The Mega-Pentagon: A Bush-Enabled Monster We Can't Stop

[laststeamtrain]

The Mega-Pentagon: A Bush-Enabled Monster We Can't Stop
By Frida Berrigan, Tomdispatch.com
Posted on May 28, 2008, Printed on May 28, 2008
http://www.alternet.org/story/86573/

A full-fledged cottage industry is already focused on those who eagerly await the end of the Bush administration, offering calendars, magnets, and t-shirts for sale as well as counters and graphics to download onto blogs and websites. But when the countdown ends and George W. Bush vacates the Oval Office, he will leave a legacy to contend with. Certainly, he wills to his successor a world marred by war and battered by deprivation, but perhaps his most enduring legacy is now deeply embedded in Washington-area politics -- a Pentagon metastasized almost beyond recognition.

The Pentagon's massive bulk-up these last seven years will not be easily unbuilt, no matter who dons the presidential mantle on January 19, 2009. "The Pentagon" is now so much more than a five-sided building across the Potomac from Washington or even the seat of the Department of Defense. In many ways, it defies description or labeling.

Who, today, even remembers the debate at the end of the Cold War aboutå what role U.S. military power should play in a "unipolar" world? Was U.S. supremacy so well established, pundits were then asking, that Washington could rely on softer economic and cultural power, with military power no more than a backup (and a domestic "peace dividend" thrown into the bargain)? Or was the U.S. to strap on the six-guns of a global sheriff and police the world as the fountainhead of "humanitarian interventions"? Or was it the moment to boldly declare ourselves the world's sole superpower and wield a high-tech military comparable to none, actively discouraging any other power or power bloc from even considering future rivalry?

The attacks of September 11, 2001 decisively ended that debate. The Bush administration promptly declared total war on every front -- against peoples, ideologies, and, above all, "terrorism" (a tactic of the weak). That very September, administration officials proudly leaked the information that they were ready to "target" up to 60 other nations and the terrorist movements within them.

The Pentagon's "footprint" was to be firmly planted, military base by military base, across the planet, with a special emphasis on its energy heartlands. Top administration officials began preparing the Pentagon to go anywhere and do anything, while rewriting, shredding, or ignoring whatever laws, national or international, stood in the way. In 2002, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld officially articulated a new U.S. military posture that, in conception, was little short of revolutionary. It was called -- in classic Pentagon shorthand -- the 1-4-2-1 Defense Strategy (replacing the Clinton administration's already none-too-modest plan to be prepared to fight two major wars -- in the Middle East and Northeast Asia -- simultaneously).

Theoretically, this strategy meant that the Pentagon was to prepare to defend the United States, while building forces capable of deterring aggression and coercion in four "critical regions" (Europe, Northeast Asia, East Asia, and the Middle East). It would be able to defeat aggression in two of these regions simultaneously and "win decisively" in one of those conflicts "at a time and place of our choosing." Hence 1-4-2-1.

<more>

http://www.alternet.org/story/86573/

[Selatius]

1. I don't think it can be stopped. Few politicians have the stomach to cut military funding.

They invariably get called unpatriotic and exposing the country to danger for curbing excessive military spending. Unless people consciously and collectively make the decision to stop going down this road, politicians will continue to take the path of least resistance and throw money at war to make themselves look good, at the expense of domestic infrastructure, health care, education, and everything else.

The path this Republic is walking on reads like pages from the history of Rome or the British Empire. We know both ended in ruin and bankruptcy.

[izzie]

2. I think you are right on most of this but , we are going broke.

Now the thing will be will we have this costly army or schools etc. I think the country will turn in-ward and go for what we need not the war business but it will not be easy. We do seem to go in a wave of ups and downs in what we think is important and I think we have had it with wars for a while. McCain and his family have been in the war business for over a 100 years and so if he gets in we can plan on the war business to hold on for a few more years. We have also done the laissez faire capitalize thing over and over and each time we find it does not work well for every day people and controls come in.

[Jemmons]

3. This is why the economic recession should be seen as a blessing

something that is needed for a change of heart, and which will set you free. Economic growth has been made the holy grail of government, but it is not really that important to the happiness of the people of a country.

[izzie]

7. It does seem to go to far one way. A change is in the wind for sure.

It is like the 1880's and 1920's and time for some over sight to move in and clean up the place.

[lanlady]

8. I'd argue the opposite

Massive spending on arms is precisely what's keeping this country from going into a deep, deep recession. The old adage "war is good for business" is true. Perverse but true.

I'd love to see the military spending diverted instead to the public good, but that would not be easy, and no politician has the balls to carry it out. The US lives by the sword, and we'll die by it too.

[zeemike]

4. There is one thing we must do to correct this

And I know I will catch hell for this but it must be done to rescue the military from control by private interest.
And that is to re institute the draft. We cannot stand by and let our national defense be put in the hands of mercenaries.

In fact I suggest a national program of compulsory service for 18-20 year olds of 2 years where young people after high school would do two years service in public service of various kinds, some of them military service, but mostly in public work projects.

It would be good for the youth, gibing them 2 years to earn a little money and have some fun and mature before going to college. There would be less chance of them going wild and flunking out.

OK that is enough fire away at me for being against freedom and wanting to dictate to the young. But I truly believe in public service and believe every one owes the nation at least two years of service.

[BB1]

5. And if a draft is too harsh,

There's always the so-called 'social-draft'. This is a form of military draft, but it exists to serve the country in a broader form. For instance: social draft at the Walter Reed.

[zeemike]

6. It should be universal and compulsory

And divided up where the need is. And with opportunity for the young ones to select according tu where their interest lie
For instance if one young one decided he want ed to be a Doctor he could be assigned to Walter Reed hospital and get some valuable experience
And the percentages needed for the military would be small, and even smaller if we were at peace wot the world.