Does a politician REALLY need to promote "a strong defense" to get elected?

[Lydia Leftcoast]

That's the conventional wisdom, and the New York Times editorial at this URL

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/31/opinion/31wed1.html?hp

accepts it, that the U.S. must have "a strong military," and so on.

But look at the readers' comments.

Whenever I read the Readers' Comments on the NY Times website, I always select "Readers' Recommendations" as the sorting order, because that best reflects public opinion. If you have the patience to read through all the comments, you'll see that people, with the exception of a few unreconstructed wingnuts, are overwhelmingly in favor of downsizing the U.S. military and reducing foreign entanglements.

Here are some excerpts from the top ten readers' comments:

And what are these "grave threats" our country is supposedly facing? There is no nation or terrorist organization in the world which is an existential threat to us. We entered into a war of choice in Iraq. We run the secret prisons, Guantanamo. We are the biggest weapons exporter.

Our only threat, a very real one, is that we are becoming a militaristic society in the name of a bogus war on terror that is constantly being redefined and can never end.
----
Tax payers have no idea how much money is WASTED by the Pentagon or given to it UNNECESSARILY. The problem is that the military-industrial complex is so interwoven into our economy that it would take a massive overhaul or our defense budget and expenditures to spend only what is necessary. But if that were done,funds could be free for for other items such as education or federal taxes could be significantly lowered.
-----
This editorial purports to advocate diplomacy over force. Yet it reeks of support for the military machine.

Not one of the top ten comments advocates the conventional wisdom about the U.S. military. Not one. Think about it.

[tritsofme]

1. No one really takes the time to comment on these things besides partisans.

So I don't think it is indicative of any broader political trend.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

3. Well, it is Times readers, of course, but note that they are

lambasting an editorial position held by the newspaper that they themselves read.

This doesn't always happen.

And in any case, a REAL leader (with the help of sympathetic Congresscritters) would be able to make the case to the American people that there were things to take care of at home that were more important than fighting in a country where the majority of the population wants us to leave.

[mikita]

5. and thus it has ALWAYS been....

the people don't really want wars, but wars make money. And the money critters will only allow the puppets to run for office if they continue the ruse.
Am I calling Obama a puppet? Yes, sadly, following a long line of them. This didn't start with Shrub. It was just more "in your face".....

[Lydia Leftcoast]

6. After working on the Kucinich campaign in 2004, I knew that no one

who represented real change would EVER be given enough media exposure to win the nomination. After New Hampshire, it was all Obama and Clinton all the time, namely, the two candidates the least likely to challenge the status quo.

[karynnj]

49. In 2004, Kerry was likely the only viable candidate who

would have changed foreign policy - something he called for since 1966 when he was a student at Yale, including the end of his 1971 speech and the reason he risked his career fighting Reagan's illegally arming the Contras and the corrupt BCCI bank. The media hid when he spoke against permanent bases and getting the US out of the front lines and calling for an immediate regional summit.

All of the 2008 candidates (except Gravel and Kuchinich) had poorer exit plans than Kerry/Feingold - which Edwards did not support and both Obama and Clinton voted against - but then adopted K/F like plans extending the time frames with both using Kerry's logic. I hope that Obama who ran on a foreign policy agenda similar to things Kerry advocated will follow through on that agenda.

[gravity]

2. Comments on the NY Times aren't representative

and criticizing certain aspects of the military spending doesn't exclude a strong defense. You can get both Democrats and Republicans to agree that some of the military programs we spend money on are wasteful and unnecessary.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

4. There is NO REASON other than greed and paranoia to spend

as much as Russia, China, and the next 14 nations COMBINED.

Note that all this money still didn't prevent 9/11, because armies are ineffective against terrorists, unless you are willing to kill the whole population that supports them, and that would be genocidal, and frankly, America wouldn't be worth supporting if that were the case. (It's barely worth supporting now.)

[Swamp Rat]

9. *sigh*

and yet the U.S. Government HAS committed genocide.... "Manifest Destiny," Cambodia, Iraq... who's next? :(

[stillcool]

7. I wish I knew a fraction..

of what goes on at the Pentagon, and all the alphabet soup agencies. Hope you don't mind my posting a couple of things. I'll be glad to edit them out if you do. But in answer to your question..Yes they need to expound on 'national defense' and assert the need for an even bigger military..and here's why.

