Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise

America Is Completely Broke, And Here We Are Funding Fantasy Wars at the Pentagon

By Chalmers Johnson, Tomdispatch.com. Posted February 3, 2009.


Scam artists are making a huge fortune off inferior, poorly designed weapons.

Share and save this post:

      

      

Share on Facebook       

AlterNet Social Networks:
follow us on twitter
find us on Facebook

In Special Coverage

Belief:
Is Blind Faith in God and the Bible a Modern Invention?
Devilstower

Corporate Accountability and WorkPlace:
What Can the Morass of the 1970s Tell Us About the Current Economic Crisis?
Alejandro Reuss

DrugReporter:
Why Are We Locking Up Traumatized Veterans for Their Addictions Instead of Offering Them Treatment?
Penny Coleman

Environment:
Why Max Baucus' 'No' Vote on the Climate Bill May Really Help Its Passage
Jeff Mcmahon

Food:
Soda Helps Make Americans Unhealthy and Fat -- Will Soda Tax Prevail Despite Pushback by Beverage Industry?
Christine Spolar, Joseph Eaton

Health and Wellness:
Does the House Bill's Public Option Kill Off the Senate's?
Booman

Immigration:
Recent Democratic Victories May Grease the Wheels for Immigration Reform in Congress
Marcelo Balive

Media and Technology:
Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh Stoking GOP Civil War
Eric Boehlert

Movie Mix:
The Yes Men: Pranksters Out to Fix the World
Mark Engler

Politics:
What Obama Is Up Against in His Own Branch of Government
Russ Baker

Reproductive Justice and Gender:
"Precious" Star Claims the Spotlight
Emily Wilson

Rights and Liberties:
Hard to Believe: 73 U.S. Kids Sentenced to Life Without Parole at 14 or Younger, and All Are Black
Liliana Segura

Sex and Relationships:
9 Silly Things People Say When They Hear You Don't Want Kids (And Ways to Counter Them)
Liz Langley

Take Action:
G-20 Meetings: Nothing Much Happened in the Suites, and There Was Too Much Punch in the Streets
Laura Flanders

Water:
Radioactive Wastewater in New York Raises More Concerns About Oil Drilling
Abrahm Lustgarten

World:
Afghanistan Is Worse Off Than Ever, Thanks to the Sham Army We're Propping Up
Chris Hedges

More stories by Chalmers Johnson

Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

Like much of the rest of the world, Americans know that the U.S. automotive industry is in the grips of what may be a fatal decline. Unless it receives emergency financing and undergoes significant reform, it is undoubtedly headed for the graveyard in which many American industries are already buried, including those that made televisions and other consumer electronics, many types of scientific and medical equipment, machine tools, textiles, and much earth-moving equipment -- and that's to name only the most obvious candidates. They all lost their competitiveness to newly emerging economies that were able to outpace them in innovative design, price, quality, service, and fuel economy, among other things.

A similar, if far less well known, crisis exists when it comes to the military-industrial complex. That crisis has its roots in the corrupt and deceitful practices that have long characterized the high command of the Armed Forces, civilian executives of the armaments industries, and Congressional opportunists and criminals looking for pork-barrel projects, defense installations for their districts, or even bribes for votes.

Given our economic crisis, the estimated trillion dollars we spend each year on the military and its weaponry is simply unsustainable. Even if present fiscal constraints no longer existed, we would still have misspent too much of our tax revenues on too few, overly expensive, overly complex weapons systems that leave us ill-prepared to defend the country in a real military emergency. We face a double crisis at the Pentagon: we can no longer afford the pretense of being the Earth's sole superpower, and we cannot afford to perpetuate a system in which the military-industrial complex makes its fortune off inferior, poorly designed weapons.

Double Crisis at the Pentagon

This self-destructive system of bloated budgets and purchases of the wrong weapons has persisted for so long thanks to the aura of invincibility surrounding the Armed Forces and a mistaken belief that jobs in the arms industry are as valuable to the economy as jobs in the civilian sector.

Recently, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Michael Mullen began to advocate nothing less than protecting the Pentagon budget by pegging defense spending to a fixed percentage of gross domestic product (GDP, the total value of goods and services produced by the economy). This would, of course, mean simply throwing out serious strategic analysis of what is actually needed for national defense. Mullen wants, instead, to raise the annual defense budget in the worst of times to at least 4% of GDP. Such a policy is clearly designed to deceive the public about ludicrously wasteful spending on weapons systems which has gone on for decades.

It is hard to imagine any sector of the American economy more driven by ideology, delusion, and propaganda than the armed services. Many people believe that our military is the largest, best equipped, and most invincible among the world's armed forces. None of these things is true, but our military is, without a doubt, the most expensive to maintain. Each year, we Americans account for nearly half of all global military spending, an amount larger than the next 45 nations together spend on their militaries annually.

