An article written under the pseudonym Mr. Y. grabbed my attention this week. The article has a bold thesis, even more surprising given who the mysterious Mr. Y turns out to be.
It argues that the United States has embraced an entirely wrong set of priorities, particularly with regard to its federal budget. We have overreacted to Islamic extremism. We have pursued military solutions instead of political ones.
Y says we are underinvesting in the real sources of national power - our youth, our infrastructure and our economy. The United States sees the world through the lens of threats, while failing to understand that influence, competitiveness and innovation are the key to advancing American interests in the modern world. Y says that above all we must invest in our children. Only by educating them properly will we ensure our ability to compete in the future.
Y also argues that we need to move from an emphasis on power and control to an emphasis on strength and influence.
Y goes on to say that we shouldn't even talk about national security as we have for the past 60 years; we should be talking about national prosperity and security.
Now, I think this is very smart stuff for the new world we're entering in, but it's important and influential in particular, given the source. This article arguing we need to rely less on our military comes, in fact, from the highest echelons of the Pentagon.
Mr. Y is actually two people, both top-ranking members of Admiral Mike Mullen's team, the Joint Chiefs of Staff. They are Captain Wayne Porter of the U.S. Navy and Colonel Mark Mykleby of the Marine Corps. It's likely that the essay had some official sanction, which means that the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff or perhaps even Secretary of Defense Robert Gates had seen it and did not stop its publication.
So why did the authors call themselves Mr. Y? It's a play on a seminal essay from Foreign Affairs magazine more than five decades ago. The title was "The Sources of Soviet Conduct," and it was signed simply X. The author turned out to be the American diplomat George Kennan, and the article turned out to have perhaps the greatest influence on American foreign policy in the second half of the 20th century.
It set out the policy of containment, that if we contain the Soviet Union, countering its influence, eventually the internal contradictions of the Soviet system would trigger its collapse, and it worked. But Porter and Mykleby say the basic approach, a massive military to deter the Soviets, a quasi-imperial policy to counter Soviet influence all over the world, is still in place and is outmoded and outdated. They call their policy proposal sustainment, and they hope it just might be the policy that will carry us forward for the next 50 years.
Mr. Y is hoping to be the next X - to set the new tone of Washington strategy. Will that happen?
Well, the term "sustainment" is silly, but the ideas behind it are not.
Washington needs to make sure that the United States does not fall into the imperial trap of every other superpower in history, spending greater and greater time and money and energy stabilizing disorderly parts of the world on the periphery, while at the core its own industrial and economic might is waning.
We have to recognize that fixing America's fiscal problems - paring back the budget busters like entitlements and also defense spending - making the economy competitive, dealing with immigration and outlining a serious plan for energy use are the best strategies to stay a superpower, not going around killing a few tribal leaders in the remote valleys and hills of Afghanistan.
Take a look a the report and then, if you feel so moved, write your congressperson about it here.
And let us know in the poll below whether you think the U.S. should substantially reduce its military expenditures to decrease the deficit and/or allocate money to other priorities.
 |
Post by: |
© 2012 Cable News Network. Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
| Advertising practices | Advertise with us | About us | Work for us | Help
I think it is interesting that "elements" of the pentagon are suggesting, under a thin alias, how the country should be run. I thought that a choice was made for such leadership in the last election. Until our new president started doing business as usual. Granted "Y"'s new ideas and vision seem properly guided and placed. Hopefully such voices are genuine and as it appears at least here, they are being heard in the mass media. It will take alot more truth, focus and action to bring such an appropriate concept forward. As far a fixing "Americas fiscal problems", innovation is also called for. Cutting costs, like leaving Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and Pakistan. How about a "haircut for the FED!" ? A real Bank of America, by and for the people. Vision, humanity & equality, not the illusion of the American dream. Real Change not spare change
Michael, "How about a "haircut for the FED!"??? Are you kidding me? The Federal Reserve is not a bank of the people, it is a private organization that profits immensely by making money out of thin air - just research it. Building up our arms and keeping wars going on is nothing more than corporate welfare, big companies getting rich by taxpayers flipping the bill. It comes down to the old guns and butter economics of the 60's. We've spent too much on guns and it's hurting the citizens at the table.
For a great learning read on the creation and sustainment of the Ferederal Reserve Banking system get the book " The Creature From Jekyl Island". It is a account of how who why when the Fed was created and how it is basically a giant ponzei scheme.
For a great learning read on the creation and sustainment of the Federal Reserve Banking system get the book " The Creature From Jekyl Island". It is a account of how who why when the Fed was created and how it is basically a giant ponzei scheme.
Am sure Y have a unique good character...unlike those RUTHLESS NATO,UN, AND HILARRY goons!!!
If a person like Y have occupied the WHITE HOUSE a decades or long time ago, all these sufferings(that caused by the Bush father and son – ARROGANT and RUTHLESS GOVT.) around the world would not have happened or would have been eliminated.
Just this time, just hoping the world shall witness too, that AMERICANS shall REVOLT!!! SOON!!
Complex problems don't have the simple answers you're proposing here.
Mr.Y has the right idea. It's too bad that few are listening. Since 1950 this country has had the wrong priorities and now we're starting to pay for it,such the closing of our schools and libraries,the disrepair of our roads and bridges and now some right-wing politicians in Washington are seeking to do away with medicare. Unfortunate with Barack Obama and the Republicans,none of this will change soon. How revolting this is!!!
