitution then.
I don’t think that the constitution lists acceptable reasons for war. So as long as congress declares war, genocide interventions would be fine constitutionally.
True, and frankly, I prefer it that way. We aren’t going to give up all our overseas bases, it isn’t gonna happen, real politik demands otherwise. However, we could stand to give up most of them and not be the worse for wear. And Iraq and Afgahnistan need to end, whatever our goals were we either accomplished them or we didn’t and staying any longer isn’t going to change that.
I have an idea, if South Koreans for example wants to defend themselves from “genocidal” North Koreans then they should do and pay for it themselves. After all they only spend around 2% GDP on defense while the US spends more then 4% GDP on defense much of which does not even defend the US. South Korea also has twice the population of North Korea and much more then ten times the economy of North Korea.
But instead the US taxpayer gets stuck with the bill for defending South Korea and the South Koreans take the money they saved on defense and out competes US business and labor.
The South Korean military budget is larger, much larger, than the North’s entire economy. The NORKs’ most “cutting edge” military gear is Soviet tech from the early 1960s. The ROK army is not the tiny force of panicky conscripts it was in 1950.
The common belief while I was stationed over there was that we were there as much to keep the South Koreans from going north as to keep the North Koreans from coming south. It’s all about not antagonizing China enough to start a shooting war. North Korea is China’s buffer state and they would consider the ROK attacking as a sign that we were encouraging anti-China aggression. Plus, China has historically been very aggressive about military and security matters involving adjoining nations.
I can see that Ucrawford. The NOK has repeatedly done things that should have resulted in war, remember the shelling of a South Korean fishing village on an island not too long ago? The only reason a war hasn’t erupted, and believe me the Koreans are an intense people, is probably US pressure.
Quick history…
The U.S. went to war in Korea primarily as part of a considered containment strategy to keep Stalin from expanding his influence and destabilizing Japan (where we had rebuilt a government that helped us maintain a presence in that region). Kim il-Sung was basically Stalin’s proxy in the region. While you can argue for or against the merits of containment (I tended to agree with it as a wise alternative to direct conflict with the USSR), I do agree the war exceeded its scope. So did Truman, who fired MacArthur in large part because his unwillingness to follow orders brought the Red Chinese into the war. Truman stated that the goal of the war was never to “free” the North Korean people or to spread democracy…it was only to contain Soviet ambitions in that region to prevent a Soviet threat to our shores. Which to me seemed a rather prudent policy, considering the information they had available to them at the time.
I’m all for bringing back the majority of troops in Europe, since there are no significant threats to our country from that region, as well as from most other areas of the world. You could even make a case for removing them all from the Middle East (I’d be in favor). Outside of the Western Hemisphere, I think the only threats our military should be concerned with are of the potentially existential variety (currently China). Realizing that this view possibly comes into conflict with mainstream libertarian belief, I still support our focus on the Pacific Rim area only because China has indicated they might be a potential military threat to us, but otherwise I don’t see the logic in most of what we do elsewhere utilizing our military.
I’ like you in this respect Crawford. I am not against military containment towards China in the Pacific Rim, and frankly the balance of power favors us over the Chinese given our dispersion of naval assets and relationshs with the south east asian nations. Ultimately I am not against the use of military force, provided that it is used in our best interests. Supporting Europe and continuing the conflicts in the Mideast at this point and time do not do so.
I’m not I
Then who are you?
I lol’d.
I sympathize but disagree. I don’t consider China a threat but rather Iran and maybe SA/Pakistan a threat. Small threats, but nonetheless. Also, NORK is too dangerous.
You are really paranoid.
China can’t do jack shit to us and their economy is a bubble.
Look at the Euro-zone if you need to educate yourself on what bubbles look like. All this hysteria over China is senseless imo.
“Were it not for our military, all of korea would be like north korea. It is a hard choice to make; stand by and watch genocide because it isnt our business, or send our sons and daughters off to fix someone else’s problems.
What courage and conviction it takes for 535 jackoffs to send everyone else’s 19 year-olds to kill or be killed in a foreign country, regardless of their will.
Why, they should be awarded some type of fucking medal for their service and patriotism.
True, the majority of them are spineless, despicable cowards.
True, we have not stopped all of the bad things that have gone on or are going on. We act in our own interest, which is a good thing.
I am merely acknowledging that we have probably done more good than anyone else, and the world is mostly a better place for what we have done. Think of Clemens’s little quip – ” America is the worst country, except for all the others.”
I am not advocating that we be all things to all people, but allowing the cancerous growth of tyranny in the world is far more costly and dangerous.
“but allowing the cancerous growth of tyranny in the world is far more costly and dangerous.”
Fine. A few friends of mine are Marine Corps recruiters. I can hook you up if you want their info. They’ll be more than happy to sign you the fuck up in the 03 field, since we’re having a hard time with retaining quality Marines in that field for some reason.
I did my bit decades ago.
