now there's realpoitk for a sabbath morn:
stop the killin' -- i can't buy it anymore...

Let's take it further. Do we really need 12 carrier air groups to patrol the oceans? Or 761 army bases spread around the globe?

For the Republicans, spending on Iraq and Afghanistan constitutes stimulus spending. Money for infrastructure here at home, better health care for Americans, etc. is nothing more than a wasteful budget-busting indulgence.

If the Bush adminstration has taught us anything, it's that wars are free. Or at least don't count as part of the budget under Republican rule.

And tax cuts to millionaires don't count, either.

The political truth of it is that in order to cut the defense budget from $680 billion to, say, $300 billion a year, we'd have to clearly win in Iraq and Afghanistan in order to save the cost of both those wars AND do something brutally surgical to somebody else in response to some provocation as we were cutting back on overall spending.

Congress won't cut the defense budget in order to lose in Iraq or Afghanistan.

And Congress won't keep cutting it unless we not just bloody, but break somebody's nose while we're doing it.

That's the only way to have the leverage necessary to cut the huge and deeply entrenched American interests in every shipyard, aircraft and tank factory that gets a few score billion every year. There are very good ideas to radically save money while actually increasing our national security -- but they take brains as well as balls.

You guys can complain all you want that 'winning' in Iraq or Afghanistan is impossible -- but that doesn't change the political truth that Congress won't cut the defense budget in order to lose a war. Sure, Congress cut off Vietnam -- and we steadily went on to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, hostages in Iran and Reagan's landslide.

Hell, maybe all it takes to win in Afghanistan is a small secure airfield and the budget to buy the entire opium crop at 10% above the market. THINK, already.

Maybe all we need to do to win in Iraq is... leave.

And does anybody doubt that somebody is gonna provoke us in the next few years?

But without something to point to, the prospect of savings alone won't be enough for the 100 Senators and 435 Representatives for whom every cut in defense spending is fewer Federal dollars for their constituents.

A sentence that steadily went on to meaninglessness:
Sure, Congress cut off Vietnam -- and we steadily went on to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, hostages in Iran and Reagan's landslide.

A sentence from a loyal Dependsâ„¢ citizen of the Empire:
And does anybody doubt that somebody is gonna provoke us in the next few years?

Hey, Americanist--you should probably either have your coffee before sitting down to type, or maybe not have so much coffee before sitting down to type.

Either way, that's one impressive mass of incoherence.

BLOOD AND TREASURE

I really hate the use of the word "treasure" for the incredible waste of money that is the US military, and which waste is compounded many times over when they use the military for its destructive purpose. That money being grievously wasted in Afghanistan, Iraq, and countless other places around the world is nothing close to treasure. It is money - period. The financial wealth of America, its future generations well being flushed down the toilet to enrich today's military corporation leaders and politicians.

Treasure is something of monetary value. There is no monetary value in the US military, only the criminal lost opportunity cost of doing good for humanity that the hundreds of billions annually could have been spent on; the stolen and squandered sweat of Americans, the plundered precious bounty of the Earth put to criminal use.

There are roughly 25,000 cities and towns in the US. Roughly. Imagine what public works could be financed if each of them were given over $1 million each year to improve infrastructure and other things that need doing for the public good.

I recognize that kind of sum is small potatoes for the Chicagos and the New Yorks, but it's a big deal for most places. Just a thought experiment on what we could do if we wanted to.

The best idea I heard (from BitchPhD) was an income tax surcharge to pay off the Iraq and Afghan war debt. Waive it for vets and active duty folks.

Domage, it's not exactly a surprise that you can't follow an argument from some obvious facts.

I pointed out that in order for Congress to cut the defense budget from the $680 billion a year it is now, to (pick a #) $300 billion, it will be necessary to win in both Iraq and Afghanistan, AND to whack somebody hard after that, while the budget is being cut.

I note that you have nothing to say about those two points, most likely because you simply don't understand 'em: too clear, I suppose.

The reason there are two points, is because they are DIFFERENT.

Going too fast for you?

The first is the observation (or prediction, if you like), that Congress won't cut the defense budget in order to lose in Iraq and Afghanistan. I think that's pretty obvious, actually.