Colin Gray : "By far the most influential geopolitical concept for Anglo-American statecraft has been the idea of a Eurasian `heartland,' and then the complementary idea-as-policy of containing the heartland power of the day within, not to, Eurasia. From Harry S Truman to George Bush, the overarching vision of US national security was explicitly geopolitical and directly traceable to the heartland theory of Mackinder. . . . Mackinder's relevance to the containment of a heartland-occupying Soviet Union in the cold war was so apparent as to approach the status of a cliché."

"A victorious Roman general, when he entered the city, amid all the head-turning splendor of a `Triumph,' had behind him on the chariot a slave who whispered into his ear that he was mortal. When our statesmen are in conversation with the defeated enemy, some airy cherub should whisper to them from time to time this saying: Who rules East Europe commands the Heartland; Who rules the Heartland commands the World-Island; Who rules the World-Island commands the World."
- Sir Halford Mackinder, 1919

Zbigniew Brzezinski’s Game Plan (1986) and The Grand Chessboard (1997) present global views almost wholly based on Mackinder’s concepts
New York Council on Foreign Relations Foreign Affairs article by Brzezinski from September/October 1997:
"Eurasia is home to most of the world's politically assertive and dynamic states. All the historical pretenders to global power originated in Eurasia. The world's most populous aspirants to regional hegemony, China and India, are in Eurasia, as are all the potential political or economic challengers to American primacy. After the United States, the next six largest economies and military spenders are there, as are all but one of the world's overt nuclear powers, and all but one of the covert ones. Eurasia accounts for 75 percent of the world's population, 60 percent of its GNP, and 75 percent of its energy resources. Collectively, Eurasia's potential power overshadows even America's.
Eurasia is the world's axial supercontinent. A power that dominated Eurasia would exercise decisive influence over two of the world's three most economically productive regions, Western Europe and East Asia. A glance at the map also suggests that a country dominant in Eurasia would almost automatically control the Middle East and Africa. With Eurasia now serving as the decisive geopolitical chessboard, it no longer suffices to fashion one policy for Europe and another for Asia. What happens with the distribution of power on the Eurasian landmass will be of decisive importance to America's global primacy

December 28, 2008
The Worldwide Network of US Military Bases
by Prof. Jules Dufour
Global Research, July 1, 2007

Geopolitical Outreach: Network of Military Bases

The US has established its control over 191 governments which are members of the United Nations. The conquest, occupation and/or otherwise supervision of these various regions of the World is supported by an integrated network of military bases and installations which covers the entire Planet (Continents, Oceans and Outer Space). All this pertains to the workings of an extensive Empire, the exact dimensions of which are not always easy to ascertain.
----------------------------------------------------
The Military Bases
The main sources of information on these military installations (e.g. C. Johnson, the NATO Watch Committee, the International Network for the Abolition of Foreign Military Bases) reveal that the US operates and/or controls between 700 and 800 military bases Worldwide.
---------------
These facilities include a total of 845,441 different buildings and equipments. The underlying land surface is of the order of 30 million acres. According to Gelman, who examined 2005 official Pentagon data, the US is thought to own a total of 737 bases in foreign lands. Adding to the bases inside U.S. territory, the total land area occupied by US military bases domestically within the US and internationally is of the order of 2,202,735 hectares, which makes the Pentagon one of the largest landowners worldwide (Gelman, J., 2007).

[NaturalHigh]

8. Yes, a strong defense is important.

I'm not saying that we need to spend a trillion dollars a year on the military. Nor do we need to be involved in conflicts around the world. We do need a strong defense, though.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

10. But when Republicanites and DLCers say "a strong defense" what they really mean

is "a blank check for the Pentagon," not a sober and clear-headed reassessment of what the country actually needs.

[eridani]

39. What does it need to be strong enough to do? n/t

[Lydia Leftcoast]

40. See, that's the question that no one in the mainstream asks

Back in the early days of DU, I found an incredible article in the NY Times (I wish I could remember exactly when). The Bushies were pushing for the development of a Star Wars anti-missile defense system and other space-based weaponry, saying that it was absolutely vital for the defense of the nation.

But anyone who knew anything about the subject knew that this was a weapons system without an enemy to defend against. No one else in the world was developing space-based weapons.

So what does Condoleezza Rice do? She asks the Chinese to start developing space-based weapons, just so the Bushies' project would have a purpose. (Fortunately, the Chinese weren't interested.)

I'm not making this up. The "strong defense" people really are that nuts. I sent EarlG the link, and he put Rice in that week's Top Ten Conservative Idiots.