Budgetting for military is one thing and using budgeted money is another issue. USA is in power because of its military strength and econmic strength. When any country have these two strength in place, all other countries respect that power out of its psychological effects. Now, country like China, some terrorist group and those countries who are not friendly with USA are looking for downfall of USA. Military power and economic power are standard of measurement of strength and USA is failing in that standard because of downfall in its economy. If we reduce military budget at this juncture then we will loose total respect in the world as Super Power and its consequences will not allow us to rise again economically. We must act intelligently as we have acted in case of Libya's crises where we have allowed UK and France to take initiative to solve problem with our support. Same way we should encourage other countries to take part in all international disputes in the future. This we can reduce military expenses but to cut budget for militarily now is risky. We got to have one military power intact till we rise again economically. We spent 900 billions in Iraq war which was unnecessary and loosing many soldiers. We should be careful and not to jump in to such hasty wrong decision.
This view is pretty short sighted. It may be true that other nations use the "measurements" of military and economic might to define what a "super power" is. But you should think about how military power is sustained? And the source of this is the economy. When America wont fix it´s economic problems but keeps on investing it´s remaining resources into the military, for how much longer do you think the military might can be sustained?
And America is n´t the strongest military force on this planet anymore (Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_number_of_troops) still you don´t see the Chinese roving around the globe occupying "terroristic" countries (which happen to have oil reserves... oh what a coincidence), inprison it´s own citizens without charge (Poor little Bradley Manning) or harassing every visitor to their country ( Greetings to the molesters at the TSA)
... wait a second... China does most of this stuff too? Maybee a new definition of "super power" is born today
Has there ever been another type of superpower?
@GNARF, I find the wikipedia article you referenced very interesting, but the sheer numbers displayed in the list do not rate the combat effectiveness of the various shown militaries. Saying the US is 8th in the list as there are Seven countries that can field larger armies does repeat the presented facts, but leaves much of the reality of the situation out.
The Worlds Second best army is the most expensive luxury a country can pay for. Smaller does not necessarily mean Weaker, especially when extrapolating the technological advances the various US Services are implementing, Funding, or researching. All it took to end the last World War were 2 atomic bombs, and our current Nuclear Arsenal is quite a bit more than that now.
the number of troops each nation has compared to the other doesn't necessarily reflect it's over-all strength. i would say that America is the strongest military force in existence today, easily overpowering the Chinese military due to their naval fleets. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_warships_in_service_worldwide )
that being stated, after taking into account USSOCOM and US Air Force, which more than doubles the size of the People's Liberation Army Air Force in China, please, we're soooo much more powerful.
what a joke.
I can assure you the 2.5 mil US servicemembers are not intimidated of the 4.5 mil Chinese military members. As Rey stated, a soldiers ability to perfom is not impacted solely by number of personnel. Equipment and training are paramount. The US provides the cutting edge in military equipment, shown by NATO relying on the US. Additionally, US servicemembers are returning from fighting in two wars (three if you want to count Libya).
There is no comparison between the US and China when it comes to the ability to engage and win on the battlefield. The only concern I have for China is the vision the Chinese military have about dominating the next phase of warfare, Cyber.
A group of well armed well financed 'rebels' STARTED fighting a civil with their Libyan government. They started the fighting and government responded like any other power crazy group would (government) they tried to protect their interests by crushing the oposition. In our countries if we do something illegal swat teams may come through our doors and shoot us take us or take us to prison. If we try to defend our selves we get shot... the rebels are actively choosing to go kill and blow things up, not just do something illegal (like say not pay taxes or grow 'illegal' plants)
How is it intelligent that American or its allies start bombing a sovereign nation involved in a civil war. Especially to remove a government that takes care of its people unlike the US. Libya is not letting economic hit men and foreign banks take over its economy and resources. Qaddafi may be a nut or a mad man or a brutal war mongering person but the only evidence I have ever seen are statements made by our media here and there over the years.
I have watched our governments rob people of their income / land / possessions, and give it away to banks and corporations that are also robbing us. We can get picked up and put in jail with out cause. If we don't agree with the way things are we become some crazy nothing of a human or compromise our values to the $tate. Our armies go around an blow up both, dangerous and extremely innocent people. This is causing more and more people to hate our system and lump the innocent of our counties with the people that are destroying their way of life.
Read up about Libya the dinar and the system of society they have there before you support killing them and other nations young soldiers not to mention group the rest of the western worlds reputation. I don't see intelligence here.
Evil mad man = wont do what he is told by the western banking establishment. (Dictator, ruler, homicidal maniac)
hey steve what about the innocent people who died on sept 11 2001, what about their innocent lives and their families. do you even care, or maybe your just like all the other gullable americans who think the government was behind the whole thing.
All the sufferings in the world, caused by the arrogance of the US government. If a human being like Y can occupy the white house perhaps, this world shall be free from sufferings!!!
To: John, I am not an American but I can see and understand the gravity that you might have the smallest BRAIN of what caused 911 and who were responsible? and why those conspirators of evil(other countries nationals with US citizenship-close freinds to many Republicans) did that horrific deeds? GET A CLUE MORON!!
You mean like how the world's weakest countries basically give the US the one finger salute every time we try to throw our weight at them? That's respect?
