It has been a major annoyance for me to listen to retired big spending US senators like Hank Brown (or potential Pentagon guru Bill Cohen) talking about balancing the budget (no reference whatsoever to an honest budget that doesn't use dedicated revenue funds) and warning about the dangers of cutting "defense". There is no mention of what is driving the present levels of military spending or how it is justified in today's political climate and the geopolitical realities present TODAY.
Instead we hear a lot of "sky is falling" rhetoric from notorious big spenders about being "so weak that we can't effectively fight a 2 front war". Huh???? This is clearly an emotional appeal harkening to the days preceding World War 2, the last time any major global power will ever be involved in a real all out war against another major global power. It won't happen again simply because with today's technology there is no way anyone can afford to WIN such a war. Isn't that the point in engaging in an all out military engagement - defeating the enemy? What that means is that ALL meaningful military conflicts - not to be confused with symbolic confrontations or even wars by proxy - would either have to be mutually fatal, limited, or severe mismatches with all involving senseless loss of life and resources.
While it is nice to be grounded in reality, the discussion - or lack thereof - with regards to the levels of military spending have absolutely nothing to do with the real world as it is today. Believe it or not, ALL major budget plans - at least the ones mentioned by the media - are based on providing for the ability to fight at least one (if not two) major regional conflicts. I call them 4L wars, for obvious reasons and have defined them as follows:
*Large scale - involving major deployments of personnel and armaments.
*Long term - taking place over a prolonged period of time.
*Limited - not involving the use of nuclear, chemical, or biological warfare.
*Looney - simply because a real war - at least with the United States - would be over within 24 hours with nothing left of the enemy to surrender.
No wonder there is absolutely no media discussion in any way, shape,or form. The reality is totally without any public support, except possibly from the communities and industries who are addicted to this form of government largesse and from the investors who prefer investments in heavily autocratic governments abroad. Obviously, the only useful(?) purpose this government spending program serves is in providing our government both the ability to project military force abroad and to develop weaponry - at taxpayer expense - for use by "client" states who are invariably autocratic. These clients provide a docile disempowered workforce and citizenry that is forced to endure major environmental and safety hazards that would not be tolerated in freer societies by citizens with any influence over their own governments. In return the investment activities or "outsourcing" exerts increased pressure downward for global wage scales and environmental protection within the remaining free societies. This, of course, has nothing to do with "free" markets and quickly explains why so many libertarian candidates have denounced NAFTA, GATT, and the present level of military spending along with the foreign policy it supports.
So the next time your elected representative waxes hysterical about the need to "rebuild our defenses", just ask him if he or she supports the concept of 4L wars. I would love to hear a serious defense of our military spending levels. Any serious defense would have to involve 4L wars, the force driving spending levels; otherwise it is just another jingoistic emotional appeal based on historical revisionism and which totally ignores present day realities.
12/21/96
http://www.printerport.com/klephacks/markup.html
ftp://htc.rit.edu/pub/HTML-Markup-current.hqx