But there is a counter-example. (It is a mark of a serious argument that it recognizes counterfactuals: you might try it sometime.) Congress essentially cut off funds for the American military in VIetnam. So I noted that after Congress did that -- in a series of legislative steps from 1972-1974 -- we got the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan (1978), Iran taking American diplomats hostages (1979), followed by Reagan's landslide election (1980).

Someone smartern' you might have responded to my argument that Congress would not cut the budget in order to lose in Iraq and Afghanistan by responding -- well, why wouldn't Congress do to Afghanistan and Iraq what it did to Vietnam? So I pointed out the political consequences of cutting off military aid to Vietnam: one could argue that the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan had nothing to do with it, nor the Iranian hostage mess, but it is simply flat-out denial to pretend that Reagan's 1980 landslide had nothing to do with it: a dozen Democratic Senators who had voted to cut off Vietnam, led by George McGovern himself lost to Republicans who all campaigned on "peace through strength".

Senators notice things like that, especially since there are Senators still serving (Grassley, f'r instance) who won that year. They like to remind their colleagues how they got there.

The second argument (note: it's not the SAME argument) is that, having won in Iraq and Afghanistan, it will become necessary to break somebody's nose someplace, in order to continue cutting the defense budget.

This is evidently lost on you, but it's not that subtle: examine the Vietnam cut off analogy. There is an argument legitimately based on facts that goes like this -- it was not anything like an IMMEDIATE result of cutting off aid to Vietnam that led to Reagan's election. Hell, the Watergate class of 1974 was a great Democratic year, and Carter won in 1976!

Which led directly to Reagan's election in 1980, and the loss of Democratic control of the Senate: how did that happen? There are reasons beyond Vietnam, of course (Carter's courage in assigning Volcker to kill inflation was a big one), but the Senate defeats -- McGovern, Bayh, Culver, Magnuson, etc. -- prove pretty decisively that the alarming Soviet aggression in Afghanistan and the humiliating Iranian hostage situation were huge factors.

So I am making a not particularly radical observation/prediction that SOMEBODY is gonna provoke us -- a Somali pirate? -- even after we win in Afghanistan and Iraq. Looking at the history, I'm saying that if Obama was to respond the way Carter did, we won't be able to continue cutting the defense budget.

LOL -- and nobody here has anything intelligent to say?

The best idea I heard (from BitchPhD) was an income tax surcharge to pay off the Iraq and Afghan war debt. Waive it for vets and active duty folks.

Yes, I agree, but wasn't it the fiscally responsible GOP that taught us that such a move would be little more than "playing" politics and un-American. Oh, well, I guess leaving it to the next chump to deal with is distinctly a Republican value.

I say raise taxes on only the top 3% of income earners to pay for the "extraordinary privilege of protecting America's freedom". I also think an additional tax should be placed on the top 10% of earners to pay for the "honor of caring for our wounded heroes for the rest of their lives."

Americanist, you are a stupid blowhard. You started your whole argument by implying that the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are winnable militarily, which is doubtful, then proceed with this truly sophomoric interpretation of American politics. It was Johnson, a Democrat, who escalated our involvement in Viet Nam, and Nixon, a Republican, who ended it - precisely because he recognized the war was not winnable. But how you can connect these facts to a Reagan landslide is incomprehensible. And please don't come back whining that I failed to properly address your line of reasoning. Your approach to rhetoric is to start with one whopper, end with another, and fill in the gap between with boiler plate bombast. Your grammar and diction also stink.

LOL -- and nobody here has anything intelligent to say?

Well, since you put it that way, I'll simply comment that I was amused by your completely eliding the roles of Nixon's decision to withdraw from Viet Nam and of the October Surprise and its affect on the outcome of the 1980 Presidential election, in your exposition.
Those being, mind you, only the most glaring examples of either historical delusion and/or thoroughly fettered objectivity.

You guys really DO have issues.

If you want to argue with what I actually said, ya gotta, yanno, speak to it? "Congress won't cut the defense budget in order to lose in Iraq and Afghanistan..."

Well?

There is a counter argument that says: winning ain't possible, it's only a question of how long before we recognize the inevitable.

If that plays out, I'm saying we won't cut the defense budget at ANY time in the foreseeable future. I don't see the Democrats in the Senate, much less the House (the Blue Dogs?) even making the attempt.

