Dangerous to whom, exactly? Defense contractors, lobbyists, and military bureaucrats?
The imperial foreign policy pursued by the United States for at least the past hundred years has been a boon to big banks, arms manufacturers, and the comfortably-pensioned officer corps, but it has been an unmitigated disaster for the American people who have died by the hundreds of thousands in unnecessary foreign wars.
Not to mention the indignities (e.g. rampant prostitution) inflicted upon foreign populations by ongoing peacetime military occupations in Japan, South Korea, Germany and dozens of other sovereign nations. It is well-known that the aggressive "forward" military stance of the United States in Saudi Arabia provoked the 9/11 attacks.
Empire is a losing foreign policy strategy, and the sooner we divest ourselves of the military-industrial complex that impoverishes our nation and provokes resentment abroad, the better.
"The military simply cannot sustain cuts of that magnitude and preserve a strategy that, in its fundamentals, has not changed since the end of the Second World War. That strategy called for U.S. forces to deploy "forward"..."
I would think there are those who could make a good argument against this. Especially with our Navy, and all our Nuclear missiles, and Aircraft Carriers, Nuclear Subs, etc., that are well established and paid for, and so we do need to have these funded of course, for the defense and protection against terrorist, and other nations.
This can't be pinned on Obama and the Democrats alone. I haven't seen a Republican plan that balances the budget and preserves military funding. Both parties are to blame.
Dangerous to whom, exactly? Defense contractors, lobbyists, and military bureaucrats?
ReplyDeleteThe imperial foreign policy pursued by the United States for at least the past hundred years has been a boon to big banks, arms manufacturers, and the comfortably-pensioned officer corps, but it has been an unmitigated disaster for the American people who have died by the hundreds of thousands in unnecessary foreign wars.
Not to mention the indignities (e.g. rampant prostitution) inflicted upon foreign populations by ongoing peacetime military occupations in Japan, South Korea, Germany and dozens of other sovereign nations. It is well-known that the aggressive "forward" military stance of the United States in Saudi Arabia provoked the 9/11 attacks.
Empire is a losing foreign policy strategy, and the sooner we divest ourselves of the military-industrial complex that impoverishes our nation and provokes resentment abroad, the better.
"The military simply cannot sustain cuts of that magnitude and preserve a strategy that, in its fundamentals, has not changed since the end of the Second World War. That strategy called for U.S. forces to deploy "forward"..."
ReplyDeleteI would think there are those who could make a good argument against this.
Especially with our Navy, and all our Nuclear missiles, and Aircraft Carriers, Nuclear Subs, etc., that are well established and paid for, and so we do need to have these funded of course, for the defense and protection against terrorist, and other nations.
This can't be pinned on Obama and the Democrats alone. I haven't seen a Republican plan that balances the budget and preserves military funding. Both parties are to blame.
ReplyDelete