Watching the Petraus/Crocker hearings and responses had me thinking about what they reminded me of…
…and I realized that it was really Noh drama:
By tradition, Noh actors and musicians never rehearse for performances together. Instead, each actor, musician, and choral chanter practices his or her fundamental movements, songs, and dances independently or under the tutelage of a senior member of the school. Thus, the tempo of a given performance is not set by any single performer but established by the interactions of all the performers together.
What we’re really watching isn’t any kind of real debate – it’s really a drama, preplanned out on both sides, and really much more about style and a kind of formal abstraction than about anything resembling reality.
Here’s the Center For American Progress on Petraeus’ testimony. Prepared in advance, they argue against points Petraeus doesn’t make.
Here’s Petraeus’ testimony; read it for yourself.
It’s really about positioning public arguments – seeding the public discourse.
The reality is – what, exactly? We’re lost in a forest of statistics of dubious provenance and facts rooted in rhetorical claims – on both sides, no doubt. We make a decision based largely on faith, and we choose who and what to have faith in.
And watching the hearings on my laptop, and reading about Moveon’s arrogant and stupid ad (…bought at a discount? Bob Owens wonders…) and then watching the disrespectful and foolish Code Pink demonstrators who fancy themselves the voice of the antiwar movement – no, the voice of the American people – I am wondering just who the dramaturg on the other side really is, and exactly what play they think this is and why they think I should have faith in them.
Who is the dramaturge is a good question, but I’m still baffled as to who the audience is supposed to be.
“…but I’m still baffled as to who the audience is supposed to be.”
I can answer that question.
On many college campuses in the South, I’d presume in the North as well, it’s not uncommon for a local independent evangelical sect to bus in a number of tract distributers, harangers, shouters, and plaque carriers (‘Repent or Burn!’) to set up shop in the local freespeach zone one day a week or a month. There they threaten, insult, insinuate, challenge, scream, denigrate, and harass the generally bemused, dismissive, and busy college students. No actual evangelism takes place. No actual witnessing takes place. No attempt is made to forge relationships with the students. No attempt at compassion or caring takes place. No attempt is made at anything but this particular sort of theater.
The audience is the actors themselves. They aren’t engaged in this pointless activity for the benefit of the students. They are fully convinced that indeed all these students who they do not know are going to hell. They are quite certain nothing that they do will change that. Everyone not in the sect is a ‘Pharisee’ by definition. But, by the act of going to campus and telling the students that they are going to hell and enduring the occasional insults and ridicule that is hurled back, the sect in question believes that they have proven thier righteousness. And, in doing so, they believe that they have procurred thier salvation.
It is the same with the ‘liberal’ street theater.
The really tragic thing about this is that if you are a Christian and see these very un-Christian things going on in the name of your Beloved, your first impulse is to reach out to these people and try to talk some sense into them. Under your own power, this does not work. Regardless of how many different examples of Christlike works you find in the gospels and discuss with them, they remain convinced that the key to salvation is shouting, carrying signs, accusing people. If Christ’s name is cursed on thier behalf, that’s in thier opinion a good sign. They are obdurate.
I imagine it’s the same thing if you are an actual Liberal.
I’ll save somebody else the typing and just supply the brilliant spin on this one, straight from Hillary Clinton’s talking weasel Phil Singer:
So we can’t criticize Moveon.org for calling General Petreus a traitor, or even for using a stupid play on words that would embarrass a fourth-grader, because the opposition is unable to hold more than one thought in their heads at a time.
I am reminded not of graceful Noh dancers, but of slimy, gravel-sucking plecostomi.
Celebrim –
“Here is Moveon.org’s invitation to their Dog and Pony show today.”:http://pol.moveon.org/rsvp/pony/dc.html
They’re bringing real ponies – real ponies! – and their members are supposed to bring the dogs. And probably a release form from their parents.
The extreme antiwar movement is utterly and completely irrelevant and they know it. Everybody has already given up on the losing war except the Republican base, who will not be influenced favorably by antiwar activists no matter what they do.
But the war can’t end until after the elections, unless republican legistlators let it end. And so all Bush needs to do to continue the war until he’s out of office, is to persuade enough republicans that their senators continue to vote against stopping Bush.
That’s why Petraeus isn’t particularly trying to influence the public generally, but only the Republican base. They’re the only ones who count at this point. If they can just hold onto their hope for another 14 months then the war can continue until Bush is gone.
Unfortunately, we’re still not having the important debate. Most of us realize–whether we oppose or favor the war–that a hasty withdrawal is not in the cards. Bush will run out the clock on his administration so the absolute earliest a withdrawal could take place, if it is even going to happen, is January 2009.
What should we be talking about? Here’s a couple of suggestions:
1. How do we staff our military to provide for National Security? The volunteer forces have performed very well but we need a larger military and the most likely way we get there is through conscripted national service (which will also, incidentally, foster patriotism IF the military is not used as a political tool by either party). Bush doesn’t believe in military conscription (doh) but he should be forced to participate in the debate in his final months.
2. Funding our military. Our commitments in Iraq and Afghanistan have depleted our forces, in terms of equipment, both at home and overseas. We are still running large deficits and the wars in Asia are largely funded by extra-budgetary emergency appropriations. The government needs to generate more revenue to foot the bill; higher taxes or a bond measure of some sort will likely be needed to cover the gap.
Anyone who can look past the voluminous publically available (but often supressed or ignored) data contradicting or calling into question Petraus’ rosy colored assessment (the same one he’s been giving for the past 3 years, perhaps softened a bit) and be critical of the necessary counter-propoganda that is taking place to balance the far more insidious, widespread and harmful pro-administration propoganda from the administration (their product roll-out began even earlier) piped through the complicit corporate media has their head up their coolies.
