But The Military Industrial Complex is an Entitlement Program

Topher Morrison
PurpleSerf.com

"Beware the Military Industrial Complex"
Dwight D. Eisenhower

“No nation can preserve its freedom in the midst of perpetual war.” 

– James Madison

Over the past few weeks Jamie Weinstein (Daily Caller), Bruce Fein (Constitutional lawyer), Robert Zarate and Jamie Fly of the Foreign Policy Institute (FPI) have been in a bit of a tiff over the particulars of Ron Paul’s foreign policy.  This all culminated yesterday in an op-ed featured at the FPI’s website.

According to Jamie Fly, Ron Paul believes "military spending is the primary driver of the federal deficit."  This isn't Dr. Paul's quote, it's Fly's, the Congressman never put it that way.  But hey, who can resist a straw man?  


Jamie Weinstein, on Sep. 15^th and in much the same vein, asserted this was Congressman Paul’s “#1 foreign policy error” in the FoxNews Google Debate:

“We’re in 130 countries.  We have 900 bases around the world.  We’re going broke.”  Paul urged.

To me these are three separate and accurate statements, however, Weinstein proceeded to pick flies out of shit and tacitly defended our foreign adventurism on the basis that, according to Robert Kagan of The Weekly Standard:

“…the scary projections of future deficits are not ‘caused by rising defense spending’, and even if one assumes that defense spending continues to increase with the rate of inflation, this is ‘not what is driving the future spending.’  The engine of our growing debt is entitlements.”

Defense expenditures may not be what is “driving the future spending”, but it is most definitely riding shotgun.  Defending our profligate military spending in a country, which spends almost double that of our closest “adversary” China, on the basis that it isn’t the “primary driver” of our fiscal crisis is obfuscating more than the obvious.  This is tantamount to the claim that the flooding of the last third of the Titanic’s bulkheads wasn’t the primary driver of it sinking to the floor of the Atlantic.

          Admiral Mike Mullen himself claims the U.S. debt crisis in our number one threat to national security!  Yet in an almost a self-fulfilling prophecy the Department of Defense asks for more money.  Bruce Fein, Ron Paul’s campaign advisor, proffered his own arithmetic of departmental requests:

The final tally accounts for “approximately one-third of the entire budget and almost 100 percent of the projected budget deficit” according to Fein.

Jamie Fly disagrees: “Mr. Fein is wrong on several counts” namely for “placing the blame for the federal deficit squarely on defense spending” yet he never expounded on his assertion besides parroting Leon Pannetta, secretary of defense (hardly an objective source, but lets not let that detract from his argument):

“If you’re serious about dealing with the deficit, don’t go back to the discretionary account [which includes defense spending].  Pay attention to the two-thirds of the federal budget that is in large measure responsible for the size of the debt that we’re dealing with.”

            Again, Mr. Fly never actually addressed Mr. Fein’s evidence, but did attempt to cast doubt over Ron Paul’s commitment to restoring fiscal sanity:

“…in truth, Congressman Paul isn’t all that serious about dealing with the deficit.  What he is serious about is pushing U.S. foreign policy towards a reckless isolationism.”

It’s a stunning red hearing!  How someone, with a straight face, can claim Ron Paul, known as Dr. No, the most ideologically consistent Congressman in the U.S., responsible for supplying the impetus behind the national conservative grass roots movement known as the Tea Party, a devout libertarian and reigning world champion of Austrian economics is anything but dead serious about reigning in spending is patently absurd. 

Ron Paul is the only Congressman who has, three times, attempted to repeal the national income tax, the base of the big government beanstalk!  Dr. Paul may want to strengthen the promise of Social Security, to preserve it only for U.S. citizens whom have paid into it and he may want to abolish the taxes, passed under Clinton, on its benefits; he may even want to create personal retirement accounts instead of allowing government to raid the central fund every time they have an itch to spend!  But Ron Paul is one of the few to advocate, “allow[ing]…young people to just flat out get out of the [social security] system.”  My God man, pick up a sample of Ron Paul’s congressional record! 

Paul is beyond reproach when it comes to restraint; he applies this philosophy domestically and consistently in his foreign policy.  He is one of the few.  I whole-heartedly agree with Mr. Fly that Ron Paul:

“bristles at being called an isolationist, preferring the term ‘non-interventionist.’  But a more accurate term would be ‘neutralist.’” 

What is wrong with neutrality?  Switzerland, Sweden and Finland were in the thick of two world wars yet remained relatively unscathed, have we nothing to learn from them?  Are we to relegate them to the 13^th floor of history?  What about Costa Rica?  During the last few decades of ideological tumult in Central and South America, Costa Rica remained consistently productive and peaceful.   

Our Founders couldn’t warn us enough about remaining uninvolved in Europe’s “perpetual warfare.”  They were unbelievably prophetic on this point considering the hordes of metal and munitions that would tear the continent apart nearly 150 years later.  It is not therefore, a giant leap of faith to suggest that our Founders would have also blessed our neutrality with regard to the Middle East.  This was a principled prime directive not a transient notion as neoconservatives and Washington’s national defense cliques would have it.

The most sober analysis one could offer our current foreign policy stance while taking into consideration the statistics cited above and the massive constellation of ancillary private organizations, jointly referred to as the Military Industrial Complex (MIC) is that it is all an entitlement program!  You couldn’t, with any intellectual honsesty claim otherwise.  


