Feb 02
Sorry… bloated government spending is ONLY for Democratic constituencies.
The military need not apply.
Oh… and we want you to win in Afghanistan and somehow replenish equipment used hard in the GWOT to date, and oh yeah… grow by 100,000 members, and… BTW – we won’t help you vote absentee.
I guess Obama feels safe. Any other tin horn dictator would be worried about a military he treated this shabbily.
February 2nd, 2009 at 7:50 am
Bloated is in the eye of the beholder. And are you implying that Republicans in power for a decade didn’t steer spending and tax treatment to their constituencies? How do you explain the K Street Project?
Military spending as a part of national security is a big and complex subject that deserves full and balanced treatment. Focusing on a few aspects and then generalizing to a systematic attitude doesn’t quite suffice. For example: Should military force be the preferred solution for international problems? Were the military casualties over the last decade justified and are the survivors being adequately treated and compensated? Is the military budget bloated by development and acquisition of advanced weaponry against an opponent that does not exist? How much are we spending on ICBM retaliatory capability? Let’s have an balanced debate. I refer you to the Center for Defense Information for more information on bloat.
George Marshall believed that military shouldn’t vote at all
February 2nd, 2009 at 12:54 pm
the entire budget is bloated. But… if you can spare $800 trillion to Democratic constituents then the military shouldn’t be sucking hind tit.
February 2nd, 2009 at 1:24 pm
To believe that the military is underfunded, you have to sign up for some large mission assignments: police the world by having a large force in two different places at once (the two-war option), have a significant technical advantage in every category of weapon over every possible opponent well in advance of the opponent’s even getting the capability, the ability to continuously re-supply the two large forces at a full war-making power, respond instantly to military challenges at any distance with a sufficient force to dominate any enemy, etc.. After considering the true cost of doing all that, perhaps we should re-consider our objectives for our military capability and look to alternative approaches to national security.
We also have to consider the relative values and costs of various government functions. A democratic nation would not start with the approach that our most over-riding national goal is to militarily dominate every possible opponent and to use force as the preferred approach to almost every problem. We might look back the Eisenhower years for thoughts on how much military of what type is enough. To live in peace and prosperity and to compete in the economic world does not necessarily require 5% of GDP devoted to military force.
February 2nd, 2009 at 2:34 pm
That’s not what I’m saying. Let me be more specific…
whatever the military does and wants is better than paying off ACORN, UAW and other political constituencies.
This is true no matter how bloated their budget is.