I am afraid your friends would laugh you out of the recruiter’s office if you showed up there and presented me for signing up.
Where and when? curious.
“”since we’re having a hard time with retaining quality Marines in that field for some reason.””
They were throwing a crap load of money at my cousin to re-up, and he did twice.
Perhaps 03s are figuring out the mission is fubar.
For the record, I was an 0351 in the eighties.
did my time as a POG. 7251/0121. Felt like shit for some friends that spent 3/4 of their enlistment overseas. They offered 10k to reenlist in any field back several years ago, and we got stuck with a bunch of dipshit senior NCO’s that couldn’t lead their way out of a paper bag. Then again, I guess that’s what throwing money at a problem gets you.
“”Then again, I guess that’s what throwing money at a problem gets you.””
Indeed. That seems to be the government’s answer for many problems. It’s easy to throw money around when it’s not yours.
Same here. 0311 FTW.
88-94
salty
Aye. I was also an 8151 on a couple carriers. Yeah, reenlistment was never really an option for me. Lul
We agree that tyranny as a general rule is bad, i.e. the opposite of liberty. Then I say look to thine own ass first. If these other countries need help, here is a novel idea, LET THEM ASK. And then weigh that request on a cost benefit scale before finally proposing it to the American public as a request from congress for a declaration of war.
I really don’t like to see the suffering of others either, and our slogan used to be ‘Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to be free’. I lament how far we’ve fallen into fear and self loathing as a nation.
We used to be a nation of individuals where your accomplishments and rewards were yours to keep. Can we still make that claim, not just in a relative sense but as an objective fact?
“I am merely acknowledging that we have probably done more good than anyone else, ”
Fkn spare me.
The government isn’t smart enough to know when to intervene, and not intervene.
That’s why Libertarians believe in limited government. Give your money to a charity or NGO or whatever, the US government can not save the world.
Yes, and that kinda ticks me off.
I have a buddy who was a U.N. peacekeeper in Haiti. The stories he tells about it are unbelievable. The U.N. is worse than worthless.
So now, not only are we footing the bill for our own military, but the biggest part of the U.N. peacekeepers who do nothing.
but the biggest part of the bill for the U.N. peacekeepers who do nothing.
oops
yup
Well, they manage to get themselves killed once in a while. And openly seek local pussy/young boys which is a no-no in Moslem countries.
On the right side of my page is a cynegenics ad showing some old guy with his shirt off who looks like he has his old head pasted onto one of those old hard-body g.i. joe dolls. He also appears to have his body hair shaved.
Does anyone else find that extremely creepy?
That’s a Ron Paul ad?
It’s the new Eliot Spitzer doll.
The return of Carpet Humping Man?
I love add blocking plugins.
I need one….I will never be able to un-see that.
*shudders*
google “adblock”
Bet Tony likes it…
AmERikuh, fuck yeah!
Coming again, to save the mother fucking day yeah,
Surprise Cockbag!
MANIFEST DENSITY, BITCHES!
Wait…
Politicians have a hard time saying no to such noble-sounding goals. But the list is endless, which is part of the problem a feature, not a bug, for the little warmongering bastards.
FIFY
What is happening to America today is similar to what happened in Japan with their junior officers, the war movement took on a life of its own and now seems impossible to halt.
The only hope to stop the world being engulfed in a conflagration is that the economic realties will force the US army to be shrunk.
What a bunch of complete bullshit. You no absolute nothing about our military or its people.
The military budget is $525 billion, that is more than enough to know what is going on. There is zero justification for such costs, other than to a sustain global war machine that has obtained a life of its own.
Please spare me the “heroic” soldier soldier stories, the fact is the army is out of control and danger to word peace.
Everyone wants word peace.
You no absolute nothing about our military or its people.
Know way.
That’s a no-know.
And neither do you.
Sounds like you’ve got a pretty shitty opinion of the people who didn’t have a choice in the matter.
“the fact is the army U.S. Government is out of control and danger to word peace.”
The army does not act of its own accord, jackass.
The state cannot exist without an army, so when I say the army is out of control it pretty much implies the government.
One thing our government is good at is mission creep.
The TSA for example.
You implied that junior officers are influencing policy towards war and are somehow profiting from the war.
They aren’t setting themselves up as warrior kings in Afghanistan and they don’t have a thing to do with policy.
Here is an example of how junior officers are treated.
http://washingtonexaminer.com/…..nt/2127401
I fail to see how a story about soldier being judged correctly/incorrectly has anything to do with the big picture. The Japanese more than likely disciplined soldiers who broke the rules as well. That does not mean that the movement for the support of endless war was not strong and created an ever expanding and ever more foreign engaging army.
Call me a conspiracy nut if want, but the military industrial complex is real, a budget that huge cannot be argued away.
“The Japanese more than likely disciplined soldiers who broke the rules as well.”
HAHAHAHAHAHAAAAA!!!