Equally striking, the military seems increasingly ill-adapted to the types of wars that Pentagon strategists agree the United States is most likely to fight in the future, and is, in fact, already fighting in Afghanistan -- insurgencies led by non-state actors. While the Department of Defense produces weaponry meant for such wars, it is also squandering staggering levels of defense appropriations on aircraft, ships, and futuristic weapons systems that fascinate generals and admirals, and are beloved by military contractors mainly because their complexity runs up their cost to astronomical levels.

That most of these will actually prove irrelevant to the world in which we live matters not a whit to their makers or purchasers. Thought of another way, the stressed out American taxpayer, already supporting two disastrous wars and the weapons systems that go with them, is also paying good money for weapons that are meant for fantasy wars, for wars that will only be fought in the battlescapes and war-gaming imaginations of Defense Department "planners."

The Air Force and the Army are still planning as if, in the reasonably near future, they were going to fight an old-fashioned war of attrition against the Soviet Union, which disappeared in 1991; while the Navy, with its eleven large aircraft-carrier battle groups, is, as William S. Lind has written, "still structured to fight the Imperial Japanese Navy." Lind, a prominent theorist of so-called fourth-generation warfare (insurgencies carried out by groups such as al-Qaeda), argues that "the Navy's aircraft-carrier battle groups have cruised on mindlessly for more than half a century, waiting for those Japanese carriers to turn up. They are still cruising today, into, if not beyond, irrelevance… Submarines are today's and tomorrow's capital ships; the ships that most directly determine control of blue waters."


Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

See more stories tagged with: defense spending

Chalmers Johnson is the author of three linked books on the crises of American imperialism and militarism. They are Blowback (2000), The Sorrows of Empire (2004), and Nemesis: The Last Days of the American Republic (2006). All are available in paperback from Metropolitan Books. To listen to a TomDispatch audio interview with Johnson on the Pentagon's potential economic death spiral, click here. Don't miss TomDispatch's two-part excerpt of the graphic novel version of Waltz with Bashir.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Eisenhower Said It Best
Posted by: DrBrian on Feb 3, 2009 1:45 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Dwight D. Eisenhower said it best:
"Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed.

This world in arms in not spending money alone.

It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: isenhower Said It Best Posted by: djcrow22
» RE: isenhower Said It Best Posted by: gandolfshep
» RE: Eisenhower Said It Best Posted by: gandolfshep
Alternet is a WHORE!!! SAY NO to Alternet!!!
Posted by: mtnprivy on Feb 3, 2009 4:15 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Alternet is a WHORE TO MONEY.
I skimmed thru this article about military waste, and there on the top of the page is an ad for the Raptor aircraft. Then on the bottom of the page is another mention of military aircraft jobs from Northrup. Just goes to show that our value system is almost totally window-dressing, but let someone wave money in our face, and we'll play the whore in a minute.
I would ENCOURAGE EVERYONE to write in to alternet and demand they SAY NO to military ads. Let them know that if you see more military ads on their pages, you are gonna quit reading their rag.
The other option is to have massive write-in campaigns that disclose the real issues with Northrup. . . The Raptor. . . or whatever military group is advertising with Alternet. We should drive the military out of the Alternet, or we should leave ourselves. It doesn't matter what article we respond to. . . but we should demand NO MILITARY ADS ! ! !

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Thanks for bringing this one up as well. Plus, Posted by: Jennifer Bedingfield
» I won't have known Posted by: SteveO
» It's like Posted by: Bliss Doubt
Yet Another Scam
Posted by: shill on Feb 3, 2009 4:20 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
To get some true insight into how the so called "defense" budget is being run and how we, the taxpayers, are being scammed, read Ivan Eland's book, "The Empire has No Clothes," and "Against Leviathan," a collection of writings by economist Robert Higgs.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Yet Another Scam Posted by: billybookworm
The behaviour of Empires
Posted by: citizenjoe on Feb 3, 2009 4:29 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Look, Empires are systems of power. They don't care a damn for the states that support them or are in them. States serve them only as sources of power. They are vicious, brutal and contemptuous. Look what happened to the Republic of Rome when Rome became an Empire. The state was destroyed by the Emperors, the Legions, and the Praetorian Guard. Selection of authorities was by murder. The idea that there are "benevolent empires" put forward by neo-Cons and conservative historians is nothing but propaganda and ideology by people who want to serve power, and there are a lot of them, including the entire Main Stream Press.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Thank you! Posted by: citizenjoe
Ask Anyone Even The Troops in Afghanistan Why They Are There? They Mumble & Cant Give an Answer
Posted by: tony_opmoc on Feb 3, 2009 4:51 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
That makes sense.

It will probably be something like

TERRORISTS TERRORISTS TERRORISTS

9/11 9/11 9/11

Muslims Muslims Muslims

Or the politicans come out with a variation on Churchill's theme of "We will fight them on the beaches."

