|
 |
||
|
Latest Stories
Recent blog posts
|
March 2, 2008 - 8:53pm.
Now that the topic of "national security" and the monetary cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan has once again reared it's head in the Presidential campaign, it might be time to take stock of just what we've gotten for the HUGE amount of resources in blood and treasure we've expended in these wars. This same issue also came to the fore at about this time last year when the tragic bridge collapse in Minneapolis sparked yet another round of the age-old "guns vs. butter" debate. Personally, when I saw the pictures of twisted steel and concrete rebar, the first thought that popped into my head was, "We seem to be able to afford dumping trillions of dollars down a "rat hole" for illegal wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, but we don't seem to have enough money available to fix our ever-aging (and now crumbling) highway infrastructure." However, in reality, the argument is not about "guns vs. butter", but "butter vs. butter". I recall hearing the same wails of protest over the Apollo space program in the 1960s. The question then was: "Why are we spending all that money on the Moon when millions of poor people are still starving in Appalachia"? The truth is that not one plug nickel of the tax money we spent on the Apollo program was ever spent "on the Moon". It was all spent right here on Earth. It was expended to pay the salaries of the thousands upon thousands of US workers who built, tested, launched and then controlled the entire infrastructure of the moon missions, as well as to procure the actual hardware and software that flew on those missions. Likewise, despite all the horror stores we've heard to the contrary, very little of the money we are now pouring down the "rat holes" in Iraq and Afghanistan is actually being spent there. Rather, most of those untold billions (trillions?) of dollars in tax money are being spent right here in the United States of America. It's being used to keep hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of workers in our "Military Industrial Complex" in this country gainfully employed. In fact, in an age when most manufacturing jobs are being automated (and the rest are being sent off to Mexico, India and/or China) our own, far-less automated defense industry is booming…literally…. by keeping millions of US manufacturing workers here at home fully employed and on thousands of payrolls. What’s more, because of national security issues, the military industrial complex in our nation is one of the last remaining "export proof" sources of manufacturing we now have left. This might help explain why making war continues to be such an attractive "pork barrel" pursuit among our President and his Cabal in Congress. So, rather than asking the "guns vs. butter" question, we probably OUGHT to be asking ourselves which brand of "butter" we want to fund. That is, when all is said and done with the tax dollars that are now being expended to keep a large segment of our population gainfully employed, what do we want to have to show for that expenditure when we are all finished? It is important to remember that, since the dawn of time, the basic purpose of any military organization has been to kill people and break things. And, right now, our US defense industry is cranking out untold arsenals of guns, tanks, personnel carriers, airplanes, bombs missiles, ammunition and ships to do just that in Iraq and elsewhere around the globe. When you toss in those armaments being manufactured for use in law enforcement and "security", ours is a nation that has since become, by any measure, armed to the teeth. But, unfortunately, what we've gotten in exchange for all the things we've bought, shipped and then used (or used up) on the field of battle for the last seven years is a lot of destruction along with lots of broken (or worn out) expensive military machinery. This is not to mention the horrific human cost in the tens of thousands of our own soldiers that have gotten killed or maimed in these wars, nor does it take into account the untold numbers of non-combatant men, women and children who, unfortunately, have just happened to be in the way while we were "killing people and breaking things". Now, there are those who will vehemently argue that keeping the people in our nation alive and free is the principal purpose of our military. I certainly won't argue that point. But, making the leap to equating that basic thought with indefinitely underwriting the quagmire our leadership has now gotten us into in Iraq and Afghanistan with our hard earned tax dollars simply doesn't compute. In fact, it's not even close. On the other hand, if we were to now divert more of the resources we are spending on continuing to underwrite the "no-win" quagmires our leadership have gotten us into in Iraq and Afghanistan and use them for rebuilding our crumbling highways in this country, we could still keep a large, "non-exportable" workforce in our nation gainfully employed, as well as those of us who regularly travel over that now crumbling infrastructure ALIVE. What's more, our country would also have many more lasting and useful monuments to that labor…rebuilt highways and bridges…. with far more short AND long-term benefits to our nation…to show for it.  Technorati Tags:
Capitol Hill Blue's columnists, blogs and reader comments Capitol Hill Blue is an independent, non-partisan news site that belongs to no political party and subscribes to no political or philosophical point-of-view. Our columnists are welcome to their opinions but readers should understand that their views do not necessarily reflect the editorial policies of this web site. We also welcome comments to selected opinion columns and in our popular ReaderRant discussion forum. Please remember, however, that we believe in civility on this web site and comments may be reviewed, moderated or removed if we feel they contain obscenities, racism, bigotry, anti-Semitic remarks or attack other posters. Our goal is reasoned discussion on issues facing this nation and we do not feel that goal is served by personal attacks and by seeing how many cute adjectives you can attach to an elected official or politician's name. Copyright © 2008 Capitol Hill Blue
|
User login
 |
Stellar commentary and logic
Submitted by bryan mcclellan on March 3, 2008 - 7:16am.Stellar commentary and logic Keith.