“The state cannot exist without an army, so when I say the army is out of control it pretty much implies the government.”
Really?
“Please spare me the “heroic” soldier soldier stories,”
Except for the part where you’re pretty clear where your beef is.
Tell me when the government asks people to pay taxes, do they do it by asking nicely ?
I can also read 100 years old stories about “heroic” British soldiers fighting in Sudan, real heroes bravely mowing down the natives with their advanced weapons. Those heroic soldiers fighting in Iraq, we all know that they are saving the world for freedom, if not for them, why the world would be enslaved by Saddams goons right now.
“Tell me when the government asks people to pay taxes, do they do it by asking nicely ?”
Missing the point I was making about your comment, more specifically: “so when I say the army is out of control it pretty much implies the government”
“I can also read 100 years old stories about “heroic” British soldiers fighting in Sudan”
Sweet analogy bro. U.S. forces in Iraq = smug English racists mowing down natives armed with spears.
That chip on your shoulder should be with the assholes sending our armies overseas, not the guys persuaded into signing up.
Actually, those guys were heroic, and mostly kids who had little choice but to mow them down. Most of the mow’ees deserved it as well.
If you zero-IQ jarheads stopped signing up, there’s be no army left to murder women and children overseas, would there?
Maybe you count that as a loss, I don’t know.
You’re not off the hook, war mongoloid.
“If you zero-IQ jarheads stopped signing up, there’s be no army left to murder women and children overseas, would there?”
I don’t know, go ask congress and selective services, stupid fuck. Now go finish those posters you were going to wave around at Westboro.
Dude I don’t give a shit about the war stories, it is time to stop wasting resources on pointless wars.
Ettiquette would suggest something less confrontational or blamepinning, like “MIC” or “shitbirds who are running this country into the ground”.
I know that you have an unparalleled record of killing women and children.
You poor, poor ignorant troll..
It isn’t. In 2004, the U.S. military sent $12 billion in shrink-wrapped $100 bills to Iraq. That money disappeared. We don’t know what happened to it.
Deficits didn’t matter then.
Shriek , they TOTALLY addressed this in “The A Team” movie with Liam Neeson.
Hint: IT WAS AN INSIDE JOB!!!111!
I thought George Clooney stole it?
We dont know what happened to it the same way you dont know what happened to that ten-spot you gave to a wine-o on the street yesterday.
Deficits only mattered then.
“”That money disappeared. We don’t know what happened to it.”‘
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/…..-bank.html
Pwnage. I swear these war-mongers don’t understand.
I wondered how my buddy retired as an E-5 and bought a new house.
“but this will barely dent the deficit”
Abolishing the $525 billion DOD would barely dent the $1.6 Trillion deficit. There is room for some savings, but not a lot. This is a side show, and the Obama Administration is suggesting cuts in ridiculous ways that will never make it through Congress.
The only way to control the deficit is to reform “entitlements.”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v…..e=youtu.be
Reform entitlements….
Have you ever tried to take heroin away from a junkie?
Only after he ODed.
“”The only way to control the deficit is to reform “entitlements.””
The entitlements we give to foreign governments would be a good start.
Sadly even that wouldn’t make a huge dent. The simple fact is we need to make drastic custs everywhere.
Yes.
FYI – this week the CBO forecast a $1.1 trillion deficit. Still too large but a bit lower than prior years.
Abolishing the $525 billion, would, by simple math, reduce the $1.6 trillion deficit to ~$1.1 trillion. That’s nearly a 33% decrease. If that’s your idea of “barely dent”, you are never borrowing my truck.
It is fucking laughable that you could say that with a straight face. There is no reason whatsoever that we couldn’t cut military spending back to 2000 levels.
Yes, in constant dollars I agree. I said there was room for savings. Obama is proposing an Army a third smaller than 2000.
Ok, neocon.
Buddy we are going bankrupt fast, and you should get voluntary donations for your cause if you care that much.
So old ladies with their hands out are hte problem, but spending $1M per bullet is not?
You’re seriously fucked in the head.
In principle, I agree.
However, before WWII Europe did nothing to oppose Hitler’s rise to power. And then after he was entrenched and had a good foothold we had to sacrifice our soldiers and wealth to bail them out. Had Hitler been dealt with earlier, the war might have been avoided and untold lives spared.
Are we prepared to retreat to our borders and stand by as nation after nation around the world falls to tyranny? Which is what will happen once dictators realize no one will stop them.
Exactly. Knocking bullies off of their feet before they can take a run at you is a cost effective strategy in many ways.
The trick is in knowing which bullies will be taking a run at you.
What does that matter when they want another bully that doesn’t like you.
^^^^THIS^^^^^
I’ll see your Hitler and raise you Saddam Hussein…
“”Are we prepared to retreat to our borders and stand by as nation after nation around the world falls to tyranny?””
You get the government you deserve.
If the French isn’t willing to fund a military to keep the Hitler’s at bay, why should we?