Last night I watched a documentary of UK Soldiers on the front line in Afghanistan. I'm not doubting their courage, nor honesty. To answer the question they said "...they were there because their mates were there." ..."They had respect for the enemy - the Taliban - but Afghanistan was much too dangerous - and many had already lost some of their mates."

So British soldiers are in Afghanistan losing their lives and even they haven't the faintest idea of what they are fighting for.

Maybe the MOD should have shown them this
The Power of Nightmares Part 3: The Shadows in the Cave - by Adam Curtis

Perhaps Obama should see it as well as checking up on his history books with regards to what eventually happens to ALL invaders of Afghanistan.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Kipling Posted by: colinmeister
» RE: Kipling Posted by: Cybershaman
F-22/a Raptor link
Posted by: mtnprivy on Feb 3, 2009 4:54 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Here is a wonderful article about the F-22/a Raptor aircraft. While you check this one out, I am gonna research some articles on Northrup also.
Anyone who wants to join me, and run the military ads away from Alternet, then go right ahead. Help me finds links about problems with Northrup, Raptor, or any other military ad you see.
http://www.pogo.org/pogo-files/reports/national-security/ f-22a-raptor/ns-f-22a-raptor-2006.html

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Smaller government?
Posted by: Cybershaman on Feb 3, 2009 5:00 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Whenever you hear a conservative talking about wanting to make the government 'smaller' they are talking exclusively about the social aspects of the government. The military and policing aspects are allowed to grow exponentially while the social services are eliminated.

Even though they blather on about wanting to reduce the government influence in our lives they promote the most intrusive parts of that government and reduce the benevolent parts until we have a system that only treats people with utter contempt.

Who are these 'insurgents' we have to constantly fight but people, just like you and me, who are trying to get our military dicks out of their behinds. Some get pretty violent about it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: OK, I'll give you that. Posted by: Cybershaman
» RE: Shoulda previewed! Posted by: Cybershaman
» RE: Smaller government? Posted by: ProgressiveManiac
» Check out Regan Posted by: curiousdwk
» What is Fascism, really truly? Posted by: citizenjoe
» Thank you! Posted by: citizenjoe
Why not take the plunge to get the Cure?
Posted by: edgar1 on Feb 3, 2009 5:03 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Mr. Roberts, one of our true wise elders, has been fighting this good fight against imperial waste for years. In this time of crisis, it is especially important that the drain of the Pentagon and its ancillary contractors, universities and security agencies be exposed. The dripping of resources as he suggests must stop. Let us not kid ourselves however: hundreds of thousands if not millions of Americans will lose their jobs, until they can retrain or transfer to the private sector or other govt jobs. For a while, the GDP will take another hit, I'm for massive cuts in the security establishment,but anyone who sees gain to the economy for the next several years is in another time dimension.

Moreover, if we are cutting the wasteful Pentagon, we should cut the Dept of Education which doesn't educate and in fact has presided over a decline in US student achievement compared with the rest of the world since the mindless J. Carter created it as a political reward to the politicized but education-creative-dead National Education Association.

I don't hear anything from Obama about cuts to major federal programs, most of which like farm subsidies and Medicare can be eliminated with more efficient alternatives or reformed to handle the population unable to purchase insurance on their own.

DOD,NSA, the Department of Homeland Security and the CIA are part of the welfare state. All of the welfare state should be drasitically trimmed back instead of being expanded, as Obama and Geitner("what me pay taxes?") would have us do.

Instead of pouring additional trillions into the public sector with little or no productive long term employment created, Obama and Congress should go in the opposite direction: cut cut cut and free up trillions for the private sector and individuals to save, invest and pay off debt. We need penalties on spending,not incentives to spend. Consumer spending down? Hooray! Now let's get savings and investment up.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

What's going on here?
Posted by: Tom Degan on Feb 3, 2009 5:07 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We've got enough weapons to destroy the world several times over. Pissing away another bloody fortune on the Military Industrial Complex is not going to stimulate the economy - no more than it did in the eighties. The time has come for it to be shut down completely - seriously!

The days of America's being the world's cop on the beat, so to speak, are long gone. We have got to wake up and face this painfully obvious fact. The bills are all due and our children need shoes and we're busted, baby! (Thank yo, Ray Charles).

Or, to quote another standard of long ago:

It's time to wind up the masquerade
Just make your mind up
The piper must be paid
The party's over
It's all over
My friend....

Rush Limbaugh is a Big, Fat Bloviating Gas Bag and other observations

Tom Degan
Goshen, NY

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Just when you think... Posted by: skoog5600
» Hey there, Scoog! Posted by: Tom Degan
Amazing
Posted by: JWilderJo on Feb 3, 2009 5:26 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Isnt it amazing? Seems there is no end in sight. The sheeple are getting screwed every which way from Sunday and nobody seems to care!