The only reason to want a military stronger than the next sixteen largest militaries combined is not "defense." It's imperialism. The neocons want America to be the New Roman Empire, controlling the known world.

[eridani]

42. Didn't know that about Condi

Do you have a link for that?

[Lydia Leftcoast]

43. No, I wish I did (lost a lot of old stuff during a hard drive crash) but

it was a Top Ten Conservative Idiots feature a few years ago.

[On the Road]

11. All Indications are That Yes, It Is

The trick, which few politicians seem to have mastered, is to get credit for supporting a strong defense without giving a blank check to the military. Clinton may have come closest when he ran on a platform that included large military projects like the Seawolf submarine, but in practice gradually reduced expenditures to a slightly more reasonable level.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

15. And the Seawolf submarine was needed because...?

A REAL leader would borrow a trick from Reagan, whom I despised, but whom I have to credit for knowing how to gain popular support. He went on TV, put on that "You know I have your best interests at heart" face, explained why he wanted what was then the largest military budget in U.S. history, and then asked viewers to write to their Congresscritters if they agreed.

A REAL leader (which Bill Clinton was not--He caved in on so many issues that he set the pattern for recent Democratic Congresscritters) would have the courage of his convictions and be willing to be a one-term president if it was the only way he could do the right thing.

[On the Road]

47. The Point is That Clinton Became President

which he probably would not have had he run on a platform of significantly cutting miliatary expenditures. I agree with you about Clinton caving on issues, but the military wasn't an example. His cuts were small enough in any one year that they failed to generate outrage from hawks, but cumulatively they reduced the proportion of military spending to GDP over his eight years in office.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

51. But he never challenged the assumptions that underlie our suicidal military spending

Someone needs to do it before we turn into the equivalent of the crazy old man in one of my former neighborhoods who lived in a rundown shack surrounded by barbed wire with Rottweilers running around in the yard (and probably a private arsenal in the house, for all I know).

[TheKentuckian]

12. I'd say so in most cases. Common defense is one of the primary reasons to have government

it has a limit but government is about worthless if it cannot reasonably secure security and commerce.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

13. There's securing defense, a valid function of any government, and then there['s

what our military establishment does, which is serve as an income generator for weapons manufacturers and as a servant of economic imperialism. (The military personnel may THINK that they're serving their country, but in most cases, they're serving the rich and powerful and have been since 1945 continuously and on many occasions before that.)

Actual DEFENSE of the country, as opposed to illegal and immoral ventures like the Iraq War or the invasion of Panama or the invasion of Grenada, would require a MUCH smaller military budget than we have now.

For some reason, Republicans and "conservative" Democrats always criticize "throwing money at a problem," unless that "problem" happens to be some military project. Then all they ask is, "How much shall we make out this check for?"

[Hosnon]

14. Depends on the district.

The closest Democratic Congressman to me simply must moderate himself to maintain office.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

16. "Moderation" means "accept conventional corporate wisdom

whether it's right or wrong and don't even try to change people's misconceptions."

Giving the military everything it wants and supporting every immoral military venture is not "moderation"; it's naked right-wing philosophy.

[Hosnon]

17. No it doesn't. Who made you the Great Definition Giver? nt.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

20. I've been watching the political scene for over 40 years

The definition of "moderate" has steadily moved to the right. It used to mean, "Think before you act and don't move too far from the center." However, if the "center" in 1968 was at zero on a number line, the "center" of political opinions that are considered socially acceptable has moved so far to the right that the alleged "center" is now at about -5, with anyone who is at -4 or -3 or, God forbid, zero, is dismissed as "far left." People at 1 or 2 are now considered so out there that they can't even get any face time in the mainstream media.

There are now those in the Democratic Party who, if presented with some of NIXON's policies (unattributed) would declare that a person promoting expansion of food stamps, a guaranteed annual income, an Environmental Protection Agency, and friendly relations with adversaries was "far left."

I couldn't stand Nixon when he was president, but he looks better than a lot of people in the DLC, people who claim to be Democrats and espouse right-wing policies or cave in to right-wing demands in the name of "moderation."

[Hosnon]

22. Okay...this I agree with. But the stuff about corporate wisdom and refusing to even

try to change people's misconceptions was a bit different.

But...if the country moves to the right, so does the middle (i.e., moderation). And I think my neck of the woods has moved to the right over the last 40 years.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

24. But that's not a natural phenomenon

The mainstream media have also moved rightward and been dumbed down (I've given examples of cable channels that used to show intelligent fare and now show dreck), and the mainstream media are all that most people ever see.