Sorry but it had to be said.
But I do think J Thomas makes a good point that seems to go largely ignored on the Teevee and places like this….a growing majority of the public has long since given up on the war, the president, and most everyone speaking for the administration. Doubt and distrust is very high. Petraus’ testimony or anything Bush says from now on out matter little if at all. So the Kabuki ritual from the Republicans is probably really intended for their far-right supporters, a bulwark against their defection against the growing reality that the war is a costly disaster of historic proportions and is unlikely to end up beneffitting either American security or Iraqi stability in the long run. Pure politics.
DrDave — I find it difficult to believe that we need a larger military of the sort that conscription would provide. Had we gone into Iraq with a mostly conscripted army, I expect that the discipline and morale problems would have reached Vietnam-era proportions long ago, and our larger army wouldn’t be half as capable as our current one. And if we pulled out of Iraq tomorrow, just what would we need all that manpower for? And what would the political support come from for another major deployment of ground forces, absent some sort of “Russia rolls into Europe” scenario?
I do think that deploying a reserve-based army for foreign policy interventions (as opposed to defensive conventional warfare of that “Russia rolls into Europe” sort) is a mistake, particularly doing so in the open-ended manner that it’s been handled during the Iraq campaign. An expansion of the full-time armed forces is probably justified, though where the funding would come from I’m not sure. Can’t touch those earmarks, you know…
umbriel:…. or those secret multi-trillon dollar weapons systems that a) have never worked b) are not worth the money and c)don’t even apply to the war on terror. (though maybe to the war on china….).
The simple fact is that all reports I have read indicate that the military cannot continue at this pace without massive extensions in tours of duty. These reports also indicate that some form of a drawdown is immenint in the next year, they’re simply won’t be enough troops to rotate in at the current levels. Furthermore, In the next 12 months republican legistlators are going to be fighting for their jobs. It’s only a matter of time before they push the Iraq issue, so that they can hold office.
Seriously, Iraq is going to dictate the next election, and it’s bette for democrats to stay in Iraq. If we leave Iraq, Dems get the “vietnam” title back. If we stay, Republicans get attached to the “Iraqi-blunder”.
Do we really need a larger military? Our current military is by far the most expensive in the world. Maybe we should scale back our military missions to what we can afford, rather than scale up the military to meet our grandiose plans.
_”2.We are still running large deficits and the wars in Asia are largely funded by extra-budgetary emergency appropriations. The government needs to generate more revenue to foot the bill; higher taxes or a bond measure of some sort will likely be needed to cover the gap.”_
Two things- first i dont know that we would be spending any less money overall if we werent fighting in Iraq. The way our government runs the money would almost certainly have been spent elsewhere.
Second the budget deficit has been shrinking for years despite the wars.
We need to get our budget under control because we have an entitlement nightmare on the horizon that dwarfs anything defense spending can do. Raising taxes wont help either way- we need a massive entitlement overhaul combined with slashing agriculture subsidies and, yes, looking at the Pentagon’s budgeting priorities.
Mark has a point here. The US federal debt is a little more than $9 trillion, and at most a trillion of that comes from the war plus interest on the early war debt. (Plus we have continuing obligations like currently-unfunded future money to wounded veterans and refurbishing the destroyed armor and so on.)
I don’t think we’d have the same debt if we didn’t have the war. The war was extraordinary spending, most of it was off-budget. It was special, for 4 years people thought we needed to spend that money regardless of the budget so it just didn’t get counted. Nothing else was cut back to help balance it out. There aren’t a lot of other things we could have spent that way on.
Still it adds up. As Proxmire used to say, a trillion here, a trillion there, eventually it adds up to real money.
Don’t forget the looming “entitlement nightmare” of long-term medical care for the tens of thousands of permanently injured Iraqi war vets. If anything that will need to be scaled up, not back, as Mark (and the Bush administration) seem to want to consider doing.
Celebrim (#2)
I know exactly what you mean. As a born again Christian myself, I see examples of just the kind of self-centric “evangelism” you describe. The comparison to liberal street theater is completely apt.
They serve to reinforce only their own world views. They are not interested in debate nor persuasion, only that they rally each to another, chanting and working themselves into an ectasy of rant.
These will never be among those from whom the solutions (when any are found) will emerge. They will not be part of social negotiation or a rethinking of paradigms.
They maintain deep and disturbing illusions about the way things work, and their own significance. They remain firmly committed to untruths despite clear facts that would refute, or at least call into question, their orthodoxies.
Yet they chant on, they parade around the giant puppet heads, they smoke some pot, they revel in irrelevance.
I didn’t catch any of the testimony, but John Roberts explained on CNN this morning that Democrats were cowed from asking tough questions by the ferocious attack from the leftwing blogosphere. Who knew?
_”Don’t forget the looming “entitlement nightmare” of long-term medical care for the tens of thousands of permanently injured Iraqi war vets.”_
That will be a tiny drop of water against an ocean of entitlements. Our long term care for Vietnam and Korea was an order of magnitude larger and it still was never a real issue in the budget (maybe it should have been). We tend to forget how smalll a scale this war has been relatively speaking.