Perhaps you would be friendly to the UN taxing all the nations and giving that money to us since we supply their defense.
Good thought, bad example. The French military – on paper at least, was bigger and better funded than Wehrmacht in 1939.
Yes they were. They had ten times as many mounted cavalry as the germans had tanks. How could they lose?
They had French Generals – the Germans had German Generals.
If the French is unwilling or uncapable of having quality officers, should we fight their war?
Better example OS?
The problem France had was that they had planned their next war to be like their last. They built impressive static fortifications that made their country nearly impregnable. However, the Germans took their blitzkreig concept and did something unusual, they bypassed the magniot lines through avenues not thought to be passable.
French troops can fight well and win when not led by Frenchmen. Napoleon was from Corsica. Joan of Arc was French, but lacked a Y chromosome.
“French Generals”
Ok that one has me rolling…..Ha!
For sale:
50,000 French rifles. Never fired. Dropped once.
Got some ARVIN rifles, same condition…
Are we prepared to retreat to our borders and stand by as nation after nation around the world falls to tyranny?
I am.
Most of those nations “falling” to tyranny are merely changing out the tyrant-in-charge, for starters.
“”Most of those nations “falling” to tyranny are merely changing out the tyrant-in-charge, for starters.””
There’s a pretty robust history of that.
And bailing on Vietnam didn’t turn out so bad in the long run.
Vietnam is the perfect example of warmongering hypocrisy.
I say we become the world’s arms dealer. To make it fair, we sale to both sides and encourage them to use the weapons often.
Also, if some whack job starts taking over the world, why do we care if they still trade with us? I think pissed off people without iPads will keep the dictators in check.
yep.. armed, polite neighbors. That would be in America’s best interest.
Currently, we are fighting for Islamists to have the freedom to elect Islamists. In the long term, that’s not going to be a win.
We supported Libyan “freedom” fighters and look who’s taking over.
How did our 80’s Lebanon adventure turn out? Our siding with Sadam in the Iran/Iraq war. Our siding with Afghanistan in the Russian/Afghan war.
We don’t need to be isolationist, but we certainly don’t need to be the world’s police.
Iran was contained and Afghanistan turned out as well as could be expected (Soviets lost). Fewer interventions, not none.
“”Afghanistan turned out as well as could be expected “”
As it is again.
The world is not stuck in 1940’s mode, alas many Americans still think so. Perhaps you should look closer to home about tyranny before believing that America is on some endless crusade in the name of freedom.
Freedom is the willingness to have a fullbody scan to see the Superbowl.
I’ll submit to a fullbody scan as soon as they let me submit the cheerleaders to a fullbody scan.
The update is that they are believed to be metal detectors.
That’s Alex Jones for ya.
If the USA had stayed out of WWI then Hitler would most likely never have risen to power. Also, if the USA(Commodore Perry) had never forced the Japanese to open up to western trade. Japan wouldn’t have been developed enough to bomb Pearl Habor 90 years later. Whenever the USA uses coercion to obtain foreign policy goals it is going to create unforseeable blowback.
The first point may be true. The scond most definetly not. Japan attacked the US because we put economic sanctions on their nation, specifically oil embargos. This hurt their China war effort so they had to find oil elsewhere. They looked to the Dutch East Indies but feared that if they did not control the Phillipines that the US would be able to interdict their supply lines.
Ultimately many wars are fought for strategic positioning. WWI was fought because the Germans were unsure of their position in the world order. They were the strongest power in Europe, but the least secure when it came to their borders. (Their nation sits on the northern european plane and there are few natural defenses between them and their old nemises the Russians.) In a situation like that war will develop. That is why we fought a war with Mexico, to increase our territory to enlarge the buffer between our most important port city, New Orleans, from the nearest foreign power. The war between Japan and the US was inevitable. Japan was a rising pacific sea power, the US an established one. We tried containment with them, via economic sanctions, and they repsonded with war.
In my opinion, to avoid WWII, it would have taken only one battle involving strong French action in the Saarland. Pretty unlikely scenario.
but they were le tired
:Are we prepared to retreat to our borders and stand by as nation after nation around the world falls to tyranny? :
YOu’re right. if we don’t invade Ireland right fkn now, the Catholics will be in charge in no time.
Fkn war mongoloids. What is it with you AMericans. Is is genetic to want to murder non-Americans. It’s a pathology. Seriously, seek help.
The instinct to defer to the military experts is unsound.
Sort of like believing a warden or any other member of the prison industrial complex who says that continuing the drug war is essential for the survival of the republic.
We had a war on poverty that took alcoholics out of rooms with bad plumbing and into cardboard boxes and dumpsters.
Now we have a war on people who follow a 7th Century book, but it is not a war against the religion of peace.
By all means, let our movies and music alarm mullahs. Let our websites and books disseminate ideas that autocrats consider dangerous. Above all, let’s trade with everyone.