I've seen documentaries and dramas on mainstream British and even Japanese television that would be considered "far left radical" by U.S. media standards.

When anyone to the right of Joe Lieberman gets called "left-wing" by the corporate media, you know something's screwy.

As some of my European friends point out, anywhere in Western Europe, Dennis Kucinich would be considered a centrist.

The move to the right is NOT accidental or natural, not when a few major corporations own all the nationally distributed and much of the local media in this country.

[stray cat]

18. I would have trouble voting for someone who did't think we needed a defense

as part of national security. Of course I believe we need police and regulators to protect us from internal crooks as well.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

21. Nobody is arguing for complete disarmament, but did you read the

comments at the link?

They make some very good points.

We need DEFENSE, not an aggressive force, which is what we have now.

[leftstreet]

19. 'Strong Defense' also signals fear of retaliation for our international crimes

Thanks for posting.
Those comments are pretty interesting.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

23. Yes, a large percentage of the world is mightily pissed off at the U.S.

mostly because of what our "strong defense" has done in the past 60-some years.

But these are self-generated problems, caused by our meddling where we aren't wanted or needed.

Would Americans stand for having foreign military bases on their soil, especially given the way I've seen some U.S. military personnel act in Japan? Would we in the U.S. like to see Japanese soldiers stationed on U.S. soil, getting drunk and disorderly and harassing American women?

[leftstreet]

27. No. Americans would shit themselves if 'foreign' troops had bases here

We've been so immersed in USA!!!1111 Number One!!!111 military dominance and saturation, we can't even think straight.

:(

[MajorChode]

25. A "strong defense" to a Republican is a never ending proposition

Few people actually realize the extent to which the Republicans have and will go to in order to increase defense spending.

Consider this....

In the late 70's the US knew that the Soviet threat was over. They couldn't feed their people. They couldn't afford their army. In short, they were going down the toilet. We knew this because the CIA was telling us that every year in the National Intelligence Estimate(NIE). We also know today that they were right. Ah, but the neo-cons had already started to heavily influence the presiduncy of Gerald Ford, so what did they do? CIA director Bush formed Team B. The purpose of Team B was to develop a competitive analysis of Team A (CIA insiders) NIE. In layman's terms, the thought of peace was too hard for the Republicans to bear so they had to create a threat where none existed. Bush stocked Team B with hawkish outsiders and most of them were card carrying neo-cons, namely one Paul Wolfowitz. Not surprisingly, they reached the conclusion that the NIE was wrong, which was the intent all along.

Carter wanted to drastically cut defense spending, but Team B strong-armed him by selectively leaking parts of their classified work in order to undermine his presidency. By the time Carter was up for reelection the damage had been done. Carter had been painted as soft on the Soviet "threat" and Raygun won the election. As soon as Raygun got in office, the red threat was revitalized and the cold war, part II was reborn. Raygun increased defense spending massively and tripled the federal debt.

As it turns out, almost everything Team B claimed was wrong and almost everything contained in Team A's NIE was right. Trillions were spent on defense spending needlessly which almost bankrupted the US and you are still paying the bills to this day. So did the Republicans ever admit their mistake? Nope. They claimed Raygun won the cold war and turned what can only be described as the biggest financial military blunder in history into a political victory.

So when Bush II got into office, who did he go to in order to develop his hawkish strategy? Some of the same fuckups from Team B, as it turns out. He took the neo-con Wolfowitz Doctrine, scribbled out Wolfowitz's name and wrote Bush above it. Daniel Pipes, son of Team B leader, Richard Pipes, was tapped. And what did we get? The needless Iraq War, of course. Once again the hawks got it wrong and you are still paying the bills to this day.

So what's the moral of the story?

Don't trust the national defense to Republicans.

(Don't trust them with your kids, either. Seriously.)

[Lydia Leftcoast]

28. During that period, I knew several people who had done study abroad in the Soviet Union

Their view was that the USSR was no threat, since they couldn't consistently feed their people and, as one friend said, "They can't even build an apartment with door knobs that stay on."

[MajorChode]

36. Sadly the US never learned that lesson

The reason the Soviet Union fell was because they had too many guns and not enough butter. If the US fails, it will be for the same reason.

A terrorists spends $20 on a batch of boxcutter knives. In response the US has spent over a trillion $ on Iraq alone with no end in sight. Imagine what we could have done productively with a trillion $. The possibilities are endless. We are losing this war.