A strong military can be had without spending as much as the rest of the world combined on it. The only reason we can even do that is because we spend a similar % of GDP on the military as others but our GDP is so big. Guess what happens if we don't invest in ourselves and waste money in stupid wars in stupid countries for stupid reasons? GDP goes down or stagnates and other countries catch up.
It's time we stopped buying bombs and started investing more into science, medicine, energy, and infrastructure.
You are retarded
Our military spending is out of control. We spend about 6x as much as China, our nearest competitor, More than 10x as much as Russia, which is no longer a direct threat. Within the 20 other top spenders are France, UK, Japan, Germany Saudi Arabia, Italy, India, Brazil, South Korea, Canada, Australia, Spain, the Emirates, Turkey, Israel, Netherlands and Greece. PERHAPS among them we can count Saudi Arabia as dangerous to us. The rest are either our closest allies or friendly neutrals. We need to relax, lower spending to about 3% of GDP, and learn to share decisions with key friends. We spend about one third of all money worldwide allocated to defense. The EU and other allies spend another third and the rest of the world the final third.
Keep in mind this does not cover the costs of the two wars we are currently fighting. Those require supplemental funds.
Defense spending has been rising about 9% per year for the last decade.
Defense accounts for about 20% of the Federal budget, about the same as ALL OTHER DISCRETIONARY SPENDING. Yet, as we attempt to lower our debt and deficits, military spending remains on the rise, while home programs are cut. There is something seriously wrong. We could easily scale back spending to $450 billion and still have the most formidable fighting force on Earth. It could probably be cut even more if we trusted our allies even more deeply.
I'm 56 years old. All my life I've been told there are barbarians at the gate who will destroy our way of life if we don't have a war-ready military to protect us. It's bankrupted us. You missed Fareed's whole point and just parroted what you've been brainwashed to believe.
FANTASTIC find, Mr Zakaria. Here is the smoking gun there IS hope after all. Thank you for posting this, I'll follow this up by listening to NPR's analysis tomorrow morning.
BTW, you're doing a fantastic job overall. Loved your "Time" piece, "Are America's Best Days Behind Us?" Go man, GO!!!
An astonishingly profound and progressive way of looking at America's truly needed priorities in the new global economy and consciousness–it is amazing that two military are willing to admit that our arrogant, pugnacious approach to much of the rest of the world is becoming more and more irrelevant–and much of this irelevance is centered around our military posture. I hope the powers that be will seriously consider this paper.
We must act intelligently as we have acted in case of Libya's crises where we have allowed UK and France to take initiative to solve problem with our support. Same way we should encourage other countries to take part in all international disputes in the future. This we can reduce military expenses but to cut budget for militarily now is risky. We got to have one military power intact till we rise again economically. I quite agree with this!!!!but United States should keep its leadership meanwhile.We should manitain our military power but its meaningless to develop some weapon projects bacause now major world powers' weapon stocks are enough to destroy this fragile globe.US should influence the world more through its tech and economic strenth,
Thanks for pointing out this article.
If the military is stating this, the politicians will have no "security" excuses not to act in this direction.
I wish "Europe" could get a vision like this together for its role in the world of the 21st century.
If anybody knows where to find this vision for "Europe", please share it.
But there is probably nobody with a recognized authority in Europe like the US Military in the US who could write an influential article like this.
George Kennan's Containment worked during the Cold War, as the world was a bipolar one. It worked because the U.S. had only the former USSR to focus one and the Sovjetregime fell at last. After 1991 it looked as if we had a unipolar world, with America leading. Due to the senselss wars in Iraq and Afghanistan the political influence of the U.S. is waning. With its rising soverign debts and the economic growth of emeriging countries like China and India, which are beginning to flexi their muscles, the U.S. will have a hard time to keep up militarily. So instead of concentrating on the outside world, the U.S. should focus on the resources it has – high technology and make the best out of it.
the article is timely. the time's come for america to live according to the true meaning of its creed- end of discussion
There is but on driving force behind this military spending.
Banks and Corporations do not make windfall profits from NON WAR spending. At least not the profits they desire.
C'mon it's only cash... Spend it wisely
))
What an incredibly stupid and dangerous path these people would put us on. Surely they want to see America destroyed just as surely as it enemies. A clear reminder that the house in Washington DC doesn't just need to be cleaned out, it needs to be fumigated.
No, they actually care about America and aren't frightened by the slight threat that Islamic extremism represents.
Sadly, I have a feeling that the 'nuke 'em all' attitude that Mr. Ardent represents will not go away quickly or quietly.
@Stephen J. Ardent
> A clear reminder that the house in Washington DC doesn't just need to be cleaned out, it needs to be fumigated.
Which house do you want to fumigate? The Pentagon? Me and the authors of the essay are all for it!
Isn't it great when we all agree?
when I install veorsin 1.2.6 it gives me this when I activate it Fatal error: Cannot redeclare catablog_activate() (previously declared in /blog/wp-content/plugins/catablog/catablog.php:37) in /blog/wp-content/plugins/catablog/catablog.php on line 51
The author summarizes Y's essay: "Y says we are underinvesting in the real sources of national power – our youth, our infrastructure and our economy. The United States sees the world through the lens of threats, while failing to understand that influence, competitiveness and innovation are the key to advancing American interests in the modern world. Y says that above all we must invest in our children. Only by educating them properly will we ensure our ability to compete in the future."