Mark: I tend to think that our care of soldiers may be higher than in vietnam even though there are fewer injuries. Why? Because health care is capable of so many incredible new feats, and those feats are expensive. For example: every time a soldier is critically wounded, he is helicoptered to a hospital. Within 6 hours he is sent to Germany by a cargo plane staffed with top of the line doctors, nurses and medical equipment. These procedures are dramatically more expensive than the MASH units provided in Vietnam, which has also accounted for the much higher survival rate. More survivors, more costs.
Even after this point, the long-term injuries we know today about PTSD, counseling, back injuries, mental trauma (especially from concussive forces) has lead to new treatments that cost dramatically more than treatments did during vietnam. Besides, I certainly hope our veterans hospitals today give better care than 40 years ago (some stories are atrocious).
“The way our government runs the money would almost certainly have been spent elsewhere.”
Would it? With republicans in power (which is typically a small goverment party) I can’t imagine Republicans beeing gleeful to fork over a billion a month to anything other than a war or the military. And “elsewhere” might have been a good place to locate it… we still don’t check 99% of cargo coming to the US, we can’t secure large portions of the border, and millions of people in New Orleans were never supported by our goverment. But if the plan is to spend it there so we can’t spend it here….
Dadmandly,
I imagine they would see describe born-again christians with almost the same words you use here. Yes, many of them are pot-smoking hippies. Yes, many of them may be confused about how the world works. However, you may be suprised to find that many of them are smart, hard-working adults, that have gotten so fed up from not being heard that they turn away from discourse and into prothlitizing mobs.
On some level, I understand what they’re doing. I mean, how much of a say in anything our goverment does. It certainly doesn’t feel like much We see politicians F#@!!-up royally, saying some truly stupid things, and we have no say in what happens. As long as their delegates are uninformed, they keep their seat of power.
I’ve heard more and more stories of people calling their local senator only to be told “Well, if you wanted me to help you, you should have voted for me” (if they’re able to connect at all, many senators toss out everything that isn’t written on a check).
Now, I admit, some of these groups are aloof (just like many religous groups on the right) get angry and march or demonstrate. Does it change anything? Not really. But I’m sure they feel like “Well, at least I was seen…”
A.L.
“We make a decision based largely on faith, and we choose who and what to have faith in. …I am wondering just who the dramaturg on the other side really is, and exactly what play they think this is and why they think I should have faith in them.”
For my part, I have no faith in the ability or integrity of the Bush Administration when it comes to Iraq. I think my lack of faith is based upon reason and experience. You can denounce and mock and make fun of “the other side’s” more extreme figures all you want, but in the end they are harmless because they have no power. Their attempts of these few souls to sway or influence public opinion may be–to be polite about it–quixotic (perhaps they would have more success if they started a blog or pac), but they are harmless.
And perhaps, too, Moveon’s ad WAS stupid and arrogant, but again no harm will come from their stupidity and arrogance. The actions of the Bush administration, on the other hand, in my view both stupid and arrogant, in bringing us into this crisis in Iraq are harmful and with real consequences. I would be very curious to know why you think I should have faith in them.
celebrim,
This just means you’re a better Christian than I am (if I read the above correctly as being somewhat autobiographical.) My first impulse is to reach out and slap them (fortunately, so far I’ve been able to resist the urge.)
_”Would it? With republicans in power (which is typically a small goverment party) I can’t imagine Republicans beeing gleeful to fork over a billion a month to anything other than a war or the military”_
I wish that were true. Bush’s first budget in 2001 under a Republican Congress increased 200 billion dollars over the previous year without breaking a sweat.
As far as the Vietnam comparison- almost 9 MILLION Americans served in Vietnam. 153,000 were wounded.
In Iraq, we’ve deployed about 500,000 troops and sustained ~27,000 wounded. Thats 18% less. So we could right off the bat spend 5x as much per capita just to keep pace with post-Vietnam level care. Meanwhile the GDP of the US is nearly 3 times what it was in 1972.
Its a red herring to suppose this war- much less its long term effects- is going to bankrupt us. We have FAR more colossal forces at work in our economy.
If we are using economics as an argument- the cost of dealing with the aftermath of the disaster Iraq is almost certain to become will not be cheap either. Whether its staging our quick reaction force in Okinawa (the fuel costs must be obscene) as Murtha wants, or keeping significant forces in theater to ‘fight Al Qaeda’ (however that is supposed to work), or even just keeping the insanity from spilling into neighboring nations- we are surely talking about many billions of dollars, and if a regiounal war breaks out all bets are off.
_”Thats 18% less.”_
18% of Vietnam levels of course. 82% less.
Back in the 1980’s Reagan in a booming economy spent 6% of GDP on the military. We had roughly DOUBLE the size of the military we have now.
Bush 1 and Clinton cut the military to the bone, and we are now paying the price. Recall the Peace Dividend? Our spending is at 3.4% of GDP. Trivial.
If anything we are undersized.
The rational case Dems could make is Navy-Airforce-ize the War against Jihad. Hit any enemy hard, and continue to hit them hard, as we leave Iraq to Iran and AQ (but hit BOTH in places like Iran and Pakistan).
AQ and Iran are good at shooting at US troops from behind civilians, counting on ROE being PC-driven so we can’t shoot back. Drop the PC requirements and drop bombs on them from 20,000 feet. Who cares how many of the enemy die? Meanwhile we can kill Osama any time if we take out Pakistan’s nukes and don’t care how many Pakistanis we kill getting him. Good object lesson too: don’t attack the US or play footsie with those who do.
THAT genuine alternative to GWB’s policies plays to our strengths (we do ships and planes better than anyone) and minimizes our losses while maximizing the enemy’s.