RT
Is your ISP spying on you?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» How do you know that? Posted by: gellero1
» RE: How do you know that? Posted by: Bliss Doubt
Defense, my foot.
Posted by: Hans B on Feb 3, 2009 5:55 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The US is enviably secure within its borders. It not only doesn't need a large military, it doesn't need a military at all. At least not for defense purposes.

The term "national defense" is a sales argument, nothing more. The military protects against nothing. It cannot, by its very nature, protect against terrorism. It does not protect against foreign military threats because there are none. Even Pearl Harbor only happened because the US had navy ships there - without that, the Japanese would have left the US alone.

The US military's role in former centuries was to take land away from Amerindians and Mexicans, thereafter to further US interests in Latin America, thereafter to protect allies who, today, are quite capable of protecting themselves. "National defense" has never been a goal, not really.

It seems to me that it doesn't matter whether the weapons the Pentagon buys works or not. What matters is that the US has apparently decided that it will spend the maximum amount of money available on the military. The exact way in which this money is wasted is not important. Putting it in big piles and burning it would be more simple, but the electorate probably wouldn't stand for that. "National defense" against exaggerated or entirely make-believe foreign threats sounds so much better.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Defense, my foot. Posted by: 2thepoint
» LOL..... Posted by: gellero1
» RE: As I remember... Posted by: Cybershaman
» "The military has deterred". Posted by: Bliss Doubt
şömine
Posted by: dekortas on Feb 3, 2009 6:12 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
thaks..

şömine
şömine
şömine

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

not lost on me...
Posted by: open-minded on Feb 3, 2009 6:35 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
i think most americans know that the money, and loads and loads of it, is spent yearly on making bombs, weapons, other means of mass destruction. the so called "defense" budget has been bloated for decades.
and if we didn't spend all that money making things to kill people, or at the very least, destroy their lives - we wouldn't have the hyper-busy, mind-numbing lives we have. americans are the most depressed of all people on this planet, the most angry, and the most unaware of the heavy fist that this country has used throughout the world to get what it wants-power power power.
the game is unraveling, as it should. we would do well to accept this, take responsibility for what we have done(what the gov. has done in our names) and move on to a more egalitarian system. this is what will save us, nothing in the patriarchal system can bring justice to the millions.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: not lost on me... Posted by: KKAK
And with GATES and BETRAYUS to cause more trouble, it'll only get WORSE !
Posted by: Jennifer Bedingfield on Feb 3, 2009 7:26 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
No wonder Big Military gave far more money to Barry than they did to Hitlery or McSame ! At least Ralph Nader didn't take the kind of bribes these two parties take all the time and even if he does get his money from investments in defense/oil companies, he takes that money and diverts it to organizations promoting better causes even as they face privatization from BIG GUBBMINT !!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

RE: at Less
Posted by: Zeugitai on Feb 3, 2009 1:06 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Good one. Funny.

Are you making a serious argument? If so, I missed it in your metaphor.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

2009 US Military Spend compared to the rest of the World
Posted by: Phred42 on Feb 3, 2009 8:05 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is insanity - even if we were not broke

http://www.djrserv.com/GMS2009.htm

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

A proactive alternative to war
Posted by: PaulK on Feb 3, 2009 8:07 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
One of the problems with having most of the world's weaponry, and with having tens of thousands of hydrogen bombs on a relatively tiny planet with only one atmosphere, is finding a worthy foe to conquer or to fight off without harming ourselves too.

Maybe we need to redefine war as something to prevent.

War is a bunch of bullies who never learned that bullying is anti-social, who somehow ally themselves without much infighting, probably because no one else will talk to the bullies, who manage to cow the locals because no one will teach the locals how to work for democracy, who then institute a draft either for 10 year old child soldiers or for 18 year olds if they're slightly more civilized, who buy weapons from abroad from thorough crooks, and who then pick on other groups or nations for their lunch money. Going to war has nothing to do with any credible religious belief.

We might solve this! We could declare sanctuary for draftees who run away, we could declare that thugs can't just take over a country, we could refuse to sell weapons to thugs, we could refuse to let thugs borrow against their future plunders, we could run shadow government elections on the internet from outside the country, we could talk one-on-one with every person in an affected country over the telephone as if it were a big domestic abuse case, and there may be other simple things which work.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Secret Budgets Are Abused As well
Posted by: Shankari46 on Feb 3, 2009 8:33 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Our incredible defense budget is not sustainable. We simply cannot continue manufacturing ONLY weapons. What a joke. The black or secret budget allows criminals to make off with millions. Let's get all the secret stuff out in the open. Let's stop paying for weapons that don't fly in the rain or body armor that doesn't work. The Pentagon needs a BIG cut. China spends one-tenth what we spend and that's only what's clearly marked as defense. We simply cannot be broke and the world's cop at the same time. We simply cannot be a bunch of consumers without having a job. It's about time someone learned to do some math in Washington, and it's about time the ideologues who preach 911, Muslim, terrorism took a math class as well.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» The Messiah will change it all Posted by: gellero1
The children are running the kindergarten.
Posted by: monkeywrench on Feb 3, 2009 8:40 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The last 28 years in general, and the last 8 years in particular, have seen the greatest transfer (say:"theft") of assets from the many, the middle class, to the few, the top 5% of corporations and individuals, in our nation's history. The clever but mentally-retarded, self-styled "Masters of the Universe" responsible for this piracy are playing with our hard-earned cash in the only way they know how: by building war toys and sending other peoples' kids to destroy things and kill people.