I propose a Porn of Peace initiative. If the Taliban just had better access to movies on double penetration and bukkake parties they’d be jumping on the American bandwagon in a heartbeat.
Now there is an idea I can endorse!
Trouble is, the Taliban is already doing all of that stuff and more, they dont need to see it in a movie.
Yeah but their doing it to little boys not their women. Maybe they just need some instructional videos or a few copies of “Joy of Sex” to let them know that their doing it wrong. Other than that, I think the rest of the world could still benefit from some of America’s high quality porn (none of that home made amateur quality crap).
Are you saying I make bad movies??
I meant crap in the nicest of terms.
“”a few copies of “Joy of Sex”””
And since they are not fans of shaving, they will really dig the pics.
Yeah, but we want to show them Democracy in action.
It’s two beefy guys and one girl voting on what to do for the afternoon. And the vote is unanimous.
“”If the Taliban just had better access to movies on double penetration and bukkake parties””
If only Bin Laden shared his stash.
I hear that Saddam’s sons had a pretty extensive collection too. Seeing as they have no use for it anymore, maybe it could be donated to the cause.
Or used for an art museum installation.
Q4 2011 campaign contribution figures are in, US military still overwhelmingly supports Ron Paul.
http://www.opensecrets.org/new…..-paul.html
I can understand that some poor soldier fighting and risking his life for some pointless war in Afghanistan would support someone who promises to bring him home. The corporations supplying weapons to the government, not so much. It is obvious which one would have more influence with the government.
Considering how long our troops have been occupying that country, anyone who is over there knew what they were getting into.
Yep. Unfortunately, prolonged wars like this have a tendency to royally fuck up any chance of conformity most combat veterans have in the civilian sector. By the time I got out, OIF had been going on about six years.
I thank God I decided to do something else with my life.
“Are we prepared to retreat to our borders and stand by as nation after nation around the world falls to tyranny?”
Yes. Nice appeal to emotion though.
“Are we prepared to retreat to our borders and stand by as nation after nation around the world falls to tyranny?”
No. We will force the world into our concept of tyr… liberty.
Ron Paul and His Enemies
Sometimes I think our country is like an old prize fighter looking over scrapbooks of his prime, winning WW2. We want to see those happy crowds greeting our liberating troops, when all the world loved us. The greatest nation on earth.
Oh yes, those were the days.
I’m all for people bombing or not bombing whoever they like. I only ask that they use your own money to do it.
I guess that’s too much to ask.
*their own
(the fucking preview doesn’t work right when you don’t use it)
An edit feature would be better. Give us a minute or two for corrections and submission remorse.
Conservatives and libertarians recognize that liberals have an incomplete, inaccurate view of a market economy. They see risk and thus want govt to mitigate that risk, but they don’t look far enough to see cause and effect. We recognize that when govt intervenes in the market, negative unintended consequences occur and that when govt intercedes to fix a problem, it often creates more problems that are often worse than the original. We understand, as counterintuitive as it might seem, that by neither having govt regulating every risk nor bailing out and aiding specific companies, the market can actually be a more safe and productive entity.
So why is it so unthinkable that govt intervention in the affairs of foreign countries creates negative unintended consequences? Why is it considered “crazy” to say that when govt intercedes in countries around the world to solve problems, that new problems are created (often worse than the original) by our very intercession? Just consider, could it be, as Ron Paul declares, that as counterintuitive as it might seem to some, that by removing our military presence and interventions (both public and covert) from around the world, and simply focusing our attention and resources on strong *defensive* measures, that we could actually be more safe?
So it’s me, my next-door neighbor Bill, and his next-door neighbor Alex, all out working on the same jobsite. Bill’s okay, but I can’t stand Alex; however, he’s a damn fine plumber, and we three often end up doing work for the same outfits. When I said I can’t stand Alex, well, the feeling is mutual; he can’t stand me either, and he likes to talk big. Lately, though, his talk has been crossing some lines. Something set him off today, and he’s saying about how if I don’t watch it, he’s going to burn down my pole barn (good luck with that, idiot).
I am pretty sure the escalation of his behavior has had nothing to do with the .50 BMG that Bill lets me keep on his property, pointed at Alex’s house. After all, I wouldn’t need that, if Alex didn’t keep running at the mouth and scaring my wife and kids. And if all this weren’t enough, now he’s talking about getting his own .50.
I’ll tell you, the nerve of some people!
Who the ef are you?! Get your own handle!
It’s not my fault you’ve got a generic name, blame your parents!
I’m all for no longer being Team America: World Police. But we’ve been that for a very long time, for better or for worse, and we’ve pissed an awful lot of people off in the process, some of which now would love nothing more than to see us on our knees. How much can we feasibly scale back our national defense and yet maintain enough of a defense posture to be able to respond to (or better yet, thwart) an attack by some of those enemies? If we start pulling out of our forward operating bases in Europe, Asia, etc., will that potentially be viewed as “retreat” by the likes of Iran or al-Quaida, and will it invite an attack as a result?