So Y emplores us to: 1) invest in our youth by educating them; 2) Invest in our infrastructure; 3) Those 2 things are necessary for revitalizing the economy.
The author attempts to use Y to support his propositions: "We have to recognize that fixing America's fiscal problems – paring back the budget busters like entitlements and also defense spending – making the economy competitive, dealing with immigration and outlining a serious plan for energy use are the best strategies to stay a superpower."
Note the author focuses on immigration, energy and what he calls entitlements - things Y did not advocate; and he ignores educating our youth and fixing our crumbling infrastructures.
When the "say-do gap" is so big as with the report by these two Y-Men, credibility tends towards zero. This is nothing but the rant of two dewy-eyed wannabees divorced from reality.
It is rather sobering to see military types literally drowning in the dense soup of bullshit and disinformation with which all Americans are fed daily again. One would expect at least some sense of reality from people in their position. But hey, thats the USA, where the corrupt, incompetent and lying beat the competent, honest and knowledgeable every step of the way.
And, precisely, what are you basing your opinion on? Maybe something to back up your statements is in order?
I have now read Mr. Y's "A National Strategic Narrative". I commend it to the reader. Under the heading, "Our Three Investment Priorities", Y states: "Our first investment priority, then, is intellectual capital and a sustainable infrastructure of education, health and social services to provide for the continuing development and growth of America’s youth." Y's report does not use the word, "entitlements". The word immigration appears 1 time in the report, and not in the context that it should be a focus of our energies. I am not arguing that Mr. Zakaria's opinions are wrongheaded. I am simply pointing out that Y's report contradicts Zakaria's propositions. Y advocates investing in, "a sustainable infrastructure of education, health and social services..."
Captain Porter and Colonel Mykleby are heroes and if this represents broader thinking by the senior military command then one of them should run for president in 2012.
How is one supposed to remain optimistic about the future of this country? I understand that we need to impose our military might at times just as a reminder to the rest of the world but how many wars are we going to fight. I read many conspiracies over the years and opinions that stated America was on the decline and would eventually not be a superpower and I refused to believe it and came to this country under the premise that it was and would always be a center of opportunity. But just look at the chain of events over the last 8 years...can anyone tell me why I should believe that this country will prevail and return to its prime in the future? someone once told me that America's destruction would come from within itself...economic failure leads to military failure which leads to failure in everything else
The military's budget doesn't need to be decreased (maybe a little increase in r&d). We need to stop dumping money into black holes that won't ever be fixed. It's like cutting the military budget, but without cutting things they need
This right here is a prime example of why this nation is decending into unmanageable debt. No body wants to loose their job, in fact, they want to make more money. Unfortunately, since the United States government is the worlds largest employer, paring it down is going to be a problem. Those in the government will almost NEVER cut government jobs, and those in these jobs have easy access to influencing government decisions, as they work within the super structure. There is a term for this, but I forget it. The point is, we do not need more freaking weapons, we do not need to kill more people. That is the entire purpose of millitary r&d, and it is an inherently bad one. It must be stopped you fool, these great men have stood up and offered to shrink the very departments which they work for, a noble and honorable gesture which could in the end be worse for them, but will undoubtedly be better for the nation. That is the deffinition of being a good person and doing what is right. Doing good and right even at personal detriment for the good of others. They are heroes, and you are a foolish greedy leech. You are exactly the type we must do away with. YOU ARE THE PROBLEM.
The Lord has spoken. We need to reduce military spending only as much as it reduces taxes on the wealthiest among us, so that they can spread their wealth to the lower classes through employment. We need to reduce education spending, because a lack of education is the fault of the uneducated, not the burden of the rich. Those who God has favored with wealth are the leaders of tomorrow and shall be taught with private tutelage, while the rest shall become their vassals.
Who wrote this? This article would carry a little more weight if the author had dared to put his name on this article. I doubt it is an official word from the pentagon.
Did you read the Report, Fareed Zakaria's article on it, or who the authors were? If you read the report, you will see the names of the authors at the end, and a disclaimer acknowledging that this is their opinion, not the Pentagon's official position.
They know what we want, we have been saying it for over 20 years now, Reduce the military, the Money Spent on missiles. Use it to feed and educate people and you won't be in a depression. The only thing is the group of Families that have Always Ruled America Don't like that kind of talk. They make weapons for profit, if we don't use them the don't make money. They also Handle the Rebuilding of countries we destroy, and again rake in the cash.
@Supply Side Jesus, God does not take favorites among his creations, Not the Israelites, and certainly not the Caucasians. Jesus said "I am not of this world" Money belongs to the world, it is the Physical representation of human labor. Do you think God approves of Slavery? You probably do. Do you think he approves of turning a Profit? Why did he knock over the Money changer's stands and the temple? That he is the granter of worldly Riches?; Gold and Jewels? Why didn't god charge for the Food in the Garden of Eden? Why doesn't he Charge us for the Food we grow now? Why didn't Jesus have slaves to do his every bidding? Why did he not take his sword and Conquer the Jews As KING. "You live by the sword you die by the sword". That's why, if you accumulate riches and seek to be a Master of men, you will find yourself slave to something else; maybe even your own desire. BTW God does not look out for the Wealthy, Saturn does. (SATAN)
Sarcasm detection fail.