"What’s more, because of
Submitted by pollchecker on March 3, 2008 - 9:31am."What’s more, because of national security issues, the military industrial complex in our nation is one of the last remaining "export proof" sources of manufacturing we now have left. This might help explain why making war continues to be such an attractive "pork barrel" pursuit among our President and his Cabal in Congress."
You nailed it!
The military industrial complex is the biggest manufacturer in the good old USA. They got neglected during the Clinton years but they made up for it during GW years.
Part of the reason that Cheney was chosen VP was because of his money connections in BOTH the military industiral complex AND oil and gas. However, the military money was the most important. Iraq accomplished 2 things. GW got his vengeance against Saddam and the military industrial complex is back in business...BIG BUSINESS.
However, they just got kicked in the behind with the AirBush deal (yes I know it is really Air Bus, it's a joke).
I find it ironic that we can't buy military armor vests from the Israelis because we have to buy them from US contractors or we can't buy the armor humvess because we need newer and better ones made here in the USA. But we can export 600 BILLION DOLLARS TO FRANCE to build these HUGE Militray planes.
We seem to be exporting our entire economy thanks to the steal and spend Republicans. All with, I should note, with John McCain's blessing. I wonder who those people at Boeing are going to be voting for.
Some people don't think GW can go lower in the polls. I've got $5 that says he can (gggg).
Pollchecker wrote: But we
Submitted by keith on March 3, 2008 - 11:25am.Pollchecker wrote:
Actually, the complaints we are now hearing as a result of that particular military contract are yet another "pork barrel" issue of which Congressperson's constituency gets which amount of "pork".
What's more, this contract was yet another classic example of our country's increasing non-competitiveness when compared with the rest of the world. The simple truth is that the European aircraft consortium Airbus (teaming with US aircraft provider Northrop Grumman) beat out another US manufacturer...Boeing... for the HUGE order for new aerial tanker aircraft for our US Air Force.
But the truth is that the Airbus entry won fair and square based on cost, as well as on past and projected contractor and system performance.
The deal, immediately worth some $40 Billion (but conceivably worth upwards of $100 Billion to replace the whole 600 aircraft fleet) was, on all fronts and from a cost-effectiveness standpoint, a "no brainer". The Airbus entry beat Boeing on four of five critical selection criteria and tied them on the fifth.
That means that the Airbus entry will be larger, faster, and (from a mission-effectiveness standpoint) cheaper to both purchase and operate. It will also be able to fly more cargo and offload more fuel at a faster rate than the Boeing entry.
By any measure, Boeing's entry was simply non-competitive. And, our own US Air Force...who have the taxpayers of the nation and our war fighter's interests at heart...clearly made the right decision for our country as a whole.
Now, one very big upside of that deal that has NOT been widely reported is that Airbus plans to assemble the new aircraft in Alabama (NOT France!) and to also move ALL of their worldwide assembly operations for the commercial version of that aircraft (the Airbus 330) to the new plant they will now be building in the United States. As a result, the contract will create thousands of short-term construction jobs as well as 1500 new full-time aerospace jobs in Alabama. It will also create some 25,000 other jobs (mostly with suppliers) throughout the rest of the United States as well. For example, the aircraft's engines will be built at General Electric plants in North Carolina and Ohio.
So, it's not quite true to say that we are sending "billions of dollars to France" any more than it is correct to say that all of those US auto workers now employed by Japanese car makers assembling a plethora of so-called "imported" vehicles at numerous plants in the United States of America are all Japanese and the dollars we use to buy them are all going back to Japan.
But, with that said, it IS true that only 58 percent of the new aerial tanker (as compared to upwards of 80 percent for the Boeing entry) will now be manufactured in the USA. To me, that fact simply speaks volumes about Boeing's lagging competitiveness in the world's marketplace as compared with our European competition.
And as you might guess, the howls of protest from some of our elected representatives (particularly those in Washington State and Kansas where Boeing has major manufacturing plants) have already started. Whether the self-serving politicians will now overrule economic reality (or common sense) and do what's best for the country as a whole remains to be seen. On the other hand, and needless to day, the politicians in Alabama are now quite delighted at the result.
I find it ironic that many of our posting here on CHB love to rip into President Bush for his "my way or the highway" myopic approach to foreign policy in an increasingly interdependent world. Yet we seem to have no difficulty in demanding our government adopt the exact same myopic approach to jobs and in "protecting" our economy from stiff foreign competition in an ever more competitive world economy.
