Last week, a quotation and a joke captured the zeitgeist of the American moment. The quotation came from Philip J. Crowley, Assistant Secretary of State for Public Affairs, related to a meeting between Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Indian Defence Minister A.K. Antony:
"We think we have the finest military hardware in the world," Rowley said. "And if India is upgrading its defense capabilities, they should buy American."
The joke came from Hillary Clinton as she tried to defend her department's overseas developmental funds from Congressional cuts. With Secretary of Defense Bob Gates in her corner, she quipped that his Department of Defense (DoD) gets all the money it asks for from Congress, even as her Department of State is forced to fight to preserve what would be "small change" to the DoD.
Why this quotation, and why this joke, to capture the spirit of our times?
Is there not something less-than-dignified about our State Department serving as shills for U.S. defense contractors? Yes, if India truly needs modern warplanes, I'd prefer to see them buy F-16s or F-18s and not Russian MiGs, but our defense contractors are already quite proficient at marketing their products, and our Pentagon has plenty of resources devoted to FMS (foreign military sales). Again, is it not unseemly to have our Secretary of State, our chief diplomat, pressuring allies to buy only those weapons with a "Made in America" label on them?
Now, let's turn to that U.S. Global Leadership Coalition at which Clinton uttered her little joke. Is it not unconscionable that our diplomats and foreign development experts have to fight for what amounts to table scraps compared to the cornucopia of funding and resources available to the Pentagon and DoD?
To Gates's credit, our Secretary of Defense has himself complained about the paucity of funding available to State, a point Clinton hammered home in January 2009 when she noted, "the disparity of resources is such that when you've got more than 10 times the resources going to the Defense Department than you have going to the State Department and foreign aid, DOD has in effect been re-creating mini-State Departments."
If nothing else, Clinton's joke last week suggests that nothing has changed in Washington's ordering of priorities since Obama became president. More money for defense and for war; more penny-pinching for diplomacy and foreign development.
Surely our country has its priorities out of order. More for war and weapons, less for diplomacy and foreign aid, and shilling for American defense contractors, is a recipe for forever war - and for the irreversible decline of America, morally as well as strategically.
Professor Astore currently teaches History at the Pennsylvania College of Technology in Williamsport, PA. He writes regularly for TomDispatch.com and can be reached at wjastore@gmail.com.
Accelerated development of inexpensive green energy can boost the economy and create jobs!
The surprising motivation might be the little recognized potential impact of rising solar flare activity. A new eleven year sunspot cycle has begun.
Two solar threat events missed earth so far this year. According to NASA, if either had hit earth's geomagnetic field, 130 million Americans could lose power for protracted periods of time - perhaps several weeks - at a cost the first year of between $1 trillion and $2 trillion.
Similar to the combined cost to date of both current wars!
See: http://www.aesopinstitute.org
The steps necessary to rapidly reduce dependence on the power grid can accelerate development of inexpensive green systems.
Decentralized breakthrough systems open a politically workable way to accelerate the development of cheap green power.
We need to focus on that objective - since there is no reason for most people to fight it. There is likely to be widespread support for what needs to be done.
Cheap green power can supersede the fruitless debate over climate change.
And effectively fight Global Warming, goose the economy, generate lots of jobs and reduce dependency on unstable areas of the globe.
You might enjoy reading New Paths to Liberty on the same Aesop Institute website. It suggests new ways to restore the economy and give Americans the time and income to learn more and pursue their dreams.
Perhaps, winding down the military could conceivably find future favor.
The republicans and the pentagon support each other.
The pentagon gets bloated budgets in order to enrich defense contractors--who hire retired military to act as "consultants"--which are essentially payoffs. The pentagon push the "democrats are soft on defense" BS in order to elect republicans. Defense contractors continue to contribute massive amounts to republican election coffers.
The religious right feeding into the fundies in the armed services is icing on the cake.
Republicans push the need for ongoing and unilateral war which pushes up the pentagon budget. The ultimate goal? The cost of "protecting" the US drives the country to the point of immenent bankrupcy--which will be the time that the republicans claim that social security, medicaid, and medicare (as well as the NEA, the Department of Education, Amtrak, the Post office, etc.) must all be sacrificed in the name of national security.
Because getting rid of social programs is what they are all about.
So you get the fat cats of the pentagon feeding the defense contractors who feed the republican politicians who feed the fat cats of the pentagon.
"The pentagon push the "democrats are soft on defense" BS in order to elect republicans."
Alternative explanation is to push the reactionary Dems to avoid appearing "soft" and continue to vote for ever expanding "defense" budgets. They need to cut the bull and change the name back to the Department of War which was its name until a couple of years after WW2. When was the last time they defended the U.S. from attack, 9/11?