(We talk and talk about a greener America and sustainability and efficiency; but THE most wasteful and environmentally damaging activity conceived by mankind is the total destruction of warfare, and the military that promotes it. If the lust to kill and destroy isn't the definition of insanity, then I'd like someone to find a better one ...)

Nothing in America is going to improve in any real way until those at the top are removed and replaced by grownups – you know, people whose empathy and compassion outweigh their childish greed and cruelty.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

you think the "defence" budget is obscene ?
Posted by: denk on Feb 3, 2009 9:23 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
well u aint seen nuthin yet....
I would see that in the future as an absolute floor
[adm mullen]

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

No need for expensive new weapons, need cheap old ones
Posted by: Arkham42 on Feb 3, 2009 9:29 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I served in Afghanistan and one thing that constantly bothered me was how often the Air Force would fly a B-2 bomber all the way from Qatar to drop a expensive BLU-150 bomb on 2 guys believed to be insurgents. So we spend all this money to possibly blow up two innocent farmers. Yet we couldn't get USAF to take some pictures from their Predator drones while flying over some terrain they were going to do anyway.

Worse, we are fighting guys w/AK's with a truck being their heaviest piece of equipment. There a numerous old air fields that we could use to fly old style P-51 Mustangs. They are rugged, well armed, the ability to stay in the air for long periods of time and take 1/3 less time to train. Plus it's equipment we could later turn over to the Afghans.

I can tell you that just being attacked from the air in a simulated way is terrifying due to your inability to do anything about it. However ground attack missions are basically Army/Marine support missions and USAF HATES those. Oh they finally came up with a plan to make a 'insurgency fighter' which sort of looked like a P-51. The amazing thing about it is it only has bombs and missiles! Bullets are cheap and .50 cal ammo will easily destroy any target on the ground we need destroyed. But that is old tech and USAF doesn't do "old" tech.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Strategists and Officers Posted by: gellero1
» gellero1 Posted by: Bliss Doubt
The Military
Posted by: Archie1954 on Feb 3, 2009 9:48 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Fianally someone with the intestinal fortitude to take on the formidable leaders of the military industrial complex. Everything he says makes eminent sense and only has to be seriously considered by anyone with the intelligence to do so, to know he's right on the money (no pun intended). Now with a new and hopefully more realistic Administration in Washington, these matters will be reviewed with the goal of paring the costs and steering the procurement to what is really required to bring the military into the 21st century, as far as what it will actually be doing. Unless it plans to fight extraterrestrials, it won't need super expensive super complicated war machines. It will in fact be opposing small groups of extremists with 20th century weapons, where US training more than anything else will win the day.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Jeanine
Posted by: jeaninemolloff on Feb 3, 2009 9:52 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Admiral Mullen should have to live like the poorest of our citizens! It is only then that he MAY grow a conscience--but that is seriously doubtful. One trillion a year could fund the following: single payer healthcare for all, a college or post-graduate education for all, or affordable housing with low interest loans and no late penalties. Alas, I digress, how can we expect compassion from the likes of Admiral Mullen--a man with a cold dead stone where his heart should be. How can I expect decency and honor from a man who views our children as little more than 'cannon fodder' for more wars of empire?! Eisenhower appeared to have a conscience; Mullen has a 401K. The time has come for all good citizens to DEMAND from our government an end to these wars of empire. Demand an immediate end to the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. Demand an end to the occupations of foreign nations by our military. Take all the monies now used for military violence and send them to house, feed and care for our citizens. Both Obama and the Congress have had the ability to end the Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan NOW. They merely lack the will. As for the 'war on terror,' I would think that our government's war on our rights must be terminated now. Mullen is a disgrace to our country and to his uniform. HE HAS NO HONOR.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

LISTEN! Hear that whistling sound?
Posted by: pete ess on Feb 3, 2009 9:55 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's the sound of America plummeting.
Sold down the river by people shouting "patriotism" "homeland" "gays, guns, abortion scare" "liberals".
As they rob the country blind.

And the most tragic thing of all: They're CHEERED by the average Joe who doesn't notice that it's HIM they're robbing.