Well?

I pointed out ways we would win in BOTH Iraq and Afghanistan, btw (not that you guys noticed -- paying attention ain't your strong suit): in Afghanistan, f'r instance, I noted that maybe all we need to do to win, is secure an airbase and buy all the opium at 10% above the market.

And in Iraq, to win all we gotta do is... leave.

Now, there is another counterargument, that simply insists both of those outcomes (along with many others) are defeats.

And if THAT plays out -- Congress won't cut the defense budget at any time in the foreseeable future.

Well? (See how this works?)

I went past all your bullshit assumptions, btw, to note that AFTER we win in Afghanistan and Iraq, and start to cut the defense budget from $680 billion a year (the first being necessary but not sufficient), that it'd be necessary to break somebody's nose at some point, in order to keep cutting defense spending -- that is, to show we still gotta lotta bang for less bucks.

LOL -- and the best you can come up with is the "October surprise"???

I didn't overstate the impact of speculative events (the October surprise originally meant that Carter would spring the hostages right before the election, and has come to mean that Reagan prevented that from happening). I cited, yanno, ACTUAL elections, in which Democrats lost, on real issues: George McGovern. John Culver. Birch Bayh. It's a long list. Every one of 'em voted to cut off aid to Vietnam. Every one of 'em lost. In every race, their vote against Vietnam was brought up -- to their severe disadvantage.

I'm not saying that was the ONLY factor -- hell, everything from the Panama Canal to Roe was a factor. But I AM observing the votes to cut off funding the Vietnam war were both a contributing and an accelerating factor, which is gonna kinda incline Congress against cutting the defense budget UNLESS the two conditions I outlined happen.

Well?

I'm not making an oversimplified argument, I'm making a CLEAR one -- I know, I know, y'all are allergic to clarity.

But there ain't no other way the defense budget gets cut.*

*With one possible, catastrophic exception, but I'm curious if anybody can figure it out without prompting.

...the most aggressive voices on cutting spending, lowering the deficit, and trying to get the budget under control are the same voices who believe spending on defense, national security, and wars don't count.

It's basic economics. Defense Dollars™ aren't fungible. Regular dollars are.

It's probably worth adding (just cuz I'm cruel) the story McGovern himself tells about his loss in 1980, because it illustrates the emotional connections among issues: he was campaigning outside a grocery store about a week before he lost, and two older women came up to him on their way into the story. One started in on him over surrendering on Vietnam, and the other corrected her -- the REAL problem with the Senator, she explained, was how he was giving away the Panama Canal. (What do you suppose those two voters thought about the Soviets in Afghanistan or "American Held Hostage: Day 441"?)

So, as McGovern likes to tell the story, he tried to treat them with respect, explain how he had been a bomber pilot in WW2 so he didn't take the loss of American lives in Vietnam lightly, which is why he voted to cut off funding for the war, and then he tried to explain his support for the Panama Canal treaties... and both the women were just disgusted with him, talk to the hand stuff, as they walked away, shaking their heads and loudly proclaiming that he was wrong, had lost touch with South Dakota, and they would never vote for him again.

McGovern was used to this, of course, but he watched 'em as they went into the grocery store while he kept meeting and greeting, gripping hands and grinning -- and he noticed both women, as they came up to the cashier.... paid with food stamps.

And that was the moment, he says, when he knew he was going to lose: the food stamp program was McGovern's INVENTION, a way to connect farm surpluses with cheap food for people who needed a break on prices. He had literally put food on their table -- and they were committed to vote against him.

He was sure that the Panama Canal Treaties were never going to make the slightest bit of difference in the lives of those two women, and the only effect his votes to cut off Vietnam was ever going to have on 'em was that they wouldn't have to go to any more funerals of somebody killed there, if in fact they'd ever have to go to one -- which HE had, many times.

So if you'd asked those guys -- McGovern, Culver, Bayh, Gaylord Nelson, Frank Church, Talmadge, Donald Stewart (who lost in primary), Gruening who won a primary but carried his father's anti-Vietnam baggage and lost to Murkowski-- if the vote to cut off funding for Vietnam gained 'em votes in 1980, and you won't find a single one who thought it didn't hurt 'em badly.

