liberty · equality · eternity

Since the Dirty Dozen Debt Committee imploded, automatic, sequestered “cuts” of $1.2 trillion begin in 2013. It is worth repeating that these are not really cuts, just reductions in spending increases over ten years, which a future Congress could repeal. So it’s a very modest modification. (Okay, it’s a big joke! Still a spending increase.)

When the government uses obscure words exceeding three syllables, you know we are in trouble. Sequestration. Even its definition sounds painful.

Which brings us to Leon Pañetta [above]. According to the Secretary of Defense (SOD), these automatic cuts will undermine our security. Sure.

It goes back to July’s post [see: WATTS IN A NAME], concerning the folly of renaming the Department of War the Department of Defense. The implication is that all the money is spent protecting the nation from harm, erroneous, as the government’s massive failure on 11 September 2001 demonstrated, not to mention all the waste and redundancy. During the months since 1 July of this year, when he became SOD, Pañetta has cost taxpayers about half a million dollars for military aircraft shuttling him home to California on weekends. You can’t blame him for wanting to avoid Homeland Security on commercial flights, particularly when he is not paying. Seems like a prospective cut that would not cripple our defence.

Bogus budget cuts will not hurt security, only remind military celebrities that they work for us. Rather than suggest sensible cuts, Pañetta made a ridiculous assessment of the minor budget adjustment’s effects, claiming it would give the armed forces “the smallest ground force since 1940,” the smallest Navy since the Civil War and the fewest aircraft since the 1600s. I may be exaggerating, much like the SOD.

An FBN video shows that intelligent, reasonable persons, such as John Bolton, may oppose any cuts, even promote increased military spending. I disagree respectfully. Most of the money supports unauthorised wars and overseas ventures unrelated to protecting the US troops stationed all over the globe, including countries that could have afforded to reimburse us for the expense before their economies collapsed.

It is a Constitutional responsibility to defend Americans from attack by foreign enemies. It is not the government’s job to be the world’s police force and, if it is, they are doing a terrible job.

Says Bolton, “I don’t believe the United States should ever be in a fair fight,” meaning having a scarier military than any other land’s. Remember the policy of “overkill” during the Cold War?

The Afghanistan war is a boon for the arms industry, but no one expects a favourable outcome when US troops leave. If they leave. And their length of occupation belies the concept of a strong military discouraging enemies.

Those demanding more military spending argue that the world is more dangerous than ever. That might be true, probably not. Since Hitler invaded Europe, there has not been a similar effort to dominate the world, just militant rhetoric. We were assured during the Cold War that the USSR presented an imminent danger. Turns out it was more of a threat to itself.

A: UN Ambassador Susan Rice

Iran is the new bogeyman. North Korea, with arguably much crazier leadership, have nuclear capability and a history of murderous actions. Yet we hear little about them, now that efforts to stop their bomb failed. Before they went nuclear, they were members of the Axis of Evil. Now it’s as if nothing can be done, so forget them. Come to think of it, Iraq had “weapons of mass destruction.” Did the US preemptive attack save Americans?

The record shows nothing slows the Iranian quest for nuclear weapons. As Holman W Jenkins Jr wrote in the Wall Street Journal (16 NOV 2011), “Sanctions and sabotage have not succeeded in slowing Iran’s nuclear program.” A cynic might say Washington want Iran armed as an excuse for more war. Consider how they are winning with the War on Poverty and the War on Drugs.

Look at how they have destroyed the dollar and the economy with fanciful spending on useless solutions to imaginary problems. That’s how the Soviet Union buried itself, that and fighting an unwinnable war in Afghanistan.