Anyone not controlled by fear and not bought out by the military industrial complex already knows this is true. Relevant graph, war spending vs fixing the majority of global issues. http://irongamer.net/warvspeace.jpg
I'm disappointed in you CNN. You used a paper by some very smart and sensible people to push your own agenda. The paper says nothing about cutting "entitlements" (which BTW is the right-wing spin machine's name for some of the most useful programmes the government has ever introduced: Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, public school programmes). In fact, the only reason those programmes are "budget busters" is because corporations like GE and Time Warner don't pay taxes proportional to their profits, leaving the burden of keeping America and her corporate masters afloat on the disappearing middle class.
The paper has some great ideas on how the military should be used in a changing world, while your article has the kind of right-wing talking points I would expect from talking heads on FOX news. You see, CNN, you are part of the problem. People will never be able to make informed decisions if the media feeds them nothing but lies.
The problem I have with defense spending is not that it makes our military bigger and better BUT rather because the REASON for the spending is to fill the pockets of far cats in the defense industry, contractors, politicians etc!!!
There have been so much waste on some programs that it makes the mind boggles!!!
The truth is we can have the same awesome military for half of what we spend!!!
The other half is bascially spent to enrich others w/o a single benefit to the military personnel or even weapon systems.
We don't need to cut the speding per se.. we just need to spent it wisely and efficiently.... the "cuts" will happen automatically.
Don't you think its a little to late. We've been in Afghanistan, the grave yard of empires, for over 10 years. Theres no turning back, the US will be brought to its knees.
Been saying this since the 70s. Yes the 70s. Really though, not askingthe military to go away, just to manage itself better and take some of teh savings and get the schools up to par with some of the more educated parts of the world.
Which do you prefer? Greatest good for the greatest number (within your limits) or the doomsday button? Everything seems to be in between these extremes. But I like to consider the former quite often in my life decisions, and I am certain it would lead to the greatest planetary progress if applied by all, even working within personal limits. The alternative is HARMFUL... Too many little doomsday buttons and look at who is in charge of some of them.
So, I am NOT QUITE against the military and I am myself a former military person, but I think USA spends too much there, missing vital priorities like R&D for energy sector, education for gifted (notice that said 'gifted' not 'rich' and we need to work on efficient mass transit and more private and public gardens, helping baby and other similar harmless and beneficial endeavors. The Final Crunch will be between those who want the Economic System to enslave and those who want it to SERVE ALL. A huge battle is shaping up in which the former will lose everything, including their eternal destinies if they do not repent.
World policing should be a regional function and should be guided by the understanding that evolution cannot be forced, but starts with scaffolding that rises from ground levels. Civilization does not make the man, man makes the civilization, and the places where there is no decent public education will remain in the pits.
But the places where education is a special privilege reserved to the few will do only slightly better while prolonging world agony and suffering.
The right priorities are the ones which best sustain the nation with good health for all as well as liberty and justice for all, and right now the military budget is too big. By the way, when militaries are the right size, they tend to be used more for defense than for offense...
Any tamping down in various places should be done by agreement, as wide as possible.
I think people can work together if they try.
I would also stop dumping money into Africa except to gain harvestable resources and protect the Boers.
The USA has dumped over 6 trillion in trying to civilize, educate, and control African-Americans and frankly we've been continually betrayed for our generosity. Stop dumping money into Israel. Israel has betrayed the USA by regular MOSSAD spying at every turn (nuke secrets to the USSR as the most infamous example) for decades and certainly is too rich to be worthy of any "Aid". Stop importing incompetent immigrants. We don't need more immigrant burdens and failures in the USA, only tolerate immigrants if their IQ is over 130 and they speak English. Don't allow any further Islamic immigrants (they hate the USA) or black African immigrants (they hate the USA and have historically cost the USA 85% more than they ever return) or Hispanic immigrants (highest historical criminality rate for the past 100 years which cost 95% over any USA profit returned) ever again for any reason. Stop importing dangerous violent incompetent burdens into our borders.
Make it so that any politician spending the public's money has to risk at minimum 30% of their personal savings + income + investments for any spending bill. If the spending bill rewards the USA in 5 years, then the politician gets their money back + 5% interest. If it fails to reward the USA, then the politician loses that 30% permanently and that money is equally redistributed to the USA taxpayers. No more blank-check spending for the politicians. They risk our money foolishly, they lose 30% of their money permanently.
Careful... your racism is showing.
Additionally... your ideas for risking the savings of politicians, although potentially emotionally satisfying for some members of the public are none the less ridiculous and laughable at best. They also wouldnt work in this two party system of ours- at all- even if one were to try to stretch the imagination to make such a situation feasible.
Obvious troll is obvious.
We can keep spending on the military the way we do now, just like the USSR was doing when it collapsed, or we can think of something better. I no longer care which we choose. I just wish we'd stop with all the killing.