It seems to me that, rather than harping about who gets what slice of an ever-shrinking manufacturing "pie" in our country, I should think our politicians' time would be much better spent helping us all to find (or make) a bigger one.
"Now, one very big upside of
Submitted by pollchecker on March 3, 2008 - 11:54am."Now, one very big upside of that deal that has NOT been widely reported is that Airbus plans to assemble the new aircraft in Alabama"
Actually it has. However, it will only create approx 1800 jobs in Mobile versus approximately 4-5 times more that IF Boeing had gotten the contract.
My point was about the irony of refusing to purchase perfectly good products developed in other nations for the good of our military fighting NOW in Iraq versus their decision to purchase very expensive military aircraft from a foreign company.
And France for gosh sakes. The very country that we were so at odds with over our invasion into Iraq, remember?
If we repeal all the tax incentives to move manufacturing outside of the US, then you will see more manufacturing jobs return home. But unemployed factory workers don't contribute to campaigns to the same degree as rich high powered corporate fat cats.
The good news is that we are going to be in such an economic pickle when GW gets through, that Congress is going to have no choice regardless of who resides in the WH but to revoke those tax incentives in order to get our spiralling fiscal deficit under control.
Ironically, McCain who voted against GW's gift to his rich friends in tax cuts TWICE, is now publicly saying he will keep GW's tax giveaway to the rich in place PERMANENTLY.
Chalmers Johnson calls this
Submitted by jzelensk on March 3, 2008 - 11:24am.Chalmers Johnson calls this "military Keynesianism":
http://mondediplo.com/2008/02/05military
Insane!
Excellent article! Thanks!
Submitted by keith on March 3, 2008 - 12:06pm.Excellent article! Thanks!
Your link provides some
Submitted by pollchecker on March 3, 2008 - 12:26pm.Your link provides some excellent points. I particularly like:
"in our devotion to militarism (despite our limited resources), we are failing to invest in our social infrastructure and other requirements for the long-term health of the US. "
Here is the crux of the debate for this next election no matter who is facing McCain.
John McCain will continue to support Bush's failed policies in Iraq and abroad, in tax giveaways for the rich, and private investments for social security. The maverick has been absorbed and reprogrammed by the failed "spend and steal" politics of the Genuises Of Propaganda.
He won't be able to recast from that no matter how much hateful and fearful rhetoric they esspouse.
Over 60% of the people want us out of Iraq and McCain has made it clear he is not going to withdraw from Iraq.
The POWERS behind the GOP KNOW that they cannot win on foreign policy so they will try to divert the focus of the issues.
The good news is that we are
Submitted by keith on March 3, 2008 - 12:05pm.Agreed!
And, as always, thanks for your well-thought-out commentary!
Am reading a book entitled
Submitted by barak on March 3, 2008 - 11:57pm.Am reading a book entitled "Achilles in Vietnam". The author makes the point that we won every single battle we fought, but still lost the war.
Iraq and Afghanistan are no different. We should learn from our mistakes in Vietnam, not blindly and stupidly repeat them.
"We should learn from our
Submitted by pollchecker on March 4, 2008 - 6:31am."We should learn from our mistakes in Vietnam, not blindly and stupidly repeat them."
I totally concur. Too bad GW was wasted on booze and cocaine in those days and didn't pay attention to world events or learn from history.
Agreed! I'm reading a
Submitted by keith on March 4, 2008 - 10:51am.Agreed!
I'm reading a biography on Richard M. Nixon by that (now convicted felon) Conrad Black.
The comparisons between the morass we have dug for ourselves in Iraq and Afghanistan to the morass we dug ourselves into in Vietnam are striking...including Nixon's myopic attempts at "Vietnamization". Have not Mr. Bush and his Cabal ALSO repeatedly told us that, "As the Iraqi army stands up, we will stand down?"
It didn't work back then, and it won't work now.
The North Vietnamese wanted nothing less than our occupying army OFF of its soil. And they were more than willing to wait until the war dragged on for so long that sinking US public opinion (and shrinking Congressional fiscal support along with ever-more restrictive laws on where we could and could not fight) made it utterly impossible for the USA to win the war militarily.
In that sense, Mr. Bush, just like Mr. Nixon did in the 1970s, is only postponing the inevitable in Iraq.
"Those who do not learn from history are bound to repeat it."
In September 2002, I wrote
Submitted by pollchecker on March 4, 2008 - 12:13pm.In September 2002, I wrote on my now defunct website that it was not a matter of if we were going into Iraq but rather a matter of when. And that it would be a huge mess and end up being like Vietnam.
This is what scares me about McCain. He believed Vietnam could be won back then.