It’s an awesome dream, but is it remotely feasible after the global damage we’ve done?
Closing foreign bases does not equate to scaling back our national defense. In fact, quite the contrary. If we simply bring those people back here, the money we put into them goes back into OUR economy (as opposed to the military paying rent and food and entertainment and etc. into the German economy, for instance); OUR borders get more watching; our supply lines shorten immensely; our fuel costs drop immensely; Our coasts are now guarded by many more warships, ready to deploy (park ’em, don’t scuttle ’em) against threats to US instead of to someone else, and we still have 100% of the military power we had before, except it’s to our benefit instead of someone else’s. Oh, and our soldiers get to live in a country that doesn’t hate them. That might be worth something too.
Imagine how much we’d save on our fuel bill in Afghanistan, at $400.00 per gallon.
But it includes delivery
Step 1: Declare victory
Step 2: Go home
Step 3: Watch our so-called allies beg for our help and realize they miss us spending all of our money on their defense.
Step 4: Profit!
“”will that potentially be viewed as “retreat” by the likes of Iran or al-Quaida, and will it invite an attack as a result?””
Who cares what they think. AQ is already calling our Iraq withdraw a victory. Doesn’t that mean we need to go back in to prove them wrong?
Those countries have their own responsibility to prevent terrorist attacks.
The crime rate is dropping because many of those who are “violence oriented” are outside CONUS. If we stopped the war on drugs, we could at least have a little peace in America. We get to get fucked up and won’t care and the warmongers go abroad for fun and profit. It’s win-win, but it might not break even. We could then somewhat plausibly say that we have liberty in America.
By accepting a little 1984 we could have Brave New World.
Defense Spending http://bit.ly/hNKDG6
Fighting Illegal Immigration http://bit.ly/oBuTUd
Nikola has come to us fresh from her home in the Czech Republic. When we say fresh, that’s exactly what we mean.
She is as refreshing as a light breeze at dawn. 18 year old Nikola has a fragile charm. She manages to be both mysterious and na?ve at the same time. This is a rare quality. Her photo assignments with us are the first major ones she has undertaken. Until now she has concentrated on her studies at a business academy. Very recently that she has come to see that her beauty is as much of an asset as her intelligence. Gradually she is becoming aware of how powerful her sexual aura is. She is looking forward to exploring it.
Nikola is like a new-born colt. Awkward and stumbling at first, it quickly becomes a graceful and powerful creature that is full of passion. Nikola will be transformed. We can watch the amazing process unfold.
1. Realities of futility
If one examines socialist realism, one is faced with a choice: either reject dialectic narrative or conclude that truth is capable of significant form, given that Sontag’s analysis of Marxist socialism is invalid. But the premise of socialist realism states that art is used to reinforce archaic, sexist perceptions of class.
Geoffrey[1] implies that we have to choose between Marxist socialism and Lacanist obscurity. However, the example of the neoconstructive paradigm of expression intrinsic to Smith’s Clerks emerges again in Dogma, although in a more mythopoetical sense.
The subject is interpolated into a Marxist socialism that includes reality as a whole. Therefore, in Chasing Amy, Smith affirms postdeconstructive patriarchialist theory; in Dogma he reiterates the neoconstructive paradigm of expression.
Foucault uses the term ‘subcapitalist theory’ to denote the absurdity of structuralist sexual identity. However, if the neoconstructive paradigm of expression holds, we have to choose between socialist realism and neosemiotic feminism.
2. The neoconstructive paradigm of expression and cultural discourse
“Society is meaningless,” says Debord. Drucker[2] holds that the works of Smith are not postmodern. But any number of materialisms concerning presemanticist deconstructive theory may be found.
Foucault’s essay on socialist realism suggests that expression must come from the collective unconscious. However, Sontag uses the term ‘the neoconstructive paradigm of expression’ to denote the difference between narrativity and class.
Lacan suggests the use of cultural discourse to challenge the status quo. Thus, a number of theories concerning not, in fact, discourse, but subdiscourse exist.
3. Discourses of dialectic
The main theme of the works of Joyce is the common ground between sexual identity and language. The neoconstructive paradigm of expression states that consciousness may be used to marginalize the Other. In a sense, the subject is contextualised into a socialist realism that includes culture as a reality.
“Sexual identity is fundamentally elitist,” says Sontag; however, according to Humphrey[3] , it is not so much sexual identity that is fundamentally elitist, but rather the economy, and eventually the collapse, of sexual identity. Baudrillard uses the term ‘the capitalist paradigm of expression’ to denote not theory, as Marx would have it, but posttheory. Therefore, if cultural discourse holds, we have to choose between socialist realism and predialectic discourse.
In Dubliners, Joyce denies capitalist posttextual theory; in Finnegan’s Wake, however, he deconstructs socialist realism. It could be said that the primary theme of Tilton’s[4] model of cultural discourse is the difference between class and society.