Er, "who didn't" (In any sentence where a double negative is possible, rewrite.)

The "political truth" (I trust that's not copyrighted?) is that the spending for DOD has little to do with the ACTUAL defense needs of the country and EVERYTHING to do with re-election needs of the repsective Representatives and Senators. The military-industrial complex has deep roots and, I fear, can never be killed; stunted hopefully, but not killed.
We are getting out of Iraq and that will cut some costs; any troop increase in Afghanistan will raise costs there. There are no savings possible on a political level in either theater.
However, there is no reason not to freeze the DoD budget for the next two or three departmental cycles. I believe they operate on two-year budget plans that are authorized yearly, so it would be possible to tell each sub-division (Army, Navy, etc) that their budgets, outside of operational costs associated with Afghanistan, would be frozen in the next budget and remain frozen until the DoD takes no more than 3% of the GNP; ie, if GNP is 10 trillion dollars, DoD can have no more than 300 billion dollars for its budget. The costs of Afghanistan could be included in a separate attachment to the authorization.
After all, if Eisenhower could do it, why can't we?

One reason Eisenhower could do it, is because he was a military lifer who had been Supreme Allied Commander in Europe.

Since our current President is a lifelong civilian, this makes the comparison a little dicey.

The fact that defense spending has more to do with the re-election needs of Senators and Representatives than with national security is a feature, not a bug: this is how democracy works.

Hell, that was the point of Eisenhower's famous speech warning of the dangers of the military-industrial complex -- he understood, in a way that would almost certainly kill any modern officer's career, that every dollar spent on the military is a dollar NOT kept by the taxpayer to use in some other, more useful way, or even spent by the Federal government on better things like highways.

Eisenhower realized that American defense spending, BECAUSE we're a democracy, was simply going to create constituencies unrelated to its purpose or results -- which, as it happens, is pretty much exactly the complaint that conservatives make about social spending.

That's why I posted the two observations/predictions -- which I note, nobody has actually disputed:

1) Congress isn't going to cut defense spending in order to lose in Iraq and Afghanistan. That is, Congress isn't going to spend $400 billion on defense next year by cutting off the troops in Afghanistan and Iraq. (no, d-uh.) Folks tend to forget that Congress and the President are very different institutions -- that's why it was so rare (and consequential) that Congress really DID cut off fund for Vietnam (which was also a nice bit of Nixon's maneuvering, setting up Congress to take the fall for the Presidential decision to provide a "decent interval"). Obama may decide that we have to leave Iraq and that we need only a secure airbase and enough $ to buy the whole annual opium crop in Afghanistan, but he will do that BEFORE Congress cuts the cash flow.

LOL -- does anybody dispute this common sense? Well?

That's why I figure there will be a way to win in both countries -- hell, the truth is we won both of 'em long ago: we crushed al Qaeda in Afghanistan, and Saddam is dead. Case closed, game over, c ya. Everything since those two achievements has been a colossal clusterfuck -- why own it?

And let's not forget the real key to the future of both countries: the credibility of us whacking 'em again, if they piss us off. Granted, the Bush-Obama continuum has tended to erode that credibility, but it's the stick to match the carrot of how much cash we can throw to guys we like. We don't have to actually RUN either place -- but we can be damned important to anybody who DOES want to run 'em, and oddly enough, we get to be more important, more worth staying on the good side of, the less involved we are. Diplomacy by cash and cruise missile is not without influence.

So that's a necessary, but not sufficient way to cut the defense budget to where it ought to be. (I wouldn't say as a percentage of GDP: shouldn't we buy what we need?)

2) But it is also true that, in order to keep cutting defense spending, it's gonna be necessary to deal with the serious constituent upheaval when people get laid off. There are much more productive uses of the dough, but a lot of people STILL lose their jobs -- which is why it is absolutely critical that spending less can NOT be seen as making us weaker.

So the next time somebody annoys us, as we're cutting defense spending, it's gonna be necessary to break their nose: not to bloody it, but to break it.

This is a radically different approach to national security than we;ve had, of course -- but it's a helluva lot better than the vastly expensive and bloody, open-ended commitments that we've had.

LOL -- which makes me curious why nobody here seems to have actually THOUGHT about it.