However, CODE PINK, Moveon, the rest of the insane Truther Left is pretty much the Democratic Party. They want the US TO LOSE so IRAN AND AQ can WIN. That’s it.
“General Betray Us?” THAT is what passes for Dem thinking.
I would agree that most Americans want an alternative to US stalemate in Iraq. DEFEAT by AQ and Iran is NOT what they want, Dem lunatic to the contrary.
[Only apostate Lieberman condemned the Betray-Us ad. All other Dems were on the Code Pink-Moveon side. It’s time to write off the Dem Party.]
#14: “They serve to reinforce only their own world views. They are not interested in debate nor persuasion, only that they rally each to another, chanting and working themselves into an ectasy of rant.”
You don’t have to go out into the street to see that. For the last few years, it has only been necessary to stop by and read winds’ comment section. On certain subjects, I’ve pretty much given up trying to debate. I can no longer maintain the pretence to myself that they are actually listening.
Glen, the pleco’s in my aquarium provide a useful function and ask that I inform you that they are offended at your metaphor.
In order to have faith in the antiwar movement is to seperate what you call moonbat’s from those whom are responsible. Then you have to open your mind to the salient points they represent.
Let’s start w/ three:(1)democracy in Iraq leading to safety of the USA,(2) the real nature of AQ in Iraq, (3) that Shilikashvili was right.
Bush has argued from the beginning that the invasion of Iraq would lead to the spread of democracy in the Middle East and the values of republican democracy as we know them in the US would appear in the Mid-East. That immediately ignores the fact that OUR country had over 200 years to advance our republican democracy to the place where it is today. Just think about little things like women voting, direct votes for US Senators and passage by the court systems systemically rolling back the rights of its own citizens-decendants of African slaves.
A little thought would have made him cogniscent of the fact that for over 500 years the two religious groups and two ethnic groups(Arab and Kurd) that make up the current nation state of Iraq had been thwarted in their own desire for nation states of their own. A little more thought would have made him cogniscent without some ability to achieve some autonomous power(much of which already existed because of no fly zones) along these lines at the first sign of disorder it would become everyman for himself. A stark reality to the comment “democracy is a little messy”
Two, AQ in Iraq as a threat to the USA under Saddam was hogwash. In the most delusional point in Saddam’s life AQ never had a free hand to do what they wanted from Iraq. Given money enough to peck at some outpost, annoy a great country but threaten us never. Their beliefs alone were contrary to Saddam’s control through his Tikriti henchmen. The relationship is similiar to the SA and Hitler easily disposable in a night of the long knives.
Three, Shilikashvili was right. You needed 300,000 solidiers w/ guns, not support units, to control a country that size when by the virtue of occuppying it you become the state and with it that most important resource of the state the legitimate source of violence with in it. Here Shilikashvili was vilified by the very demagoges(sic?) that screamed about the charges of Petreasus being a betrayer oh so many years ago.
If by faith you mean will they defend the US the way you would you won’t have any. But had you seperated the wheat from the threatrical chaff at the very begininng you would have recognized the validity(sic?) of their objections and not have flung yourself down the road to ruin you find yourself standing on. That ruin means you have to decide who is going to die, what relationships are going to be damaged, whom is to bear responsibility.
For me it means the Sunni and Shite Arabs are going to die in a glorious blood bath of their own making. It means we will spend a long time patching up relationships but its an endeavor we can succeed in. It means that the elected representatives of most of the Republican party and their Janus faced Democratic Party allies are responsible and will never be able to wash the blood of the American military off their irresponsible hands
#10 from J Thomas at 3:11 pm on Sep 11, 2007
bq. Do we really need a larger military? Our current military is by far the most expensive in the world. Maybe we should scale back our military missions to what we can afford, rather than scale up the military to meet our *grandiose plans*.
i.e. those plans of the Imperialist Empire? Is that what you are saying? Okay, then I *WANT* that Empire and all it entails. Cheaper gas, hegemony over the brown peeple of the world, etc. Is that what you are saying, J Thomas?
What about “#23 from Jim Rockford at 11:57 pm on Sep 11, 2007” and his statement of *FACTS*:
bq. Back in the 1980’s Reagan in a booming economy spent 6% of GDP on the military. We had roughly DOUBLE the size of the military we have now.
bq. Bush 1 and Clinton cut the military to the bone, and we are now paying the price. Recall the Peace Dividend? Our spending is at *3.4% of GDP*. Trivial.
I know you cannot handle *FACTS* but there is the truth. 3.4% of GDP and yes, we do spend more than any other government in raw money *BUT* we spend less as a percentage of GDP than most of the other 1st world nations. Our economy uses 25% of the worlds energy to produce 30% of the worlds GDP. How’s about them apples? But that would take away from the fact that you cannot abide by your country actually *BEING* the best in the world AND the most generous.
Bah – you libs make me so frustrated.
[knock, knock – anyone home Misha?]
#26 from Robert M at 4:38 am on Sep 12, 2007
Good post
Robert, you don’t have your Chairmen of the Joint Chiefs straight.
Robert M —
I remember well the arguments GWB laid out to Congress (and how Dems agreed with his points). They were:
1. For the UN to have relevancy, Saddam had to either submit to the UN resolutions demanding inspectors be let in on a timely manner (no last minute “OK, I’ll submit”) or the UN would no longer exist as a relevant institution for resolving world conflicts.
[Ironic given that we know Saddam bribed most of the UN, Chirac, Russia, China, and most of the Liberal Western Press/Politicos, including George Galloway and unspecified journalists. But there you have it, the argument Colin Powell made.]
