Deficit:Policeman to the world?

If history is any lesson, and it is, then the U.S. will continue to waste its national resources on useless wars until it becomes a secondary power in the world. 

Here’s one aspect of the 21^st century of which I am not optimistic. Are you?

Do you think the U.S. will reduce its overseas military spending and reallocate precious resources towards domestic economic infrastructure spending so necessary to remaining a prosperous nation in this century?

Or, as I predict, will we follow Great Britain’s example of 100 years ago and overspend on military as the last great gasp of hope on remaining the world’s superpower?

There are signs of hope.  Many in Congress want to pull out of Afphanistan.  Some even understand that the best way to beat Al Queda, or any such enemy, is with counter terrorism rather than 100,000 troops.  And even the questioning of the bombing of Libya, which I support for humanitarian reaons, is at least a national discussion that partly involves the role of the military in our national budget.

But in the end, I predict the U.S. will continue to overspend on military (we currently spent more than all nations in the rest of the world combined!), because as Congressmand Rand said on a recent OnPoint radio show, Someone has to be policeman to the world.  That is nonsense.  We can protect ourselves better with small military investments.

The Europeans are playing this game much better. They are spending what they trhink is reasonable to protect their nations.  They understand nothing and no $$ can totally prevent any terrorist act.  And they understand d investing in economic development and infrastructure is a far better strategy than spending money on military.  It’s not that they want to depend on the U.S. for their protection; it’s that given the choice, they would not spend what we spend on war/defense/military – call it what you will.

 

 

Comments

[D. P. Lubic]

The great irony of this is that key infrastructure investments in rail, including local transit (i.e., bringing back trolley cars), will help to get us off the oil diet, which in turn is part of what drives current conflicts.

That oil diet is largely driven by our transportation system being so dominated by cars; 43% of our oil consumption is in the form of gasoline, and there aren't too many piston-engined aircraft around anymore, so you know where that goes.

At the same time, the budget cutters want to cut, as the very first thing, anything in the public transit field. Never mind that this is like treating cancer by looking at pimples in terms of scale, never mind that taking away a reason to fight might be the best way to fight, that's what's on the chopping block, and our current "leaders" don't have the courage or sense to even attempt to make this case.

It's very disappointing and very dispiriting.