A Cow Most Sacred - Why Military Spending is Untouchable

[ensho]

http://counterpunch.com/bacevich01272011.html


In defense circles, "cutting" the Pentagon budget has once again become a topic of conversation. Americans should not confuse that talk with reality. Any cuts exacted will at most reduce the rate of growth. The essential facts remain: U.S. military outlays today equal that of every other nation on the planet combined, a situation without precedent in modern history.

The Pentagon presently spends more in constant dollars than it did at any time during the Cold War -- this despite the absence of anything remotely approximating what national security experts like to call a "peer competitor." Evil Empire? It exists only in the fevered imaginations of those who quiver at the prospect of China adding a rust-bucket Russian aircraft carrier to its fleet or who take seriously the ravings of radical Islamists promising from deep inside their caves to unite the Umma in a new caliphate.

-long snip explaining the 4 factors-

Like concentric security barriers arrayed around the Pentagon, these four factors -- institutional self-interest, strategic inertia, cultural dissonance, and misremembered history -- insulate the military budget from serious scrutiny. For advocates of a militarized approach to policy, they provide invaluable assets, to be defended at all costs.

------------------

actually the military Barons like their pockets stuffed with money and will kill to keep them stuffed.

[RandomThoughts]

1. How many will they kill, and what point will that action create a loss to them.

To do so they have to do that from the low position without moral high ground.

The long range effect of such action is their destruction, unless people are scared of them.

And getting people scared of them is their actual intent, hence why it is called terrorism.

[robdogbucky]

2. Lots of money to control perception, the news, etc.

DOD Spends More on Domestic PsyOps Than On Foreign PsyOps

By: emptywheel Friday February 6, 2009 1:16 pm

The AP just did a great investigation on how much money DOD is spending on PR and outreach (via Noah Shachtman). There are lots of nausea-inducing details in the story: that PR funds have grown 63% in the last five years, that DOD has almost as many people working in PR as the State Department employs altogether.

But what gets me is that DOD is spending more for Domestic PsyOps (otherwise known as Public Affairs) than it spends on Foreign PsyOps.

The biggest chunk of funds — about $1.6 billion — goes into recruitment and advertising. Another $547 million goes into public affairs, which reaches American audiences. And about $489 million more goes into what is known as psychological operations, which targets foreign audiences...

...Recruitment and advertising are the only two areas where Congress has authorized the military to influence the American public. Far more controversial is public affairs, because of the prohibition on propaganda to the American public. Spending on public affairs has more than doubled since 2003. Robert Hastings, acting secretary of defense, says the growth reflects changes in the information market, along with the fact that the U.S. is now fighting two wars..."

http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2009/02/06/dod-spends-more-on-domestic-psyops-than-on-foreign-psyops/




Dear SOS Clinton and President Obama:

Your democracy is killing us

The People of Afghanstan

[juajen]

16. Hillary is Secretary of State for the purpose of carrying out the

objectives of the President of the United States, and has no power on her own to determine these objectives.

[Enthusiast]

3. K&R

American military spending at this level is actually a greater threat to the nation than any of our potential enemies. There is simply no justification for this spending at even half the present level. Eisenhower's warning has come to full fruition.

[krabigirl]

4. No one in the corporate party (r and d) will ever make true cuts to the mic.

[rubberducky]

5. The Pentagon is "the evil empire". We just can`t declare war on it.

[Gregorian]

6. It's like sawing the limb that you're standing on.

We're paying the price for something that was profitable a long time ago.

The peripheral jobs that surround the military are an economy in themselves. Kill a military contract, and a machinist in Kansas goes without a paycheck.

[Lorien]

8. That machinist in Kansas should be working on green energy projects and

a National high speed maglev rail line.

[Gregorian]

11. Yep. That's what I did.

Every request for our product, that came from the military, went right into the garbage. I used to enjoy doing that. And we were successful anyways.

Swords to plowshares. That's what we must do.

[Name removed]

7. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[jwirr]

10. I don't think he has that power without both houses of congress.

[jwirr]

9. And we the people are not innocent in this issue. We listen at election

time to all the "weak on military" talking points and panic. I don't think anyone will ever be able to cut military spending until we get over our need to be able to destroy the world to be safe.

[juajen]

17. That's a damn broad brush you're using! NT

[jwirr]

20. Yeah I am aware of that but there are a lot of people who fall under

that brush. The small amount of us who do not can carry the stigma for the sake of the argument. Sorry if I offended you.

[Sinistrous]

12. Not to mention the fact that the Pentagon ensures that

pieces of their mega-boondoggles are produced in as many congressional districts as possible to ensure that the maximum number of voices are raised in protesting job losses whenever cuts in particular programs are proposed.

[Poll_Blind]

14. Such a good point to bring up- it is insidious! A pork trap.

Again, great point.

PB

[juajen]

13. This is where money is funneled into the "Shadow Government".

They really don't spent thousands for golden hammers and toilets.

[Book Lover]

15. Yeah, I saw Independence Day, too (nm)

[juajen]

18. Great movie! But, I had totally forgotten any mention of this. NT

[unhappycamper]

19. Want a small observation on what these guys are doing?

The last Nimitz-class carrier was $6.8 billion dollars sans people and airplanes so they could have poppy christen it. Prior to that Nimitz-class carriers cost around $4.5 billion dollars sans people and airplanes.

The new Zumwalt-class destroyers cost $5.1+ billion dollars each. And the primary weapons system, NLOS was canceled because it didn't work worth a damn (and the missiles cost $466K a pop). We built two Zumwalts without decent offensive/defensive systems and then put an order in for another three more Zumwalts.

Ka Ching.