2. In an age when non-state Actors like AQ can strike in the US at any time, it was too much risk to “trust” Saddam that he neither had WMD nor would give them to AQ or other groups.
[Did Saddam have WMDs? Most evidence says no, but EVERYONE and I mean EVERYONE had been fooled at the end of the Gulf War when they saw what he had, and then AGAIN after his sons-in-law defected and told inspectors where to find his hidden stash of nuclear material separation (very old tech — calutrons) and chemical, biological, and ballistic missile tech which by the Truce Agreement he was forbidden to have. SINCE everyone had been burned twice by Saddam before, no one was giving him the benefit of the doubt — if he had nothing to hide why not let inspectors in? NO ONE had human sources left in Iraq and satellite overflights only tell so much.
The Duelfer Report makes clear — Saddam felt he could only be secure from both the US and Iran if he could bluff that the HAD WMDs and once sanctions were gone he’d restart his programs again.]
Now, what have we learned today children?
One, that the UN IS a failed institution. That it should be abandoned because it’s too easy to bribe it into inaction. The US should abandon the UN because there is no benefit to collective action — no other nation has any appreciable military assets to help us in conflicts; AND the UN can be brought to a stop by buckets of cash by US enemies. [Chirac, Annan, and Galloway all assured Saddam that no US action would be taken because the UN would stop it.]
Two, that if anything the argument for preemption is stronger. Stronger in a world where Pakistan’s government hangs by threads and AQ and the Taliban are determined to take over. Stronger in a world where Iran, who’s official motto is “Death to America!” races towards nukes. Stronger in a world where safe under China’s nuclear umbrella, Kim Jong-Il will sell nukes for cash to anyone.
Three, that the Iraq model is a failure. Since it plays to US weakness and the enemy’s strengths (long wars fought guerilla style on land — all the enemy has to do is kill everyone and make the place unlivable). Instead we should have a much larger, more effective Navy and Air Force with which to punish enemies to provide deterrence. WITH an expeditionary force that could, say seize oil fields in Saudi Arabia and pump them dry.
Collective security is DEAD. We are the only competent military left, which is the main reason NATO is as dead as the UN.
What was not said in the Petraeus hearings? What to do about Iran and Pakistan.
know you cannot handle FACTS but there is the truth. 3.4% of GDP and yes, we do spend more than any other government in raw money BUT we spend less as a percentage of GDP than most of the other 1st world nations.
That’s like saying if you’re a corporation employing thousands and thousands of people, and you donate $1,000 dollars to a charity; you’re a better person than me, who donates 200$ (what’s left in my piggy bank) simply by the size of the check.
I disagree, but everything’s relative.
alchemist: In the interest of factual accounting, 3.4% of GDP is less than most nations spend on defence, but it is not less than most 1st world nations spend on defence. Currently, in the post Cold War era, most European nations are spending extremely low rates on defence (In fact, they are probably historic all time lows for any nation. Even at the height of US isolationism when we had the 14th largest army in the world and the largest economy, we still maintained a sizable naval force.)
So, in fact, robohoho’s fact is not factual.
This however does not make you any more correct. The fact that we are spending more on our armies than most European nations does not necessarily mean that we are spending too much or that we are bad guys. Just because the Europeans jump off a cliff, doesn’t mean we should too. The Europeans are spending such low amounts because they’ve abandoned thier responcibilities, even when those responcibilities are right next door. They allowed a genocide to occur in Bosnia, and would have allowed another in Kosovo. Dutch troops stood aside and allowed a massacre because they knew that there threat to intervene wouldn’t be treated seriously (and frankly, because they are cowards). American peace keeping troops in the same position would have been able to stand thier ground and would have been respected because our ability to project power is obvious. When a disaster strikes Indonesia, its only America with the naval and air forces to move significant resources rapidly into an area without infrastructure. Europe lacks ability to project signficant military, peacekeeping, or humanitarian aid beyond its borders without US help. Europe lacks the ability to protect the weak from the predations of the strong. In Afghanistan, every one of our NATO allies is entirely dependent on US strategic logistical support because no European nation except Britain (and to a lesser extent ally in name only France) now has organic capacity to move troops in much numbers outside its own borders. By Britain’s defence minister’s own estimation, they will lose this capacity to act without US aid (and hense US approval) within the next 20 years given current funding levels. Canada’s situation, once the world’s third great naval power with a military tradition second to none including the US, is similar.
The fact of the matter is that in a flawed world, militaries are useful and can be forces of good. At the very least, a military should be sufficient to ensure that you can justly defend yourself from threats. But Europe’s military is rapidly decaying past that point, so that, the Prime Minister of France (for example) is forced to say that if France were to suffer a 9/11 style attack or similar breach of thier sovereignty and security that they would respond with nuclear weapons. Is that the world that you want, where the US must go around nuking anyone that attacks us?
War is hell. War is murderous. There is no such thing as a good war.
But there are things that are worse than war, and if you don’t think so you’ve not much experience with the world.
Something else to consider- our military spending is instrumental in our ability to keep the peace just through strength. We prevent war in Korea and Taiwan that would have massive repurcussions on our economy. We patrol the worlds sea lanes and prevent any dictator with a fleet of speedboats from harrassing world trade. These things are expensive, but the amount of wealth we create through trade dwarfs it.