He believes we haven't won over in Iraq yet and plans to continue our stay indefinitely contrary to the American people's wants on this matter until he deems victory has been achieved.
We think GW is bad. This McCain guy with the so-called experience may be worse.
There is a massive problem
Submitted by Sandra Price on March 4, 2008 - 10:23am.There is a massive problem brewing in South America and our borders are wide open. I'm checking some links on this mess but want to warn all of you to look south for the next massive war. We must remember that Bush bought some acreage in Paraguay and he will protect it with our troops. Our government is playing with death in two hemispheres and even considering a vote for McCain will guarantee this next mess will destroy more than we know.
Hi Keith... I've been
Submitted by Carl Nemo on March 4, 2008 - 8:58pm.Hi Keith...
I've been meaning to compliment you on your superb blog commentary for some time now. My apologies for not doing so much sooner.
I'll simply say this. The amount of debt-money that's been wasted on MIC/Congressional sponsored profligacy is truly astronomical. It's unpayable due to the compound interest effect.
We as a nation are "toast" and since the MIC comes first they'l probably cannibalize all feelgood social programs to be able to continue to feed this ever-hungry raging beast. So they'l cut SS, Medicare, Medicaid, and every other social program to the bone regardless of the incredible anger felt amongst the people.
If there's an uprising they'l use all the force necessary vested in the MIC and national law enforcement agencies to crush any dissent under the auspices of martial law. Think not, then everyone best think again!
Elitist monsters have seized control of the United States. This did not happen recently, but has been a planned, methodical process that's been unfolding since the early part of the 20th century with the creation of the Federal Reserve System, the income tax along with a host of other freedom destroying laws, executive orders etc. during the past 100 years.
We mean nothing to these smug bastards at the highest levels of our government. We are nothing but groundlings to them; ie., they the predators, and we their prey...!
Thanks again for your superb thoughts on many aspects of this ever-grasping tyranny that stalks our once great nation.
Carl Nemo **==
Carl, Many thanks for your
Submitted by keith on March 5, 2008 - 8:43am.Carl,
Many thanks for your kind words, and for YOUR excellent postings. It would appear we are in "violent agreement" on many things.
You are correct; "pork barrel" spending WILL be our downfall. I can't help but compare and contrast the absolutely massive debt load the "Republicrats" in Congress have now saddled us with, with our neighbors to the North.
The total federal debt in Canada stands right now at about $500 Billion, most of it left over from the free-spending Trudeau years. But, since that time, successive governments in Canada (of all political stripes) have been steadily paying their national debt down, albeit a little at a time.
Now, this debt payoff has not come without pain. Canadians are among the most heavily taxed populations on the planet. The top income tax bracket in Canada runs upwards of 48% and sales taxes (combined Provincial and Federal) have, in recent years, often topped 15%.
And, granted, the total GDP of Canada is nowhere near what it is in the USA. But, even so, the fact that Canada makes an extra effort to continually balance its books (alone among the G8 countries) is an absolutely remarkable fiscal accomplishment in this day and age.
And, true to form, in this year's budget submission, the Government of Canada agreed to once again run a budget surplus while also contributing another $10 Billion to pay off their national debt.
What's more, while they have been paying down that debt, the portion of the interest they've saved is being freed up for other programs, as well as to drop their Goods and Services Tax (known as the GST...the federal portion of the combined federal and provincial sales tax) from 7% down to 5%. For most Canadians, that combined sales tax is now 13% (down from 15% just a few years ago)…which is still confiscatory. But, on the other hand, it's DROPPING!
By contrast, in 2006, the United States spent some $406 Billion just to pay interest to the holders of OUR national debt. Needless to say, that's money that was totally lost for other uses. And our debt now stands at over $9 Trillion (with a "T").
All the while our idiots in the US Congress (along with our economically-challenged President) elect to keep adding to our national debt at the rate they have been as of late, our ballooning national debt (and the interest payments needed to service it) will continue to add up.
Any way you cut it, keeping taxes ridiculously low…certainly nowhere near high enough to pay for the level of spending we are now incurring…is a sure fire recipe for economic disaster. At some point, our country will become completely insolvent…if we aren't' there already.
The NASA moon race brought
Submitted by CheckerboardStr... on March 5, 2008 - 4:44pm.The NASA moon race brought us every single technological advance that we are currently enjoying right now.
The single act of going to the moon yielded the largest and most all-encompassing technological bonanza and windfall in the history of the human race, far bigger than a dozen Industrial Revolutions combined.
I'd say that the GWOT pales in comparison.
One Eli Whitney Cotton Gin has benefited mankind more than all the outlays in the name of "preventing terra-ism".
JeffH in "Occupied" Texas