It's this; an op-ed article in the Washington Post.Here's my response to every one of his 5 goddamned points in his retardedly stupid piece of crap argument for more defense spending. (!)
(This is not to say I'm not appreciative of him airing his views, thus giving me an opportunity to respond to his madness.)
His arguments
1. Defense spending will stimulate the economy. As Harvard economist Martin Feldstein recently noted, defense spending can have an immediate impact on the economy.
How 'bout food. And healthcare. And libraries. And basic needs throughout the world. Like love. And energy-efficiency and alternatives. Things that help. Militaries kill people. Fuck that. Just cause Feldstein teaches at Harvard doesn't make it the right thing to do. It's really not. By the same argument, we could be like Hitler and try and take over the world. THAT would stimulate the economy, too, I think, you jerk.
-If we DEVELOP third world economies, they will -in the long term- buy our products. Selling them (or anyone) military hardware is plain stupid. Military expenditure is a waste of (way too much) money that doesn't help anybody, but instead gives expensive toys to overgrown boys that just like to fly their loopdyloops and blow things up. It's all about opportunity cost. Military expenditure is OBSCENE. I admit I'm having a reaction to the connotation of defense spending as entailing tanks and ships and missiles and the like. If, on the other hand, we paid for equipping the world with self-defense skills for each individual, like with martial arts dojos and (hand)gun shooting ranges and educating people to be self-reliant and empowered with classes on gun maintenance and safety, for example, then I would approve of that. There are more than enough other, healthier, ways to stimulate the economy. If our economy is so dependent on defense spending, maybe it's time to restructure. Let's grow up, and move on from childish things, soldier boys.
2. It would unnerve American allies and undercut efforts to gain greater cooperation.
Fooey. Let them be "unnerved." There are more than enough weapons in the world already. Everybody knows that. Everyone is armed to the teeth, and all (military) needs are met. In fact, all this weaponry is what is actually unnerving, you crazy, silly, reverse-psychology whacko. Greater cooperation in solving the world's problems has no relation to the amount of defense spending, I'd like to believe. In fact, it can be had because of less, I would say. Obama is about change. Change your mindset, guy. The world is filled with good people, and can actually be a pleasant place. Defense spending is offensive. We're all on the same team. Buy the world a coke. Distribute viagra. Fund the peace corps, not the marine corps. Meet the massive need indicated by the demand for microloans (at kiva.com, for example).
3. It feeds the sense, felt around the world and reinforced by irresponsible pundits, that America might actually be in terminal decline, and would be taken by the world as evidence that the American retreat has begun.
Do we really care what the world thinks? Does it matter? If we're going to stay economically strong, then we'll be strong, despite people's opinions. Psychology is not reality. The subjective is not the objective. What I'm saying is the tree will still make a noise in the forest if you're not there. Let's keep our perspective here. The world would respect us more for not spending as much on our military. The world is not a bunch of Republicans.
4. If the Obama administration begins by cutting defense, it will be much harder to persuade Republicans to support foreign aid.
What does one have to do with the other? Are the Republicans mad?? I'm not buying this argument. I'll write a letter to each Republican if I have to. Can't you see this is win-win? Less defense, less death/potential for death, more international love, augmented by aid, which meets basic needs, they feel good, we feel good, we're helping, Bush legacy of american reputation in the crapper ameliorated, kumbaya, the world is a better place!
5. "Similarly, the Obama administration is right to want to begin negotiations with Russia over missile defense and arms control. But it is a poor opening gambit to announce a cut in American defense spending before negotiations even begin. If Russian leaders believe that the United States is looking for a way out of weapons systems -- missile defense in particular -- they will negotiate accordingly. They might ask why they should make a deal at all."
(This is not to say I'm not appreciative of him airing his views, thus giving me an opportunity to respond to his madness.)
His arguments
1. Defense spending will stimulate the economy. As Harvard economist Martin Feldstein recently noted, defense spending can have an immediate impact on the economy.
How 'bout food. And healthcare. And libraries. And basic needs throughout the world. Like love. And energy-efficiency and alternatives. Things that help. Militaries kill people. Fuck that. Just cause Feldstein teaches at Harvard doesn't make it the right thing to do. It's really not. By the same argument, we could be like Hitler and try and take over the world. THAT would stimulate the economy, too, I think, you jerk.