If we didnt have the ability to project force into the rich but militarilly hopeless Middle East, somebody else would. This is not a question of whether we spend money to have power all over the world or not- its a question of who fills the void if we dont. Thats always been the place where the isolationists and anti-americans have failed to produce an answer. Ie, are they ok with Russia, or Iran, or China, much less all the tin horns taking up any slack we leave.
celebrim & alchemist – you are right, both of you. according to the “cia world factbook”:https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2034rank.html the US spends 4.06% of GDP (in 2005)
Nice link, Robo. Thanks. But what’s up with Maldives? 5.5%. Think they’re up to something?
mark – no, just their gdp is not much. remember – and i know this well being a mathematician – there are lies, damn lies and statistics. the rest of the developed world may have abdicated their positions of world power to become part of the new world order or something – whatever the conspiracy theory du jour is…..
Robo, the rest of the developed world may smarter than we think. If I’m your neighbor and I know that you are going to lay out enough cash to pay for adequate police protection for our block, then I’m going to upgrade the # of stars my hotel has when I go on vacation.
I think I misread a post somewhere….
Sorry, I was arguing against apples while you were arguing against oranges…. my fault. I’ll start talking oranges now.
Is the military too big? Probably not, it could probably use some growth. I’ve been thinking for a while that the US should do something similar to Israel… one to two years of mandatory national service. In addition to the military, it could also be with peace corps, americorps, extended vollunteer opportunities, park rangers etc. Would it be expensive? Very. However I think it would be worth it to install in americans that serving your country (in some form or fashion) is more demanding than putting a bumper sticker on your car. It would also naturally expand the military.
However, the military is desperately in need of some cost-effectiveness training (as does most goverment.) A recent article I read explains that new smart-bombs make many jet-bombers obsolete. Why use a brand new 100million dollar jet when a 15-year old 40million bomber can drop more bombs in less time, using less gas? Because old bombers aren’t flashy. So the military spends billions on new fighters that sound cool, that can only drop 1-2 bombs at a time, when they already have planes that work perfectly fine.
This is a perfect example of what’s wrong with military spending (and goverment spending in general). With some thoughtful cuts, we could get a more effective military on a smaller budget.
For what it is worth, the U.S. spends about 1% of the total World GDP on defense.
Alchemist –
Military spending is not wasted in peacetime. It provides jobs, boosts the economy, and synergizes powerfully with tech industries. And it once saved this country from a depression when all else had failed.
I regard the liberal belief in “sacrifice” as a religious belief, and that’s putting it charitably. You can’t spend my money on your religious beliefs (see
The Establishment Clause.)
Since you’re interested in saving money, couldn’t we have saved money by expanding the Peace Corps and Vista instead of multiplying bureaucracy by founding Americorps? Ah, but then Bill Clinton couldn’t have gone down in history as “The founder of Americorps.”
Clinton’s worship of his own bloated ego is an unfortunate exception to the Establishment Clause.
_Military spending is not wasted in peacetime. It provides jobs, boosts the economy, and synergizes powerfully with tech industries._
We could provide jobs to anybody doing anything, if providing jobs was the issue. But it needs to be something that voters like, since otherwise voters will object. “You gave artists money to make art I don’t like!”
We could boost the economy by buying anything we wanted. We could even boost the economy by giving money to voters. Provided the voters didn’t get upset aboutit.
Synergises with tech industries? I dunno. I remember a long time ago when we had an active space program and people were talking about the wonderful spinoffs from the space program for the civilian economy. My econ teacher said, OK, let’s invest in the civilian economy and run the space program on the spinoffs. I thought the space stuff was worth doing but he had a point about that particular argument. When the civilian economy actually gets into research on a topic all the military can do is hold on and try to grab what goodies they can. It’s gone that way with the electronics/computing stuff. The secret military stuff got so far behind they mostly put it aside and they’re trying to use COTS instead.
_And it once saved this country from a depression when all else had failed._
Due entirely to voters who’d approve government spending for nothing else. There are various fascinating possibilities about why that depression was so deep and so lasting, but fundamentally it was because of the voters and their beliefs.
That said, while for purposes of job creation, stimulating the economy, and fostering new technology we have lots of alternative ways to spend the money — we have to notice which of them we actually want.
And military spending has a value that most others don’t. It lets us kick ass.
There’s a basic satisfaction to watching people argue and bicker about something, and then you step up and say “You’e all going to do this my way. And if you don’t I’ll kick ass.” And watch them do it your way, because they know they can’t beat you. That’s real, real satisfying. If a lot of money is going to get spent, there aren’t a lot of other ways to do it that create so much satisfaction.
“We could boost the economy by buying anything we wanted.”
This is not true. You can only boost the economy by creating capital goods. Some military tools (trucks for example) are capital goods, almost all of them stimulate the production of capital goods (precision machining tools, for example). And the impact of military technologies with civilian applications is huge. Your econ teacher is only partially correct about military vs. civilian technology. You mention electronics, and you neglect to understand that the genesis of that technology was huge military projects in computation (to build for example atomic bombs) which was far out of the reach of civilian expenditure. Without which, electronics would have never got the boost which would have made it cheap enough to be a practical as a household application. The same is true of things like GPS, and so forth. The civilian economy probably could have taken over from here, but the start up costs being paid by the military sped the research by decades.
“We could even boost the economy by giving money to voters.”
Not true. This is income redistribution at best, which probably doesn’t do anything to the economy and potentially destroys capital goods. You can boost the economy by reducing taxes because government spending tends to be inefficient, so you probably could increase the economy by ending military spending, but of all the things that the government can spend its money on, military is fairly good investment economicly. Only things like large scale infrastructure projects (roads, bridges, canals, resevoirs, etc.) are probably more effective.
