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.

Debt Wars: Why Defense Cuts Are Essential

Topher Morrison
PurpleSerf.com

Massive defense cuts are necessary to any honest GOP plan to reduce the debt.  The American people clearly bought "fiscal responsibility" from the Tea Party and its candidates, we are waiting for delivery.

"War is just one more big government program."

- Joseph Sobran

We have never spent more money on American defense than we do now.  Estimates range anywhere from a conservative $739 billion (calculating Department of Defense spending only) to 1.415 trillion dollars, which calculates much of the country's defense mechanism (FBI counterterrorism, Homeland Security, etc.) including interest on their debt - the cost of freedom.

Source: Winslow T. Wheeler, Director Straus Military Reform Project, Center for Defense Information

What are we defending against?  Is it worth the changes in our culture since 9/11?  Our current World Wide War on Terror is aimed ostensibly against yet another ideology, but instead of Communism we are faced with Islamic fundamentalism.  As evidenced by the Cold War, ideas "good" or "bad" are notoriously difficult to combat with big defense budgets and military stratagem.  In fact, it was one American president, his unparalleled naiveté, gullibility, and his "great blunder", which lead to not only Hitler, the rise of the Soviet Union, and WWII, but also to the fractionalized and tumultuous Middle East we know today. 

President Woodrow Wilson (D) is famous
for his campaign to make the "world safe for democracy."
His theories proved otherwise and lead to the death of millions.
Read "Wilson's War" for the break down.

While it is crucial to have a war of ideas delineating the differences between fact and opinion; concepts, beliefs, and ideologies will ultimately prevail or fail on their own.  While there is little doubt there are combatants willing to sacrifice their lives in order to advance their radical ideas, Islam's jihadists, for the foreseeable future, will be incapable of rhetorical, let alone, physical invasion.  To repel invasion and to ensure self determination or what we call sovereignty is the ultimate motive of our armed forces; today their motive is evidently much different.  Moreover, even if the penultimate threat of a nuclear armed Al' Qaeda materialized, the fear of this potential event isn't sufficient to justify the invasions of pre-nuclear states Afghanistan, Iraq, or Yemen.

Lets expand a bit, maybe we are being a little myopic when it comes to the War on Terror as there are of course other threats over the horizon.  Humanitarian crises, like the Libyan Civil War or Clinton's interdiction in Kosovo, justify our intervention on this basis of enforcing a UN mandate or international law, not necessarily the judgement of Congress.  It is argued that if we leave them unresolved and if tyranny is left unchecked it will embolden dictators and despots all over the world to oppress their people.  How this effects the United States' national security is anyones guess, but humanitarianism isn't the only call to arms, there is the cosmos to worry about too!


The Pentagon has been prepping for war in space as early as 2004 and ever since space has been a contentious subject between the US, Russia, and especially China.  Considering our mutual ability to shoot down satellites and with potentially massive stores of energy on the moon future resource wars in the mass expanse above our blue planet would be catastrophic.  


If that weren't enough to worry about, state-sponsored and multinational brigades of hackers have raised much alarm causing the Pentagon to declare the internet "operational domain."  With all of these dire possibilities cropping up virtually everywhere (pardon the pun) it seems as though the Pentagon believes the sky is almost certain to fall without constant intervention.  


There is, however, an alternative way of understanding this paranoid view of the world, our unbelievable spending associated with it, and our legitimate national security challenges.  By recognizing the phenomena of mission creep (after reading the definition, think WWII) and considering the warning given to us by our 34th president, Republican General, Dwight D. Eisenhower, it becomes clear how much we as a nation have departed from our founding principles. 

President Eisenhower's military industrial complex (MIC) has on one hand become the epitome of a self-fulfilling prophet:

“The self-fulfilling prophecy is, in the beginning, a false definition of the situation evoking a new behavior, which makes the original false conception come 'true'. This specious validity of the self-fulfilling prophecy perpetuates a reign of error. For the prophet will cite the actual course of events as proof that he was right from the very beginning.” 

             -  Robert K. Merton, from Social Theory and Social Structure 

And on the other hand (as evidenced in the interest paid on the debt incurred by defense organs) the MIC which includes multinational banks and the Federal Reserve, benefit from the Pentagon's "reign of error":

“…a lot of people are getting rich, building careers, and accreting power out of hyping the money flow. While soldiers at the pointy end of the spear and taxpayers are getting hosed, generals are going through the revolving door to big jobs in industry; congressional staffers on defense committees move into high ranking political jobs in the Pentagon, which then gives them a spring board to big jobs with the defense contractors; industry titans move between jobs in industry, the Pentagon, and back to industry; and contractor PAC money flows to congressmen.  The result is a self-sustaining harmonious circular flow of money through the political economy of the MICC -- what we in the Pentagon call a self-licking ice cream cone.”