America finally got so rich and so spoilt and so lied to, that there's only one way now.
And that's DOWN.

Coming soon to a nuthouse near you:
- The next faked "terrorist attack" so "Homeland Security" has to be beefed up at great cost!
- The next All-American Investment Bubble to place your money in with great CONfidence (remember Greenspan? Mr Infallible? He'll be back, and you will lose again).

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

To Chalmers Johnson, What About China's J-14 Program?
Posted by: edgar_michel on Feb 3, 2009 10:00 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
While I don't have any illusions about what the military can do for us, I do have to remain cognizant of our need of self defense.

Therefore I have to ask; Is the F-22 or the F-35 necessary to meet a threat posed by China’s J-14 program.

I understand that China’s J-14 program was originally a response to the F-22 - F-35 program as I learned on htre Internet in 2004, so I guess I am therefore asking is the Threat posed by J-14 an “on the internet” fabricated threat designed to to win public support for enhanced military budgets or is it a real threat that may materialize in the sometime future or is it a threat that will materialize soon and therefore needs immediate attention?

Also will the declining world economies end all such programs in both the United States and China, or, from another perspective, will the need for military prowess significantly diminish as we as a people of earth struggle with the environmental, climatological exigencies, as they relate to the urgent need for radical and expeditious infrastructure redesign in order that our species might avert the most signuificant threat to our lives in our collective history?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Reply to nightgaunt Posted by: edgar_michel
Waddya think?
Posted by: willymack on Feb 3, 2009 10:46 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
That if we quit pissing away ten billion bucks a month in Iraq & Afghanistan, withdraw ALL troops on foreign soil, and reduce the military to a small fraction of what it is now, the rest of the world will rise up against us rape our women, pillage our villages, and force us to learn Urdu as our new language? After the rest of the world gets over the hangover from all the celebrations, they'll THANK us for rejoining the civilised world, and we'll save a ton of money in the bargain. Now, all we have to do is tell all the greedy scumbags (you know who you are) that the free lunch is over.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

This comment has been removed from the site due to non-compliance with AlterNet's community policies.
» Two spams on the same article? Posted by: Bliss Doubt
Time to drown the defense budget in that bathtub
Posted by: bettyn on Feb 3, 2009 11:02 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
the fascist Grover Norquist talked about(in reference to government). Why do we still have all these bases overseas? Why do we have all these nuclear weapons? We don't need the bases and we dare not use these awful weapons. Anyone who dares use a nuclear weapon will be an automatic pariah state in the eyes of the rest of the world and deserves the consequences that will surely befall it.(That state's people will die with the rest of us, so what's the point?)

Time to make this world a safer and healthier place for everyone (including plants and animals). You can't eat weapons!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

We be broke??
Posted by: JBoner on Feb 3, 2009 11:04 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Whatchu talkin bout boy? We cant be broke we the U S of A dammit!

RT
Privacy Center

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

what corruption?
Posted by: Gregsdiary on Feb 3, 2009 11:11 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"Americans don't usually think of the Pentagon as a scam operation -- but it's never to late to wake up and smell the rip-off."

If practically everything's a scam then nothing's a scam.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

dysnomy
Posted by: tatamchwh on Feb 3, 2009 11:16 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Reagan's Star Wars was successful in driving the last nail into the coffin of the USSR bankruptcy. Now that same missile defense system threatens to bankrupt the USA as well. The Pentagon's actions will bring us down as surely as the USSR was brought down, by expensive, ineffectual weapons system toys.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

retired
Posted by: cranmore on Feb 3, 2009 11:18 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Add NASA and the space program to the "untouchables" of Big
Spenders. Now they want to go back to the Moon ! They cleverly
parcel out the contracts to states where the influential congressmen
reside. They sent a school teacher for a ride and good p.r. and it
cost her her life.
melrose

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Round & Round We Go...
Posted by: NoPCZone on Feb 3, 2009 11:29 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm 47 and was hearing the same charges and complaints when I was in my 20's serving in the Army. They were correct then and are now.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Bloated "defense" spending threatens US national security
Posted by: Garvagh on Feb 3, 2009 11:34 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Great piece. Is anyone else noticing how exponents of US support of Israel, right or wrong, and of endless war in the Middle East, also champion gargantuan US "defense" spending?
How many scores of billions of US taxpayer dollars are squandered each year, to enable Israel to continue to oppress the Palestinians, and to continue to steal Palestinian land, water, civil rights and dignity? Is Israel going to bankrupt the US?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Spend wisely
Posted by: 2thepoint on Feb 3, 2009 11:41 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is a time worn argument - ineffective military spending. But the F22 and F35 are incredible aircraft and nothing beats stealth technology, especially when someone is trying to shoot at you.

The F35 seems more appropriate in the present war's we are in so I dont understand the issue there. As for the F22 - how fast we forget what such "close friends" Russia and China are.