J Thomas:
That’s true. Space turned out to be less of a tech bonanza than was expected. But NASA in its heyday was not on the cutting edge of technology; its forte was fitting as much stuff as possible into its budget, which often meant using tech that was not state of the art. For example, the steering gyroscope that gave Apollo 13 so many problems was an inferior system that was used because it was compact and cheap.
An example of useful technology that was pioneered by the military would be the fuel-injected engine, without which John Edwards’ SUV would be sucking up like 50 gallons of gas a second.
But the main benefit of military spending is not the transfer of technology from military to civilian use, but the support it gives to tech and aviation industries that develop new technologies outside of the military.
Yes, we could pay people to do anything. We could pay them to dig holes, and then fill the holes up again. (Why do I get the idea that liberals would just love to see people digging holes and filling them up again?) We could pay them to build everybody a house, and drive all the plumbers and contractors and electricians out of business.
Better yet, we can do what we normally do, which is to pay them to sit on their ass at home and do nothing until it’s time to go out and vote for another Democrat.
Or we can pay them to do things that benefit broad sectors of the economy, and which might save our lives some day.
You can only boost the economy by creating capital goods. Some military tools (trucks for example) are capital goods, almost all of them stimulate the production of capital goods (precision machining tools, for example).
Say we boosted the economy by paying for capital goods that we then parked out in the desert and never used. A thousand drop forges, ten thousand milling machines, all sitting in the desert collecting dust. Well, but instead we could give those capital goods to the military to use in ways that don’t boost the economy. Not a whole lot of difference except that the military stuff *could* get used for something useful. Disaster relief, parades, invading other countries….
_And the impact of military technologies with civilian applications is huge._
As is the impact of civilian technologies with military applications. That road goes both directions. So if we improve the civilian economy we can get vast military benefits as spinoffs, and they’ll be cheaper too.
_You mention electronics, and you neglect to understand that the genesis of that technology was huge military projects in computation (to build for example atomic bombs) which was far out of the reach of civilian expenditure._
That’s how we chose to fund it in the early days. We didn’t have to do it that way, that was just one of the ways we chose. The phone company had a lot to do with it too.
_Without which, electronics would have never got the boost which would have made it cheap enough to be a practical as a household application._
You may be right. Maybe without the US military paying great gobs of money there would never ever be an electronics industry. There’s no way to go back and repeat the experiment to get a control group. But if you’re right, there may be thousands of other technologies that we *didn’t* develop because we siphoned off the money for the military to spend on electronics instead. That’s another road that goes both directions. We can never prove that the opportunity cost of our military technology isn’t in the quintillions.
“We could even boost the economy by giving money to voters.”
_Not true. This is income redistribution at best, which probably doesn’t do anything to the economy and potentially destroys capital goods._
The military spends money on bullets and uniforms and barracks and so on, and boosts the economy. Voters who had extra money would spend it on food and electronics and medical care and son on, and would boost the economy. I’m not arguing that we *ought* to do income redistribution in any particular case. I’m arguing that giving money away to voters increases spending in the economy just like government spending does. We have an ideology that says it’s wrong to give money to voters because they don’t deserve it, but it’s right to give money to the military because it *might* deserve it someday. Legislatures have to take that ideology into account. I say either way would stimulate the economy.
_You can boost the economy by reducing taxes because government spending tends to be inefficient,_
Same thing. The difference between reducing taxes and giving money to taxpayers is ….
Ah! The difference is that taxpayers deserve to keep the money that is rightfully theirs according to the Labor Theory of Value. But poor people who don’t pay taxes don’t deserve to get more money back than they put in. I’m not arguing that anybody deserves to get more benefit from the government than they pay for. Obviously if you only put $5000 into the government in taxes, then you shouldn’t get more than $5000 back in government services all put together. 😉 Since the government doesn’t produce anything but can only spend what it takes from people, obviously it’s wrong for anybody to get more than their fair share. 😉 😉 Since government can’t give back any more than it takes, clearly on average we must get back less than we put in. 😉 😉 😉 But my point is that giving money back to voters works as well as direct government spending for stimulating the economy, even when the money is filtered through the military bureaucracy instead of being disbursed by the civilian government bureaucracy.
_But the main benefit of military spending is not the transfer of technology from military to civilian use, but the support it gives to tech and aviation industries that develop new technologies outside of the military._
If that’s the main benefit, we could just support the tech and aviation industries and cut out the middleman.
_Yes, we could pay people to do anything. We could pay them to dig holes, and then fill the holes up again. (Why do I get the idea that liberals would just love to see people digging holes and filling them up again?)_
Because in the 1930’s there were conservative swiftboaters spreading the story that FDRs programs did that?
_We could pay them to build everybody a house, and drive all the plumbers and contractors and electricians out of business._
You’re saying that if we build more houses, the people who build houses will go out of business? It sounds like you’re talking about paying unemployed people to build houses under government direction, and the assumption is that the government-managed housing projects will outcompete the private markets? This doesn’t sound plausible to me.
But you know what might be good? Pay relatively few experts to study improved construction techniques, and document which ones actually work well. It would take very careful study to show in two years that a given construction technique will be good for 20 years or 80 years, but if it’s done well the federal government’s stamp of approval could encourage many thousands of local governments to update their building codes. Our residential construction is probably far more expensive than it ought to be because of outdated codes, but no one local government has the funding to decide whether to approve new methods. So we stay at least 20 years behind, and the compound-interest process of technical improvements goes at a very slow doubling rate. Relatively small investment in construction research could have big payoffs.
