David Carr of the New York Times has rightly described the major party conventions as extended infomercials with little controversy to draw viewers away from reality TV or, this week, from dangerous weather. But there may be one exception. Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) has pledged to use his speaking slot to call for cuts in Pentagon spending if and until the department can pass an audit. As Paul puts it, "one of the messages that I will give to them [convention delegates] is that Republicans need to acknowledge that not every dollar is well spent or sacred in the military and we have to look for ways to make every department accountable."
Rand Paul's message is consistent with the position that his father Ron Paul took during his presidential campaign. In fact, the elder Paul stood together with liberal Massachusetts Congressman Barney Frank in endorsing up to $1 trillion in Pentagon cuts over the next decade, a figure comparable to what would be called for under the allegedly disastrous implementation of automatic cuts under the process known as sequestration. In a significant example of counter-programming, Republican Senators Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, and John McCain of Arizona have been touring the country on a misleading scare campaign that has been suggesting that cuts at the level called for under sequestration would devastate the economy and hollow out our military.
Meanwhile, in the House of Representatives, Rep. Mick Mulvaney (D-SC) joined Barney Frank in promoting a successful amendment to cut Pentagon spending, a refreshing switch from the hysterical calls for high Pentagon outlays by members such as House Armed Services Committee chair Howard P. "Buck" McKeon, who never met a weapons contractor he didn't like.
This all brings us to the Republican ticket itself, where Mitt Romney and his running mate Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) have historically been far apart in their proposals for how much money to throw at the Pentagon. After initially endorsing the Obama administration's approach, Ryan's most recent budget road map calls for increasing Pentagon spending by $400 billion above what the Pentagon is currently asking for, spread out over the next decade. But Ryan's proposed increase is pocket change compared to Romney's longstanding call for setting the Pentagon budget at 4 percent of Gross Domestic Product, an approach which would increase Pentagon spending by an astonishing $2 trillion over the next 10 years. When confronted with the question of how he would pay for this huge increase without raising taxes, Romney mumbled something about eliminating waste in the Pentagon -- a nonsensical statement given that he has already committed to spending 4 percent of GDP on the Pentagon, come hell or high water. Under this plan, any waste Romney identifies would simply be plowed back into the Pentagon budget to pay for other programs.
Given this wide range of views -- from a real cut, to a moderate increase, to an irresponsible and massive infusion of new funds -- one might ask which position on Pentagon spending represents the true Republican party. Given that he is the nominee, one would assume that Romney's plan would carry the day. But it is so out of line with reality that it's hard to believe he could carry it out in full if elected.
What if the Republican Party had a real debate on Pentagon spending that addressed the underlying issue of what our military is for? Should we be poised to fight major wars of occupation and/or counterinsurgency like those in Iraq and Afghanistan? Do we need 700-plus foreign military bases? Why are we investing in new nuclear bomb facilities, bombers and submarines at a time when maintaining the U.S. arsenal at current levels serves no useful purpose? It's probably too late for that to happen this year, on the verge of a presidential election, but it would be both refreshing and responsible if it were to happen in the years to come.
William D. Hartung is the director of the Arms and Security Project at the Center for International Policy and the author of Prophets of War: Lockheed Martin and the Making of the Military-Industrial Complex.
Jeremy Hilton: Don't Lay America's Debts on Vets' Shoulders
Benjamin Zycher: Unfounded Hand-Wringing Over Military Spending Cuts
Brad Linzy: By Snubbing Ron Paul, the RNC May Have Cost Romney the Election
The US should by rights be leading the world and showing the way in developing useful constructive technology - perhaps I hazard a guess in something like renewable energy.
Instead there is 19th century gunboat diplomacy and enslavement to big money and conservative dogma.
Since 95% of Americans don't travel abroad, don't know anyone from another industrialized nation, and don't get any news from foreign sources, it is easy to maintain the illusion that everybody is out to get us.
The United States ranks 11th in quality of life compared to other countries, according to Newsweek and its place is largely due to resources allocated to its military. For example, if the United States has no effective challenger on the open seas, why spend about $8 billion for yet another huge aircraft carrier which is destined to rust in a salt water harbour as it has no use. That same money could be used to repair delapadated bridges and roadways. It's all choices.
Ah, but that was before Geneva Conventions and other bothersome rules made colonial life harder. One has trouble today imagining the Belgian King having the limbs cut off of any Congo inhabitant who didn't work hard enough for his royal pecuniary benefit.
But with the human rights regression picking up speed, there is "hope" that one day, again, colonial theft, extortion and forced labor make their comeback, all in the name of "investor value".
Next year, because of the Budget Control Act, we already have a set discretionary spending level of $1.264 trillion. $773.7 billion of that goes toward the DOD, Homeland Security, and CIA, leaving a mere $490.3 billion for EVERYTHING ELSE. If, Republicans are to reduce the deficit as promised while also increasing defense spending and slashing tax revenues then nearly every single penny of that will need to be cut, along with the complete gutting of entitlements.
All of this and the Republican Party as a whole, including Romney, back having a balanced budget amendment. The non-partisan CBPP did a projections analysis of what would happen if the 2012 budget were balanced through spending cuts alone and they came to a conclusion that it would require $1.5 trillion in cuts this year alone. This could cause the unemployment rate to double causing 15 million people to lose their job and shrinking the economy by 17 percent.
The Republican Ideology is no longer based on reality or logic.
Perhaps it is, but a reality and logic they cannot publicly admit.
Protecting shipping lanes I can understand and if a country needs help with pirates or we have to protect our ships from pirates but the bases we have around the world are for control not protection. Japan has not been a threat to anyone for how many years so why do we have bases in Okinawa? Germany is thriving why cant we let them take care of the base there and have agreement that they will help us if we have wounded that need to be sent there? Korea is a big boy let it defend itself.
Lets let them do the job now and go home.
One of the characteristics of the typical military mind is preparation for the last war instead of the next one. We, along with our allies the British and French, illustrated that beautifully both in World War I and World War 2. This sad lack of imagination and insight perhaps helps explain the persistence of NATO, the gigantic expenditures on aircraft carriers and air superiority fighters, and our maintenance of a military presence in over 100 countries worldwide.
I realize this must sound a little fantastic to people but we've been doing more and more of this over the last ten years. The more technology we transfer overseas and the more we rely on the resources of other nations for our military and economy, the less real defense the United States really has.
One reason we won WWII is that we were very self-reliant and had the resources.
But there was another reason: the can do factor. The British, Canadians, Australians, and particularly the Russians played important roles in World War II but it was the Americans who always got things done. Your jeep broke down? Find an American. You're short on rifles? Find an American. You need a certain sized bolt for landing craft? Find an American.
One of the embarrassments in Iraq was that the contractors were incapable of jury rigging anything. Every job cost a bundle just for the consultants. Much of the money for Iraq went to Friends of George.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/27/us-arms-sales-2011_n_1833602.html