MichaelEdits – Your last ten words surmise my sentiments exactly. My tuppence worth follows, (for what little my opinion's worth in this or any other forum, as it appears popular public opinion is conveniently overlooked by virtually any government once elected). I simply can not comprehend how the US, UK and other allied powers that be consider continual warmongering in sovereign countries to be beneficial for any party concerned. However, whilst I realise that this is not exactly a new state of affairs, I do not mean historic or established areas of conflict, but the new wars that we seem to ingratiate ourselves with with seemingly alarming frequency. The countries with our shared values should work towards a strong, stable defensive military pact – much as NATO should be – and operations be limited only to humanitarian and interventionist missions. If an offensive operation is deemed necessary it should only be carried out under a clear mandate from the UN – with all troops wearing blue berets and therefore not representative of a particular religion, ideology or nation. Surely every country has better things to spend their taxpayer receipts on than sending their youngest generations overseas to fight and die? Why embitter and enrage the local populace in these places and then attempt to portray ourselves as shining examples to be emulated? What beacons we are for the World with our democratically elected, altruistic, responsible, incorruptible and educated governments... Me, cynical? Never... (Before I'm trolled for being a peace loving hippy, I'd like to point out that I served the best part of a decade in Her Majesty's Forces – most of it operational. I volunteered to give to my country, not to be abused by politicians as a projection of power to install friendly, puppet regimes into virtually defenceless resource rich regions. Maybe if some of the savings in general military expenditure were spent on technological R&D in energy then hundreds of thousands of troops could return home as opposed to being stuck in yet another sandy sh**hole.)
I agree with most of you, spending is out of control, and should be focused on education and our infrastructure etc… But get a grip; do you honestly think that by you turning off your security service in your house that you will actually save money? You would probably spend it on something you don’t need. And at the same time run the risk of whatever you bought with your new found money being stolen because you turned off your security instead of cutting back on drinking.
You want to lower Government spending, got it; but cutting the best thing about our government is not going to help. The Military is used to protect our Nation’s borders, and its national interest.... So here I am a simple person, but knowing all too well that as a nation we do not really produce anything, it's mostly imported from foreign countries. So what would happen to an economy that has a huge demand (but imports everything) all of a sudden loses its supply? And let’s just say it’s not one thing, maybe its several because not only is the place the supplies come from affected, but the entire region is. Then what? What happens to an economy that cannot operate because its demand cannot be met? Honestly, and this is of course a personal opinion, you send the military to ease civil unrest, and bring a sense of security to the region (ever wonder why the military is only sent to certain places?). This way we as a nation can continue on with normal lives and have all the things we take for granted. Oh and since we are a free country, lets criticize the people we elected who sent the military to these places to secure our demands because sending Soldiers to war is better than telling you “sorry the container is empty” .... Very easy for us fat lazy Americans to sit on our couches, in our nice homes, with our nice cars, and civil liberties to enjoy the fruits of impoverished war torn countries. What price it too great for you to live a comfortable life? What? You say you pay too much every day, every year? Well did you ever stop to think what price the Government pays for you to live like that? Man, maybe if we stopped over spending, then….. Naaaaa
So yes, cut spending on the military, I am all for it, as soon as we 1. Start producing our own supply and minimize our foreign (interests) demands and 2. We are able to egress out of these countries without repercussions. I cannot believe some of you still think this nation is invincible.
Oh hey by the way to the idiot with the remarks about the immigrants, they are coming from these exact countries I am talking about… They are following their exports, yes the exact ones you are surrounded by and get to enjoy on a daily basis; they want those same civil liberties we enjoy, and minimum wage hell, that’s one year’s salary where they come from. You want them gone, lol, who will harvest America? Who is going to work at all of the places Americans refuse to work? You? Your kids? You probably don’t know the meaning of physical labor; you just enjoy what it can do for you, and when it’s no more, and they are all gone you will be the first to complain…. Funny you didn’t know everyone in this country is an immigrant!! Freakin loser
Why don't we just amalgamate with China? Call it USAC or CUSA. Take the best of both worlds and move on. Both countries I think would benefit. I'm not saying USA adopt Communism and China Democracy, but maybe there is a middle ground?
I think we should limit our current military and focus our shrinking funds on our children and vets.
"An idea. Resilient, highly contagious. Once an idea has taken hold of the brain it's almost impossible to eradicate. An idea that is fully formed, fully understood. That sticks, right in there somewhere."
His hairstyle and nelgth of hair on video of interview and at the time he got passport is the same. So is his dress, same shirt, same necktie. I would guess the video was made on the same day.
By the way, the priority suggested by Mr. Y is exactly what China has been pursuing for more than 20 years. See what happened.
I want our country ( Washington) to get back to making the hard decisions that are good for all of our people .Our young people and children are the future. We have lost our focus and can not seem to work together . This article gives me some hope for change.
Military force should be a means of last resort. It is but one tool in the large tool box of state craft. If we use force where diplomacy could do the job instead, in the end, we will lose. The application of force is expensive, and will ultimately contribute to our bankruptcy as a nation.
Our strategic competitors couldn't have devised a more cleaver plan for our demise, than we have already done ourselves.