            - Excerpt from Madison's Nightmare by Chuck Spinney at The Atlantic 

While it has recently been reported that "liberals see chance for big cuts in defense" I find it easy not to hold my breath.  While it is fun to poke holes in neo-conservative dogma, especially when faced with the obvious incongruent belief that while small government is crucial to freedom so is a large military (constituting 19% of federal spending), it is sobering to realize that Big Peace is a bipartisan sham.  

It is a sordid fact that liberals are often times if not more culpable than "conservatives" when it comes to groveling before the military money pit.  My cynicism is corroborated by three recent phenomena: 1) the total disappearance of the anti-war left after the election of Barack Obama 2) that one of the most liberal senators turned rabidly liberal president actually asks for more money from Congress, amidst a deep recession and perilous debt, for special forces to infiltrate over 70 countries around the world and 3) that apologists of Barack Obama, namely Center for American Progress' Lawrence Korb, lie openly to their base that the president "has dumped George W. Bush's overall strategy for preemptive attacks against terrorist states."  Mr. Kob, those aren't love letters Obama is dropping preemptively on Libya.  

Ancient Knowledge of Money: Sound Money and Forgiving Debt

Washington's Blog
7/16/11

We Have Forgotten What the Ancient Sumerians and Babylonians, the Early Jews and Christians, the Founding Fathers and Even Napolean Bonaparte Knew About Money

Mike "Mish" Shedlock has repeatedly pointed out that we have reached "peak credit" - and there will not in our lifetimes be as much credit as we saw from 2000-2008.

I noted last year:

Michael Hudson is a highly-regarded economist. He is a Distinguished Research Professor at the University of Missouri, Kansas City, who has advised the U.S., Canadian, Mexican and Latvian governments as well as the United Nations Institute for Training and Research. He is a former Wall Street economist at Chase Manhattan Bank who also helped establish the world’s first sovereign debt fund.

Hudson says that - in every country and throughout history - debt always grows exponentially, while the economy always grows as an S-curve.

Moreover, Hudson says that the ancient Sumerians and Babylonians knew that debts had to be periodically forgiven, because the amount of debts will always surpass the size of the real economy.

For example, Hudson noted in 2004:

“Mesopotamian economic thought c. 2000 BC rested on a more realistic mathematical foundation than does today’s orthodoxy. At least the Babylonians appear to have recognized that over time the debt overhead became more and more intrusive as it tended to exceed the ability to pay, culminating in a concentration of property ownership in the hands of creditors.”

***

Babylonians recognized that while debts grew exponentially, the rest of the economy (what today is called the “real” economy) grows less rapidly. Today’s economists have not come to terms with this problem with such clarity. Instead of a conceptual view that calls for a strong ruler or state to maintain equity and to restore economic balance when it is disturbed, today’s general equilibrium models reflect the play of supply and demand in debt-free economies that do not tend to polarize or to generate other structural problems.

Read more of this intriguing article at Washington’s Blog.

Number One? 20 Not So Good Categories That The United States Leads The World In

The Economic Collapse
July 5, 2011

Image Source: DeviantART by Lee Roberts

(artwork not part of original article)

If you do not believe that America is in bad shape, just read the list below.  The following are 20 not so good categories that the United States leads the world in....

#1 The United States has the highest incarceration rate in the world and the largest total prison population on the entire globe.

#2 According to NationMaster.com, the United States has the highest percentage of obese people in the world.

#3 The United States has the highest divorce rate on the globe by a wide margin.

#4 The United States is tied with the U.K. for the most hours of television watch per person each week.

#5 The United States has the highest rate of illegal drug use on the entire planet.

#6 There are more car thefts in the United States each year than anywhere else in the world by far.

#7 There are more reported rapes in the United States each year than anywhere else in the world.

#8 There are more reported murders in the United States each year than anywhere else in the world.

#9 There are more total crimes in the United States each year than anywhere else in the world.

#10 The United States also has more police officers than anywhere else in the world.

#11 The United States spends much more on health care as a percentage of GDP than any other nation on the face of the earth.

#12 The United States has more people on pharmaceutical drugs than any other country on the planet.

#13 The percentage of women taking antidepressants in America is higher than in any other country in the world.

#14 Americans have more student loan debt than anyone else in the world.

#15 More pornography is created in the United States than anywhere else on the entire globe. 89 percent is made in the U.S.A. and only 11 percent is made in the rest of the world.

#16 The United States has the largest trade deficit in the world every single year.  Between December 2000 and December 2010, the United States ran a total trade deficit of 6.1 trillion dollars with the rest of the world, and the U.S. has had a negative trade balance every single year since 1976.

#17 The United States spends 7 times more on the military than any other nation on the planet does.  In fact, U.S. military spending is greater than the military spending of China, Russia, Japan, India, and the rest of NATO combined.

#18 The United States has far more foreign military bases than any other country does.

#19 The United States has the most complicated tax system in the entire world.

#20 The U.S. has accumulated the biggest national debt that the world has ever seen and it is rapidly getting worse.  Right now, U.S. government debt is expanding at a rate of $40,000 per second.

For the rest of this commentary visit The Economic Collapse.