I thank God W drove the GOP bandwagon off a cliff. The country couldn't have stood much more.

[Joe Chi Minh]

30. I just came across this saying by Ambrose Bierce: "War is God's way of

teaching the American people geography." That would certainly be the dream of the Republicans, wouldn't it.

"We doanwanno steenkin' schools! Send'em to the front."

[Lydia Leftcoast]

32. You're right

How many people knew where Vietnam was in 1960?

How many people knew where Nicaragua was in 1978? (Heavens, at the height of Reagan's illegal interventions--supported by the DLC, by the way--the Latin American study abroad programs at the schools where I taught suffered because all parents knew was that there was fighting somewhere "down there.")

[karynnj]

50. It wasn't just the DLC, how many Senators backed John Kerry

in investigating whether the Contras were being illegally armed? Gore and the Clintons supported leagally arming the right wing thugs. He was supported by his Republican chair of the SFRC, Dick Lugar and (of all people) Jesse Helms, who was anti-drug enough that the idea that they were bringing in drugs to fund the gun running was abhorrent.

[Dennis Donovan]

26. A "strong defense" doesn't ensure security. A "smart defense" does...

Unfortunately, a "smart defense" isn't as profitable for the Military Industrial Complex.

[Canuckistanian]

29. Canada's leaders don't need to promise that

Because we know we aren't a major target.

Face it, the "world's most powerful nation" attracts challengers.

If America weren't such a sanctimonious, interfering, overbearing and bullying nation, it wouldn't be a problem.

Take that as a piece of advice from a friendly neighbor.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

31. Can't disagree

One of the most educational things a person can do is live in another country, not on a military base, not in a diplomatic compound, not in a corporate apartment hotel walled off from the general population, but with ordinary people and at their standard of living, experiencing their lives and speaking their language.

Being isolated from the U.S. corporate propaganda machine does wonders for one's mind.

[Canuckistanian]

34. You're in Japan, aren't you?

Or am I thinking of someone else?

[Lydia Leftcoast]

38. I was, and Art_from_Ark currently lives there

:-)

[Lydia Leftcoast]

33. By the way, the other day Paul Krugman deplored the way states are cutting

their budgets, and surprisingly, the majority of responses were AGAINST him.

So the NY Times readers are not predictable.

[Uzybone]

35. Yes, to get elected

Even weak African nations have their leaders promote strong defense. No candidate would get nominated if he/she ran on a platform of making the US weaker. Downsizing the bloated US military and reducing our foreign entanglements does not equal not having a strong defense. We can have a strong defense and still cut our military budge in half.

[KoKo]

37. More RW/NeoCon Crap...is what I think they are doing...but it always seems to work...

even though newspapers are going out of business and NYT's Building is Up for SALE...they keep at it until we are in Grover Norquists bathtub going down the drain. :-(

[DerekG]

41. We live in an empire, no?

Rape and pillage are part and parcel to this enterprise. You don't like it? Well, then you belong with Christ, and not Pilate/Herod.

Humane men have no business managing empires. Which is why Saint Kucinich is where he is, and Barackus Obamus is where he is.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

44. Yes, as I mentioned on another thread

no one who advocates REAL CHANGE, in the form of challenging the assumptions behind the military-industrial complex and telling the truth about how this society has the deck stacked in favor of the rich and powerful in large and small ways, will ever be allowed through the primaries. The mass media will either ignore or ridicule that candidate.

[DerekG]

45. There are no messiahs

Obama and his neo-liberal cadre will betray us--horribly. The signs are all there.

Our job is to build up communities, weather the economic storm, and create the proper milieu for populist/democratic socialist alternatives. No concessions should be given to the Democratic and Republican parties. The whole lot of them are scum...let 'em rot in Hell.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

46. It has always struck me as naive when people act as if Obama will make it all better

or when people used to say, "This wouldn't have happened if Al Gore (who helped found the DLC and supported the Contras and Reagan's then-unprecedented military build-up) were in the White House."

The permissible ideological range in this country is extremely narrow.

Change will have to come from the ground up. Things will continue to deteriorate until enough people start to see through the illusions that American society is built upon.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

48. Of course. "The Home of the Brave" is terrified of bogeymen.

“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.” H.L. Mencken

[McCamy Taylor]

52. Only if you have a defense contractor in your district or you are a bombing target.

If your district relies on tourism dollars, your voters want to hear about how you are going to bring in the tourists, not about how you are going to alienate half the world.