Wow! Someone in Washington has finally gotten it!!! I just hope our leaders see this and try to follow it exactly. I whole heartedly agree with Y on all accounts. Our military spending is out of control. I know some wars are necessary and there are humans suffering because of their governments enslaving and abusing them. I agree with helping them, no human should ever be treated that way and should be free, free to speak their own minds and make their own decisions. I understood taking it to the terrorists after 911, although a little mis-guided, it was necessary and something had to be done after an attack like that. But damn! All the spending we're doing because of the threats of a few men. WTF!!!! Yes they are terrorists and hate America, but it is a small group making threats and we send our entire military forces after them!! How crazy is that?? If I made threats to, say GE, and sent videos telling of how I was going to destroy them, would they pour billions of dollars into sending people to get me?? Hell no. I'm just a person and not a threat. They'd entrust in their security to protect them. But yet, we do. We pour billions in to chasing these few nobodies that have made threats against us. We've showed everyone we will strike back if they strike at us. Everyone knows this now! Why can't we entrust in our defenses, that if, these pieces of $^&* do try to attack us, our military will be there to defend it and stop any attacks. We have no faith in them at all, so we take the fight all across the globe. Losing so many lives and bankrupting our country. It needs to stop and we need to believe in our military as a defense mechanism and not a global killing machine. We need to stop trying to enforce our beliefs on every other nation. Some don't want to live by our belief. Let them grow and mature as a nation. We had many battles within our country before we got to where we stood as one. Let them find their own way. If it's not affecting us, let them sort it out on their own and become what they become. Back out of everyone else's wars and focus on our own country. We need to rebuild, we need to take care of the poor, sick, and indigent in our own nation. We send billions and billions in aid monies to so many other countries and we have millions in our own that are suffering just as bad. How can we overlook them and think helping other nations before our own is good. Our leaders need to take a good hard look at what they've created and see where it's gone terribly wrong. Our country has so many suffering and all the help sent all over the world could save them. It could save this country. We've got to start manufacturing and distributing here, creating millions of jobs, employ our people. Make sure our citizens are taken care of first and than we can all help take care of others. If the heart stops, we die, no questions asked, we die. If we keep overlooking the heart of our country, our citizens, than our nation will die!!! That can't be disputed. Take care of your own and they will take care of others. The governments responsibility is to take care of it's citizens and our responsibility as people, is to take care of others. Poor all of that money into us and let us poor money into the others. We need our military here fighting the wars within our country, taking it to the drug dealers and manufacturers. Cleaning up the streets and making the citizens feel protected. We need them here defending us against a war that terrifies so many. The drug wars going on have good citizens locked in their houses, scared to go down their own street, not able to get a full nights sleep because they sleep so light from gun shots ringing in the night and junkies trying to steal what they've worked so hard for. We have a war here and our military is away fighting everyone else's wars. Bring them home and let them stop these drug lords and drug wars that have so many great citizens terrified and scared to walk the streets. Make our country safe again before it's heart stops and it's too late!
Hi Fareed,
It really depends on at least two variables.If the United States is at war,it's logical that its military spending should increase.The US is at war,if (God forbid)it experiences another September 11 or if it has to fulfill its treaty obligations to NATO or Japan.Otherwise at peace time,it makes sense to spend more on "butter" and not guns like Professor G Lipsey wrote.Cheers.
Your friend,
Oladipo
Really Fareed,
They didn't tell you that they injected me into every Computer Program on Earth since 1993, upon finding out that my own peers in the development years of Office using a DOS like structure (I drew in Word Perfect on special request from my simulation Company CEO) able to shrink the World to managable chunks of information but forgot to shrink the blown up ego's of most politicians blowing up their balloons filled with covert operations for their personal benefits to last through these transitional years to stay on top of people in all, where our Computer Programs grow as if they were people joining in activity to change our World for better. I can only hope our Network Systems will win this tug of war, otherwise we will be all shrunk into the Borg Machine getting all greased up from the maintenance to a Machine we no longer can trust to be beneficial to man because the wrong people stood at the helm for all the wrong reasons known to Man.
Dear Dr. Zakaria,
At your suggestion, I have read the article by Mr. Y and the preface by Dr. Ann–Marie Slaughter. The views in the two are both interesting and troubling.
The authors advocate a new version of the equilibrium doctrine in which the United States occupies the same position that the British Empire did in the 19th century. They recognize that the weakness of the British system was that throughout their role as the dominant power, their economy was the fifth largest in Europe. What they advocate is an American system in which the American government is the power that puts its thumb on the scale to maintain the equilibrium. The form of this system assumes American military, economic, and cultural dominance.
To accomplish this end they propose a restructuring of the manner in which government policy is formulated and executed. Rather than the hierarchical model of current policy formation with various bureaucratic entities more interested in protecting their propagative, they propose a more task oriented method similar to PERT/CPM and indirectly suggest a less hierarchical bureaucracy.
Both the preface and the article assume that the primary material actors on the international scene are nation–states. For America, policy would be done by projecting soft power by advocating the values (read: Bill of Rights and representative government) and “growth.” The definition of “growth” has a long list of necessary conditions.
The three interrelated genera of these necessary conditions: domestic expansion of the educated population with the acceptance of the values of the middle class, an expanding gross domestic product, and the maintenance of leadership in innovation. However, these generic expressions of power can not be accomplished without the cooperation of the large economic units that occupy American territory.
This fails to recognize that some large economic units act independently of governments and are out of the control of the governments of nation–states. The most glaring example is the financial institutions that created the current recession. Others are corporations that move their operations and manage to be reinforced for this behavior with tax incentives. The general theoretical thesis is: the larger the economic entity, the more independent of government control it can act and the more it can use the nation–state’s wealth for its own purposes.
Further, the history of the collapse of the Roman Empire, the Thirty Years War, 1920’s to 1945, just to name a few examples, show the effect of not having a dominant power capable of enforcing its will on others. Even during the “Golden Age” of the equilibrium doctrine of the 19th century, wars took place all over Europe, South and North America, Africa, and Asia.