An abundance of deappropriations concerning the neoconstructive paradigm of expression may be revealed. However, the main theme of the works of Joyce is a self-fulfilling whole.
The premise of socialist realism suggests that the purpose of the reader is social comment, but only if art is interchangeable with language; if that is not the case, Sartre’s model of the neoconstructive paradigm of expression is one of “premodernist conceptual theory”, and thus part of the futility of reality. In a sense, Lyotard promotes the use of posttextual narrative to analyse sexual identity.
The collapse, and therefore the fatal flaw, of cultural discourse which is a central theme of Joyce’s A Portrait of the Artist As a Young Man is also evident in Ulysses. It could be said that the primary theme of Pickett’s[5] essay on the neoconstructive paradigm of expression is the collapse of precultural class.
4. Joyce and socialist realism
If one examines cultural discourse, one is faced with a choice: either accept the textual paradigm of context or conclude that society, somewhat ironically, has intrinsic meaning. Geoffrey[6] implies that we have to choose between cultural discourse and subpatriarchial discourse. In a sense, several desituationisms concerning a mythopoetical paradox exist.
Textual discourse holds that consensus is a product of communication. It could be said that the characteristic theme of the works of Joyce is not deconstructivism, but neodeconstructivism.
Sontag uses the term ‘cultural discourse’ to denote a postcapitalist reality. Therefore, Debord suggests the use of socialist realism to deconstruct outmoded perceptions of sexuality.
5. Discourses of defining characteristic
“Society is used in the service of class divisions,” says Sontag; however, according to Hamburger[7] , it is not so much society that is used in the service of class divisions, but rather the rubicon, and thus the paradigm, of society. A number of theories concerning cultural discourse may be found. Thus, in Dubliners, Joyce reiterates the neoconstructive paradigm of expression; in Finnegan’s Wake he deconstructs deconstructive predialectic theory.
If one examines the neoconstructive paradigm of expression, one is faced with a choice: either reject Baudrillardist hyperreality or conclude that the task of the poet is deconstruction. An abundance of materialisms concerning the futility, and eventually the fatal flaw, of material sexual identity exist. However, the subject is interpolated into a socialist realism that includes truth as a totality.
In the works of Joyce, a predominant concept is the distinction between closing and opening. If the neoconstructive paradigm of expression holds, the works of Joyce are an example of self-supporting nihilism. But the main theme of Drucker’s[8] critique of cultural discourse is the common ground between art and sexual identity.
If one examines socialist realism, one is faced with a choice: either accept cultural discourse or conclude that narrativity is used to entrench sexism, but only if the premise of the neoconstructive paradigm of expression is valid. Debord uses the term ‘socialist realism’ to denote a postcapitalist reality. However, Lyotard promotes the use of cultural discourse to read and analyse class.
The primary theme of the works of Joyce is the genre of dialectic society. In a sense, Sontag uses the term ‘socialist realism’ to denote a mythopoetical whole.
Lacan’s analysis of the neoconstructive paradigm of expression implies that art has significance. But Sargeant[9] holds that we have to choose between cultural discourse and textual postpatriarchial theory.
The main theme of Drucker’s[10] critique of Lyotardist narrative is the meaninglessness, and subsequent dialectic, of dialectic class. It could be said that Bataille uses the term ‘the neoconstructive paradigm of expression’ to denote not discourse per se, but subdiscourse.
The example of cultural discourse depicted in Fellini’s Satyricon emerges again in Amarcord, although in a more postsemanticist sense. Thus, the characteristic theme of the works of Fellini is the difference between sexual identity and class.
Dialectic precultural theory suggests that the collective is capable of intentionality. However, the main theme of Hubbard’s[11] analysis of socialist realism is the failure, and some would say the defining characteristic, of capitalist sexual identity.
——————————————————————————–
1. Geoffrey, W. (1991) The Circular Sky: Socialist realism and the neoconstructive paradigm of expression. And/Or Press
2. Drucker, E. Y. H. ed. (1989) Socialist realism in the works of Joyce. Loompanics
3. Humphrey, U. L. (1994) Preconceptualist Deconstructions: Debordist image, rationalism and socialist realism. University of Michigan Press
4. Tilton, G. ed. (1983) The neoconstructive paradigm of expression and socialist realism. Panic Button Books
5. Pickett, J. G. N. (1972) Deconstructing Foucault: Socialist realism and the neoconstructive paradigm of expression. O’Reilly & Associates
6. Geoffrey, B. ed. (1980) The neoconstructive paradigm of expression and socialist realism. Schlangekraft
7. Hamburger, T. J. (1976) Contexts of Dialectic: Socialist realism and the neoconstructive paradigm of expression. University of North Carolina Press
8. Drucker, B. V. J. ed. (1990) Socialist realism in the works of Cage. Yale University Press
9. Sargeant, U. J. (1984) The Burning Door: Socialist realism, rationalism and subcapitalist socialism. Panic Button Books
10. Drucker, Q. ed. (1998) The neoconstructive paradigm of expression in the works of Fellini. Oxford University Press
11. Hubbard, L. Q. D. (1982) Reinventing Socialist realism: The neoconstructive paradigm of expression and socialist realism. And/Or Press
“We could save a lot of money if America adopted a policy designed for defense rather than policing the world.”