In four ways it provides an entitlement: first to those presidents whom wield its power for political gain either through victory or diversion, second to those military and intelligence commanders whom direct massive swaths of tax payer dollars to influence world affairs, third to a high tech industry addicted to generous government injections and lastly to foreign entities whom “invite” our intervention and therefore defense subsidization in order to accomplish what they cannot on their own. 

Mr. Fly mentions the lessons in the "dangers of neutrality" the U.S. was taught in the 20^th century, obliquely referencing the sinking of the Lusitania and Pearl Harbor, two tragedies whose circumstances are quite dubious.  He omits, however, to his own chagrin the more profound lessons we have learned about intervention: WWI (the ramifications of which lead to WWII and the rise of Communism and of Middle East dictatorships), Korea, Laos, Cambodia, Thailand, Vietnam, Israel, Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, and now North Africa and the current "non-genocide" in Libya.  These lessons have and will fill debates (at least mine) and libraries for years to come. 

            There is one poignant truth, however, according to Bruce Fein:

“America is engulfed in perpetual global warfare…There will be no surrender at Appomattox Courthouse or Tokyo Bay…terrorism cannot be killed like Osama Bin Laden, nor can it be confined within geographic limits.  And no political figure will take the risk of announcing the end to the war against international terrorism because the risk of another terrorist incident cannot be reduced to zero.”

In other words, for now, war is peace, has been for ten years and will continue to be in perpetuity or - insolvency, which ever comes first.  But Mssrs. Weinstein and Fly are correct it won't be the MIC's fault, it will be ours.

Superman Renounces U.S. Citizenship in 'Action Comics' #900

Comics Alliance
Laura Hudson
April 27th, 2010

After recently undertaking a journey to walk -- not fly -- across the United States in the "Grounded" storyline and reconnect with the country and everyday Americans, Superman appears to be taking another step that could have major implications for his national identity: in Action Comics #900...
...Superman announces that he is going to give up his U.S. citizenship. Despite very literally being an alien immigrant, Superman has long been seen as a patriotic symbol of "truth, justice, and the American way," from his embrace of traditional American ideals to the iconic red and blue of his costume. What it means to stand for the "American way" is an increasingly complicated thing, however, both in the real world and in superhero comics, whose storylines have increasingly seemed to mirror current events and deal with moral and political complexities rather than simple black and white morality.

The key scene takes place in "The Incident," a short story in  Action Comics #900 written by David S. Goyer with art by Miguel Sepulveda. In it, Superman consults with the President's national security advisor, who is incensed that Superman appeared in Tehran to non-violently support the protesters demonstrating against the Iranian regime, no doubt an analogue for the recent real-life protests in the Middle East. However, since Superman is viewed as an American icon in the DC Universe as well as our own, the Iranian government has construed his actions as the will of the American President, and indeed, an act of war.

Superman replies that it was foolish to think that his actions would not reflect politically on the American government, and that he therefore plans to renounce his American citizenship at the United Nations the next day -- and to continue working as a superhero from a more global than national perspective. From a "realistic" standpoint it makes sense; it would indeed be impossible for a nigh-omnipotent being ideologically aligned with America to intercede against injustice beyond American borders without creating enormous political fallout for the U.S. government.

While this wouldn't be this first time a profoundly American comic book icon disassociated himself from his national identity -- remember when Captain America became  Nomad? -- this could be a very significant turning point for Superman if its implications carry over into other storylines. Indeed, simply saying that "truth, justice and the American way [is] not enough anymore" is a pretty startling statement from the one man who has always represented those values the most.

It doesn't seem that he's abandoning those values, however, only trying to implement them on a larger scale and divorce himself from the political complexities of nationalism. Superman also says that he believes he has been thinking "too small," that the world is "too connected" for him to limit himself with a purely national identity. As an alien born on another planet, after all, he "can't help but see the bigger picture."

Do you think the shift to a more global role makes sense for Superman? If he really is going to renounce his U.S. citizenship in order to function as a more international figure, how do you think it will affect the character?

Read more about Superman and other comic heros at Comics Alliance.

EDITORS FOLLOW UP:

More about Captain America's flirtation with Nomad from Wikipedia...

The original Nomad is an alternate identity, which Steve Rogers adopts after he abandons the Captain America costume and title.

In Captain America #180 (December, 1974) Rogers becomes disillusioned with the U.S. government when he discovers that a high ranking government official (heavily hinted to be the then President of the United StatesRichard Nixon) is the leader of the terrorist organization known as the Secret Empire.

Rogers then decides to abandon his Captain America identity, feeling that he cannot continue to serve America after this latest discovery has shattered his faith in the nation's status. However, a confrontation with Hawkeye (disguised as the Golden Archer) forces Rogers to realize that he cannot abandon a life of heroism, and he subsequently takes on the name "Nomad" (as it means "man without a country") adopting a new dark blue and yellow uniform with no patriotic markings on it at all.

This identity is short-lived, with Rogers maintaining it for a mere four issues of the comic to varying degrees of success; he even trips over his own cape at one point. At the conclusion of Captain America #184 (April, 1975) Rogers returns to the role of Captain America when he realizes that he could champion America's ideals without blindly supporting its government.