_Better yet, we can do what we normally do, which is to pay them to sit on their ass at home and do nothing until it’s time to go out and vote for another Democrat._
That certainly stimulates the economy, everything they buy that they wouldn’t otherwise is demand. And given the chance, they might take initiative and do something useful that wouldn’t otherwise get done. On the other hand they might sit on their asses at home and post to blogs. Here’s a thought. Find unemployed or underemployed people with a masters or better in physics, and pay them enough to live on plus a moderate amount for supplies etc. Pay the moderate supply stipend to all the employed physicists too. If just a few of them produce something useful then it’s likely to more than pay for the program, and if not you’re still stimulating the economy at least as well as you would with so many women trying to raise future US voters on indequate income.
_Since you’re interested in saving money, couldn’t we have saved money by expanding the Peace Corps and Vista instead of multiplying bureaucracy by founding Americorps?_
Sure, I’m down with that. Whatever completes projects and does if effectively and efficiently. I’m also saying that the military SHOULD spend money on new techonologies that create jobs and aviation technology. However, these projects should be held accountable for their successes or failures.
The problem is that no one is accountable. Once money (& PR) has been spent at a project, military careers are on the line. If the project fails, the military is better off throwing money at the problem than admitting failure. Over time, failure, exagerated claims and hush-hush bribes become intrinsic in the system… which is why the military starts billion dollar programs with equipment it doesn’t neccessarily need (like using fighters as bombers).
Need more concrete examples: Look at the Coast Gaurd’s “Deep Water” program,”patriot missile defense system” or the convultued history of the Bradley fighting vehicle, to name a few. The military isn’t cost-effective (or efficient) because it doesn’t have to be. Basic rules of goverment.
_I regard the liberal belief in “sacrifice” as a religious belief, and that’s putting it charitably. You can’t spend my money on your religious beliefs (see The Establishment Clause.)_
Last I checked, there is no “Church of Vollunteering”, but I could be wrong. Isn’t military a “sacrifice” for the good of the country? If I see the military as a “religious system” can I cut that too?
I happen to think that some sacrifice towards our country should be required by all citizens. I’m talking about building programs to get ordinary citizens involved in the everyday problems of our nation. These programs could be military-related, vollunteering related, etc; just something that gets people involved in solving problems at the community, state and national level.
Alchemist:
Then why do liberals remain silent when military recruiters are driven out of schools? Why do they refuse to support ROTC programs?
We hear the constant complaint that “the American are not being asked to sacrifice” – which means, of course, not being asked but being compelled – yet what this sacrifice is supposed to accomplish is mystifying. We even hear liberals who are opposed to the war complaining about insufficient SACRIFICE. If the war is bad and hurting the country, why sacrifice more things to it?
Since it is obviously the idea of sacrifice for the sake of sacrifice that stirs the endorphins, my advice is to get a pagan idol and some goats and knock yourselves out.
_”I happen to think that some sacrifice towards our country should be required by all citizens.”_
I gave on April 15th. Isnt half my paycheck enough? Last I checked it was sometime in June before i started working to pay my own bills instead of the governments.
Seriously though- compelled service isnt what our nation is about. Its one thing to call up a draft in last defense of your nation, another to compel obedience to build character (or whatever the justification). That seems to be a very slippery slope.
_Then why do liberals remain silent when military recruiters are driven out of schools? Why do they refuse to support ROTC programs?_
I think there is a fear among liberals (leftover from vietnam) that the army will drag you, kicking and screaming into a war where you’re forced to kill people over a country you don’t care (and they don’t care) about.
I understand that sentiment, though I don’t agree with it. My Dad served, my cousin is a navy officer. I have some good friends who are or were in the military, and I think military service has been a good thing for all of them. I don’t think it’s good for everyone, and I think developing new opportunities to serve your country without serving in the military is a good thing.
_compelled service isnt what our nation is about… That seems to be a very slippery slope._
Yes it is. I also realize that this idea will NEVER happen. But it so happens that we’re currently on the reverse slippery slope. A majority of people can’t even be bothered to vote. Or if they vote, they can’t bother to spend an afternoon researching their vote. My rant doesn’t even apply to people here, who obviously care enough to spend several hours blogging about the state of the nation.
On this apathetic slope, I hear more and more variations on the theme “I’ll liter wherever I want. I pay taxes, the city can pick it up”. Seriously, the average person just doesn’t take pride in making america “All it can be” anymore. This country gave you freedom, it gave you an education, a place to raise your family, and all your going to give back is taxes??
So maybe compelled service is a bad idea. Still, there are alot of ex-students like me who would give up a year of my life if I knew I could do something worthwile for my country. Wouldn’t you?
_”So maybe compelled service is a bad idea. Still, there are alot of ex-students like me who would give up a year of my life if I knew I could do something worthwile for my country. Wouldn’t you?”_
Weeelllll, thats great in sentiment, and i’d like to think i would, but as they say people vote with their feet. I dont see a ton of people volunteering for the Peace Corp these days.
But people DO volunteer in this nation- its one of the great tell tale lessons of the failure of socialist democracy that as the power and scope (and taxation) of the state increases, voluntary charity and works decrease. Europe has a _much_ lower level of charitible contribution than the US, and dont get me started on how they feel about citizens intervening in crime stopping etc.
I definately agree with your apathy argument though. But is it ‘rational apathy’, as an economist would say? I mean, unless you are in the military etc does either side in Washington do anything so radically different that it really affects your every day life?
Of note: I did volunteer for the peace corps, but the problem is that there isn’t enough money, so you really have to fight to get a position. Even since then, the budget has been cut more and more. So when it came down to grad school or waiting for maybe getting a position, I took grad school.