The other mode of both the Preface and the article is, it is to the advantage of the United States to create a common set of interests among nation–states. This, they believe, will produce greater stability. Assume, for the moment such is the case: Such a state of affairs is likely to have two unintended consequences: First, it is likely to increase rather than decrease the economic concentration of power. One result will be the political influence of these large economic units will become greater. Another result will be frustrated populations will take to the streets.
The second consequence will be an increase in “soft repression:” viz., concentration of information flow, ahistorical education, and a near or actual oligarchical class structure.
The general thesis: Freedom of the press is for those that own a press. The Chinese have become adept at maintaining control of information. The role of the internet in most nations is in the control of the security services. Six corporations in the United States control the major source of news in this country—television.
In short, if it is in the interest of both governments of nation–states and the economic entities that control information to participate in a cooperative venture. This leave the world left with one of George Orwell’s 1984 mottos “Ignorance is Strength.”
Ahistorical education and illiberal education is the rule. It is current policy to emphasize science and technological education. The consequence is a narrowly educated class of individuals who know little or nothing beyond the narrow specialty in which they are schooled. This serves both political ignorance and control. An examination of the wingnuts on the right, the Tea Party, positions and their sources of finance indicate that they are financed by the super rich and their positions show a lack of knowledge of basic economics and history. The left is no different: Their naïve view is that as the strongest nation in the world we can live in glorious neo–isolation without suffering any consequences. Thus we are in the position of creating a situation similar to an old ACLU poster. The poster had the Bill of Rights on it with what looked like a large rubber stamp across it that read, “Not Applicable Where Prohibited by Law.”
By now it is a bromide, the middle–class in the United States and Europe is under tremendous financial pressure. Both nation–states e.g., the current British Government, and large economic entities seek larger freedom to move their operations to the lowest wage countries. Lassalle’s “Iron Law of Wages” viz., “real wages always tend, in the long run, toward the minimum wage,” is coming true. At the other end of the class structure, some control must be asserted over wealth accumulation. Thus, unless the Mr. Y’s theory can be revised to account for large economic units and super rich individual’s power, asserting the values of the United States will have little effect. The reality will be “Freedom is Slavery.”
In short, the greater the cooperation of nation–states, the greater the interest of those in both political and economic power in maintaining the status quo. Whether by hard repression viz., extensive security apparatus, or soft repression.
The experience of France in the 17th and 18th centuries and the Swedish in the Thirty Years War are strong evidence that military power alone is not sufficient to maintain a dominant role in your geographic area. Economic strength and cultural unity are necessary. The economic decline of the Roman Empire was in part responsible for the collapse of the Western Roman Empire as opposed to the Eastern Empire that was not in a state of economic decline.
Another European example is the Crusades. It was the primary self–identification of Western Europeans as Christians, that, in part, lead to the Crusades. But note in both cases, the political entities were authoritarian. Using core beliefs to influence others, assumes such beliefs exist. Throughout our history, Americans have never agreed on anything. Through one lense, American history is a history of riots, slavery, small and large scale civil wars and exclusion of some and the acceptance of others. Getting the late Howard Zinn and U.S. Representative Ron Paul to agree on anything would be a pipe dream The hypothesis, to paraphrase a movie cliche, “If we tell them our ideals, they will join (“love”, “respect,” pick your own word) us,” assumes we agree on something. Selling diversity is hard—look at Egypt.
Personally, I wish, to paraphrase Rodney King, we could all get along. But in a world without central authority, someone ends up playing cop. Right now it’s the United States. Influence is dangerous, without some limit on those in political and economic power. Currently, I see nothing and nobody capable of exercising such power.
Thank you, and I am
Cordially yours,
Lawrence Egel, Ph.D.
I saw the tail end of report last Sunday, the downloaded the doc, read a portion of it then, and finished it this AM. A sensical doc, no doubt. I agree with most everything, it's getting there I take issue with. Our polarized, corporate-underwritten form of govt. understands only one thing, "what's in it for me/will this allow me to get re-elected, how much do I make?" Excuse the cyncical doubt, but pondering our leadership garnering the courage to take this on is foolhardy.
Perhaps the Senate Gang of 6 approach to taking on the deficit issues starting with entitlements is a start, maybe a blueprint, time will tell. The masses are subjected to fringe, sensational-ized reporting (the term reporting is used loosely) and retain the sound bite that fits them, birther, no more taxes, HOPE. I
t all gets back to tone of the major tenets of Mr Y's point, Education. Without a focus on Education, how can we expect Sustainment? Simple minds, already challenged with a barage of incredible devices, in effect a training ground for attention deficit, need creative challenging curriculums directed across iall income levels to get our country re-directed towards a sustainable re-growth.
We supposedly (again, my cynicism) elect our officals to make things happen. Seems like they accomplished a great deal in Dec, they are capable. We need more Decembers, more Gangs of 6.
Yes there should realize the opportunity to RSS commentary, quite simply, CMS is another on the blog.
Hello my friend! I want to say that this post is amazing, nice written and come with approximately all vital infos. I would like to peer more posts like this .
Fantastic publish, very informative. I ponder why the other specialists of this sector don't realize this. You should proceed your writing. I am sure, you've a great readers' base already!|What's Taking place i am new to this, I stumbled upon this I've found It absolutely helpful and it has helped me out loads. I am hoping to give a contribution & help other users like its helped me. Good job.
you're really a good webmaster. The web site loading speed is amazing. It seems that you are doing any unique trick. In addition, The contents are masterpiece. you've done a wonderful job on this topic!