Things will go south with China in the future, that is almost a given - we better have the superior technology.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Spend wisely Posted by: jimpas
White collar welfare.
Posted by: SteveO on Feb 3, 2009 12:03 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
When I got my BSEE in 1984, all the work that was out there was in defense due to the RayGun's great build up to defeat the evil empire. I have spent 12 of the 25 years of my career in defense "work".

I have spent thousands of hours in non productive activities like waiting for test simulations to fail (they had to have an engineer in the sim bay, not 30 minutes away at my terminal), web surfing and playing games. Of the hours when I had work to do, much of my output was discarded do to requirements changes made months or years after they should have been made or do to corporate politics.

Raytheon, Lockheed-Martin and Boeing (formerly McDonnell Douglas) exist entirely to make work for engineers and managers who have no usable skills. We would be better off cutting them checks to stay home.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

US Defense Spending has long been Irrelevant to the Stimulation of US GDP growth.
Posted by: yellow on Feb 3, 2009 12:34 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Reagan's second cold war stimulated the US economy with defense spending. Since the 1990s and the growth of the stock market, the US economy doesn't receive much stimulus from defense spending. In the 1950s during the Korean War, defense spending accounted for 60% of the Federal Budget and 14% of the GDP. In the 1960s this peak post-WWII ratios declined to about 9% of the GDP on average and more than a third of the US federal budget due to the Vietnam War. Throughout the 1980s under Reagan, defense spending averaged about 25% of the Federal Budget and 6% to 7% of the GDP. During the 1990s these proportions dipped way down and defense spending was always about 3% of GDP and 17% to 18% of the Federal Budget. This changed very little with Bush.

This has nothing to do with politics and everything to do with structural changes in US capitalism. Defense spending no longer stimulates the chronically stagnant system. It's stimulative effect on the capital goods sector, which is now high tech and quite capital, not labor, intensive, is limited. This does go to show the way in which computer and digital technology, unlike the steam engine, railroads and the automobile, was not the epoch making technological shift in capitalism's history it was thought to be at the very outset of its ascendance. Not only did it fail to bring in its wave, long term capital investment which rippled into various streams of diverse forms of capital accumulation, but it didn't add much to overall labor productivity. It certainly didn't have the same geographic and socially transformative effects that the other three had created.

Military spending is no longer a real economic stimulus. Two wars, Iraq and Afghanistan, and a half a trillion dollar military budget which is only 18% of the Federal budget and 4% of the GDP, both historic lows despite their high absolute values, have left the US economy in a deep depression. This wouldn't be the case if the military was a stimulus. Defense industries and the Military Industrial Complex (MIC) are not as powerful as they once were because of the fact that the military is a smaller portion of the US economy since the 1990s. High tech and financial capital has replaced it since then. The use of the military is much more in line with achieving hegemony and access to oil and gas resources as well as defending the position of global capitalism generally than any direct economic function such as the MIC.

US capitalism has long outgrown military Keynesianism. Defense industries, though still powerful, have politically suffered a structural shift in the nature of late US finance capitalism.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

And Obama is keeping rendition, secret detention and
Posted by: Bliss Doubt on Feb 3, 2009 12:46 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
torture in the arsenal, even if marketing language is designed to make the public think otherwise.

May I refer the reader to O's executive order of January 22?

http://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing_room/executive_orders/

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» AND Posted by: Bliss Doubt
Maybe the Pentagon is expecting invaders from Mars?
Posted by: Alenna on Feb 3, 2009 2:32 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The sad part is that the world's Greatest Military, with the biggest defense budget, the most deadly weapons, the most highly advanced Army, the most technologically dazzling Aircraft and Air Force, the most powerful Navy fleet, with at least 700 foreign bases around the world ... can't even find one man (Bin Laden) and can't seem to deal with a few small groups of rag-tag religious fanatics who have no Navy, no Air force and have no technologically sophisticated weapons to speak of.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Pussy reasoning Posted by: Bliss Doubt
» RE: I think you are a great writer! Posted by: MeyravLevine
NO MORE
Posted by: wormfarmer on Feb 3, 2009 2:45 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Great article by Chalmers Johnson. I respect alternet for the quality reporting they do, but I have to agree with the comment of calling alternet on the advertising by the military on this site. Don't want war? DON'T SUPPORT IT! NO MILITARY ADVERTISING!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» right bullet. wrong target. Posted by: wolfgangmo
And Obama promises more military spending increases
Posted by: chlamor on Feb 3, 2009 3:51 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
True to his word, Obama's 2010 fiscal year budget calls for $527 billion in defense spending (not including the costs of Iraq and Afghanistan). That is more than the U.S. allocated for defense in 2009 and equals what the Bush administration budgeted for 2010:

The Obama administration has given the Pentagon a $527 billion limit, excluding war costs, for its fiscal 2010 defense budget, an official with the White House’s Office of Management and Budget said Monday.

