Butter or Guns
Captain Knauer: Dammit, Warden, I think this game's a big mistake.
Warden Hazen: Captain, not only will you have the chance
to hone our team to a fine edge, you'll also have the opportunity
to learn a great deal about life. Why is it, do you suppose,
that I can walk through this yard, surrounded by hate,
and in total command?
Captain Knauer: Because you've got 15 gun turrets all around
you that say you can.
--The Longest Yard (1974)
__________
Here we are, five years into a war, which the administration calls the "long war," yet the tab is still covered via emergency funding bills (Bush Seeks Billions More in Emergency Funding.) Now Bush wants $46 billion more than the $150 billion he sought earlier this year. Great way to fund pork-barrel projects, but not very efficient or realistic for conducting phony elective wars. If Congress would realistically tally the fiscal realities of these wars, they would be performing their constitutionally-mandated function and reduce the funding for the fiasco.
It is amazing that the money is there for a war, yet social programs always take the hit. Obviously, Congress prioritizes the war, though the ostensible threat countenanced poses no realistic threat to the homeland. Perhaps if congressmen would prioritize their reelections less and the welfare of the U.S. body politic more, possibly this war would end.
Why are we prioritizing Iraqi and Afghani welfare over that of our own citizens? Of course it is a hypocritical dichotomous debacle, for the U.S. has surely disregarded Iraqi and Afghani lives as much as it pretends to care for them.
Vanity Fair (Nov. '07) provides perspective: "America has spent twice as much in inflation-adjusted dollars to rebuild Iraq as it did to rebuild Japan—an industrialized country three times Iraq's size, two of whose cities had been incinerated by atomic bombs" (The Spoils of War.)
That rebuild followed a mandatory war imposed upon us by the Japanese attack at Pearl Harbor. There was no option left at that point. The same can hardly be said of the current U.S. military adventures.
Labels: butter or guns, emergency iraq war funding, the spoils of war
posted by rangeragainstwar at 9:36 PM
10 Comments:
It isn't a matter of prioritizing Afghani or Iraqi welfare over that of American citizens - if that were the case, America would be out of Iraq in no time. It's a matter of providing profits to the military industrial complex, which doesn't care jack shit about education, medical care, or any other social protection issue. Every Blackhawk that goes down makes somebody rich. Every bomb dropped gets replaced by the new improved version.
i've been telling people that the shortest and most succint summation of the republican platform this election is:
they hate helping sick kids get well, but they love them some war and torture.
MB,
Sad but true.
How has America gotten to such a non-humanistic juncture?
kootenay,
Of course, these principles are firmly ensconced in the republican version of the constitution.
I think all of you guys are on to something.
Just for sh#ts and grins, I think I'll run as a Republican in a Red county in a Red state with the following platform:
"Why should war funding be the sole province of the government? Why can't THE LITTLE MAN go to Congress and get HIS WAR funded?
I will propose legislation that for every dollar spent on a foreign war, at least 50 cents will be put aside for the "Domestic Personal Warfare Fund."
Don't like your neighbor and you want to "off" him? Need money for a Mossberg 12 gauge and some ammo? Under my legislation, you will get to appear before Congress and make your case. Some guy is fooling around with your wife and you want to "take care" of him? You'll get a hearing. You say your wife won't leave you for another guy - and you want to "take care" of her?
You'll get to appear before Congress and make your request for the funds necessary to do that."
I can smell the votes, my friends. I can smell the votes.
Big Time.
KW,
You don't own Mossberg stock, do you, you sly whale?:)
It is an interesting scheme, linking domestic spending to a foreign war. Like a public radio station fund drive.
It's clear that Congress will pass the Pentagon budget as requested, but all other funding programs are in jeopardy, aside from defense.
War seems to be the solution to just about any American problem these days. Of course, in reality, war only deepens our problems, tying them into insoluble knots.
I believe Bush and his tribe are as nuts as any Sunni, Shiia or Kurd. In fact, sometimes I look at Ahmadinejad and I see colors of GWB. GWB'd cronies are every bit as despicable as al-Qaeda.
It's criminal that such people are world leaders.
What good is democracy with such leaders as we have?
Why is occupying Iraq turning out to be more expensive than occupying post-WW2 Germany and Japan? In part, because of the Iraq insurgency. And why didn't the Germans or Japanese turn to insurgency? Partly because they were exhausted. But also because America at that point had the unspoken sanction to deal with any insurgency very harshly. If the Germans or Japanese had dared to engage in insurgent warfare, then the Americans would have engaged in Nazi-style reprisal killings until they stopped. In Iraq today, America doesn't have that sanction and must restrain herself. And that is one of the main differences between WWII and Iraq, which is something that Bush and his offsiders don't seem to understand.
CSS,
A few minor points:
The Nazis were exhausted because they had just conquered most of Europe. You mustn't forget that fine point.
You must also not forget the concept of legitimacy. As a legal outcome of war under the Geneva Conventions, we had the right to occupy the defeated nations, and to supervise their civilian populations.
In Iraq, the U.S. lacks this cloak of legitimacy, i.e., the U.S. was never aggressed upon by Iraq.
Using the Werewolves as an example of guerrilla war from WW II, Werewolves were not insurgents, as they we sponsored by the Nazi gov't; but, they were guerrilla or unconventional fighters.
The Army ground forces during WW II never utilized Nazi retribution tactics, nor could we imagine them historically doing so. It would be foolhardy to destroy a Nazi regime and then adopt their tactics. That's akin to saying if they fought us and lost, we would throw them in their death camps. Didn't happen.
The Germans and the Japanese were engaged in open warfare with the U.S. They aggressed as legitimate combatants, and their countries surrendered unconditionally. Anything else re. potential insurgent resurrections is simply spurious speculation.
CSS
In Iraq today, America doesn't have that sanction and must restrain herself
I beg to differ with you a bit. Just got thru reading Dahr Jamails', Beyond the Green Zone. I don't think we showed any restraint in Fallujah! Dahr's an independent, unembedded reporter who's reported from Iraq since 2005. Don't think the yellow ribbon crowd wants to read this one. But that's war. You sent these boys into this America. Own up to it!
Tripwire,
Good linkage to Fallujah and all the other battles to make the world free. There is a major disconnect as the entire Iraq/Afghan boondoggles have nothing to do with warfare. It's clearly a suppression of indigenous resistance that is not aimed at America but addresses the sovereign rights of a given country.
The people fighting our forces of enforced democracy are not aimed at our cities but at protecting their backyards. And rightly so! This differs drastically from the goals of our now good buddies Germany and Japan. Both clearly had foreign goals contrary to the health and welfare of America.
jim
Post a Comment
<< Home