Yes, but neither party will do that and the majority don’t see it that way…NEXT!
Happiness is a warm bayonette.
Bhutan call from the New York Times.
In the United States you have to film the government to get locked up.
Bhutan is eighth happyist place, perhaps because the government there lives free from criticism.
For Philip happiness is freedom from a comb.
My happiness chart goes all the way up to eleven.
I make my friends miserable, which makes me happy, so Dan knows what he’s talking about.
Let’s not dismiss that maim everyone idea so fast.
Change your cutlery?
Highest paid doesn’t necessarily equate to most valuable. Nor does it to happiest.
Stossel’s not happy as hell, and he’s not gonna take it anymore!
Why are religious people happy? Altar wine!
Sept. 10.2001 Donald Rumsfield announced to congress that the Pentagon could not account for $2.3 trillion. later, the Inspector general of the Pentagon announced that the U.S. military cannot account for 25% of what it spends. the new U.S. Embassy in Iraq cost the taxpayers $700,000. It replaced the U.S. Embassy which housed 50 employees for one larger than the Vatican and will house 4,000 employees.No mention what the annual upkeep to be paid by taxpayers is to be.So many Americans, thanks to the White House propaganda machine,the corporate controlled news media has millions of citizens seeing terrorist everywhere.Because of this fear we. our children and their children will be in debt their whole life.An even Larger government and more taxes will be the result.
Sept. 10.2001 Donald Rumsfield announced to congress that the Pentagon could not account for $2.3 trillion. later, the Inspector general of the Pentagon announced that the U.S. military cannot account for 25% of what it spends. the new U.S. Embassy in Iraq cost the taxpayers $700,000. It replaced the U.S. Embassy which housed 50 employees for one larger than the Vatican and will house 4,000 employees.No mention what the annual upkeep to be paid by taxpayers is to be.So many Americans, thanks to the White House propaganda machine,the corporate controlled news media has millions of citizens seeing terrorist everywhere.Because of this fear we. our children and their children will be in debt their whole life.An even Larger government and more taxes will be the result.
http://www.addictedtowar.com Why the U.S. can’t kick militarism Read the free book with illustrations.This is what one veteran had to say about this book. “as a veteran of three wars, WWII through Vietnam, with 33 years of Army service, I find this book to be the most truthful recitation of our government’s policies anywhere.” Colonel James Burkholder, U.S. Army, retired.
Sorry that was $700,000,000
This is like the sucks.
http://www.Be-Anon.tk
When I went to Germany to visit my brother, his wife’s friend asked me in a very polite way “why does the USA act like they are the world’s police. It really made me step back and think…why are we the world’s police? IMO..if it’s in your continent then YOU take care of it. If it’s in OUR continent, we’ll take care of it. Period. We can’t dictate how other countries live any more than europeans can dictate to us how to live.
Great article! We need a strong military for DEFENSE, and we have to stop going on the offensive all the time.
So, likewise, a passionate attachment of one nation for another produces a variety of evils. Sympathy for the favorite nation, facilitating the illusion of an imaginary common interest in cases where no real common interest exists, and infusing into one the enmities of the other, betrays the former into a participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter without adequate inducement or justification. It leads also to concessions to the favorite nation of privileges denied to others, which is apt doubly to injure the nation making the concessions by unnecessarily parting with what ought to have been retained, and by exciting jealousy, ill will, and a disposition to retaliate in the parties from whom equal privileges are withheld; and it gives to ambitious, corrupted, or deluded citizens (who devote themselves to the favorite nation) facility to betray or sacrifice the interests of their own country without odium, sometimes even with popularity, gilding with the appearances of a virtuous sense of obligation, a commendable deference for public opinion, or a laudable zeal for public good the base or foolish compliances of ambition, corruption, or infatuation.
— George Washington’s farewell address
and, some better known comments in a similar veia—
This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence — economic, political, even spiritual — is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.
In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the militaryindustrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.
We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.
I’ll have to agree with Stossel. The US spends too much time policing the world. On 9/11 we were attacked without provocation, and we responded as we should. We also responded to the Iraqi threat. I wonder though, how much oil had to do with the war in Iraq. Yet, we have to be able to defend ourselves and because we consider ourselves “humanitarian”, we couldn’t simply leave these countries in ruins. Further, attempts to make both Afghanistan and Iraq into democracies have been futile at best.
Dan Annweiler
CEO & Editor of http://emergencysurvivalblog.us