-If we DEVELOP third world economies, they will -in the long term- buy our products. Selling them (or anyone) military hardware is plain stupid. Military expenditure is a waste of (way too much) money that doesn't help anybody, but instead gives expensive toys to overgrown boys that just like to fly their loopdyloops and blow things up. It's all about opportunity cost. Military expenditure is OBSCENE. I admit I'm having a reaction to the connotation of defense spending as entailing tanks and ships and missiles and the like. If, on the other hand, we paid for equipping the world with self-defense skills for each individual, like with martial arts dojos and (hand)gun shooting ranges and educating people to be self-reliant and empowered with classes on gun maintenance and safety, for example, then I would approve of that. There are more than enough other, healthier, ways to stimulate the economy. If our economy is so dependent on defense spending, maybe it's time to restructure. Let's grow up, and move on from childish things, soldier boys.
2. It would unnerve American allies and undercut efforts to gain greater cooperation.
Fooey. Let them be "unnerved." There are more than enough weapons in the world already. Everybody knows that. Everyone is armed to the teeth, and all (military) needs are met. In fact, all this weaponry is what is actually unnerving, you crazy, silly, reverse-psychology whacko. Greater cooperation in solving the world's problems has no relation to the amount of defense spending, I'd like to believe. In fact, it can be had because of less, I would say. Obama is about change. Change your mindset, guy. The world is filled with good people, and can actually be a pleasant place. Defense spending is offensive. We're all on the same team. Buy the world a coke. Distribute viagra. Fund the peace corps, not the marine corps. Meet the massive need indicated by the demand for microloans (at kiva.com, for example).
3. It feeds the sense, felt around the world and reinforced by irresponsible pundits, that America might actually be in terminal decline, and would be taken by the world as evidence that the American retreat has begun.
Do we really care what the world thinks? Does it matter? If we're going to stay economically strong, then we'll be strong, despite people's opinions. Psychology is not reality. The subjective is not the objective. What I'm saying is the tree will still make a noise in the forest if you're not there. Let's keep our perspective here. The world would respect us more for not spending as much on our military. The world is not a bunch of Republicans.
4. If the Obama administration begins by cutting defense, it will be much harder to persuade Republicans to support foreign aid.
What does one have to do with the other? Are the Republicans mad?? I'm not buying this argument. I'll write a letter to each Republican if I have to. Can't you see this is win-win? Less defense, less death/potential for death, more international love, augmented by aid, which meets basic needs, they feel good, we feel good, we're helping, Bush legacy of american reputation in the crapper ameliorated, kumbaya, the world is a better place!
5. "Similarly, the Obama administration is right to want to begin negotiations with Russia over missile defense and arms control. But it is a poor opening gambit to announce a cut in American defense spending before negotiations even begin. If Russian leaders believe that the United States is looking for a way out of weapons systems -- missile defense in particular -- they will negotiate accordingly. They might ask why they should make a deal at all."
Just because Russians are known for playing chess, must we employ this tired old metaphor for every international interaction? There doesn't have to be a loser in this "game." We ARE looking for a way out of weapons systems -namely, we don't want to be threatened in the first place. If we don't threaten Russia, then probably -in this day in age- they won't threaten us back. SO let's just meet all of each other's demands and call it a day. Seriously, screw the military. It's so yesterday. Both countries should get rid of their nuclear weapons, (do either of us really have any intention to use them, under ANY possible scenario?? We shouldn't.) It's time to move past militarism, certainly; I say it's also time to move past maybe even militaries (except as troubleshooting multinational peacekeeping forces).
He concludes with "the nation is still at war. That being so, this is not the time to start weakening the armed forces."
He concludes with "the nation is still at war. That being so, this is not the time to start weakening the armed forces."
Geez, what a silly argument. He's reaching. Iraq and Afghanistan can be done, and done well, on a smaller budget (especially if it's a smart budget). Look at my ticker on the right of how much money we're spending in Iraq. It's madness.
Robert Kagan's wikipedia article says, "He is listed by Foreign Policy and Prospect Magazine as one of the world's "Top 100 Public Intellectuals." Ugh, for a few reasons. I think my barber is, I would have to say. And also, Robert Kagan is a neoconservative... Dubya and his gang, well, nuf said. Neoconservatism, in the US, is a political philosophy whose key distinction is in international affairs, where it espouses an interventionist approach that seeks to defend what neo-conservatives deem as national interests.
MY philosophy is one for all, all for one...where one is every individual, and all is the whole world. An internationalist approach could care less about national interests, if we all cared for the least fortunate global citizenry, and emphasized happiness and community over selfish greedy sociopathic corrupt corporate capitalism.
No comments:
Post a Comment