If enacted, that would be an 8 percent increase from the $487.7 billion allocated for fiscal 2009, and it would match what the Bush administration estimated last year for the Pentagon in fiscal 2010.

So Obama proposes that the U.S. spend $40 billion more this year than it spent last year.

LINK

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Wake Up America
Posted by: KKAK on Feb 3, 2009 6:20 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Before we as a country think of harming another soul in a foreigh land, it is our job as citizens to become aware of the harm we have to date inflicted on the peoples of this world. We owe major appologies for what our leaders and military have done. It is time the American public wakes up.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Around 2 billion would cure aging (www.mprize.org) in 10 years
Posted by: nerd1024 on Feb 4, 2009 2:11 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
With the cost of an aircraft carrior now over 6 billion, we could fund two research programs (over 10 years) to solve the biochemical problems of the aging process and produce therapies to make older people young again. This type of research would also help the supercomputer crowd as it will require quite a lot of computing power to run bioinformatic simulations of cellular functions and also model advanced nano-machines to repair aging damage in our cells. The countries that develope anti-aging tech that really works will save health care systems world-wide a big pile of cash, after all, what is more important, that shiney new car/aircraft carrier, more bombs or better health. The countries that own the patent rights to real anti-aging tech will get much richer that Microsoft ever got.
links to newsweek article:
http://www.newsweek.com/id/172561/page/1

other goog aging research sites:
www.betterhumans.com

http://www.kurzweilai.net/index.html?flash=1

http://longevitymeme.org/

http://www.mprize.org/
Its an tax deducatble research charity in the US. Hey, I'm canadian and I still donated $30, if everybody in the developed world donated $10, then they would have more that enough, they also hold conferences and support young gerentologist scientsts. (a bargain at just 2 billion (thats like a couple of hours of millitary budget world-wide))

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Welcome to Bizarro World
Posted by: LeeAnnG on Feb 4, 2009 10:00 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
CNN did an interview with McCain a couple of days ago in which he expressed his opposition to the stimulus package. His objections? Not enough tax cuts, too much pork and TOO LITTLE MILITARY SPENDING!!

Of course, no one in the corporate media is willing to say that we've had eight years of tax cuts, and look where that got us, so the inteviewer on CNN (I forget who it was) certainly didn't do that. Nor did he mention that during the Bush administration, pork spending was perhaps at an all time high. The bridge to nowhere, for example, was ignored, as was the fact that the US spends nearly as much on the military as the rest of the world combined.

McCain loves to talk about a smaller, less intrusive government, but seemed to have no objection to the Bush cabal's bloated budget, spying on US citizens, and attempts to control how we live our lives including who marries whom. Hm. I do believe his "get the government out of our lives" does NOT mean get the government out of the lives of regular citizens, but rather get the government out of the lives of big corporations, financial institutions, and other wealthy, powerful entities.

Apparently McCain either has no clue as to the real effect of tax cuts, the nature of pork spending or the huge waste in the military or (more likely), he's simple doing what Republicans always do - lying, obstructing, and pontificating.

Incidentally, for anyone who has not heard this little tidbit of information: if a person began spending a million dollars a day when Christ was born, he or she would not have reached one trillion yet. THAT puts some perspective on the numbers being tossed around by the pundits and politicians.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

why i believe everything the yanks sez.....
Posted by: denk on Feb 5, 2009 10:29 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
spendwisely
**Things will go south with China in the future, that is almost a given - we better have the superior technology**

how can we and the Honorable Donald H. Rumsfeld, U.S. Secretary of Defense, be so sure that there will be more terrorist attacks against the American people and civilization at large?
Because these attacks will be instigated at the order of the Honorable Donald H. Rumsfeld , or whoever is wearing the U.S. Secretary of Defense's shoes.

how do yanks like "spendwisely" [sic] knows that "things will go south with china" one day?
hell, coz.....
yanks have been picking fights at china's doorsteps for ages

elementary watson !

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Pentagon/Military never speaks truth....
Posted by: Earwaves on Feb 20, 2009 2:24 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Thank you Chalmers, always right on!
One thing we know for certain, is that the military industrial complex NEVER tells the truth, whether to Congress, or otherwise.

This is the BIG FAT MILLION POUND ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM.

Unless this topic comes up, which is NEVER in the mainstream media, even the MSMBCs, AIR AMERICA, et all, the LEFT MEDIA...so to speak, and rarely at all even on Democracy Now...although at least Amy gives some amount of time to stories of corruption, greed, incredible damage that our military and other arms manufacturers and suppliers do to the earth and its people!

It's a truth that is never spoken, how the Military is running the show. It's been that way since the military took part in killing JFK. No President has taken them on, you notice. No one speaks against them in public. No one dares. Read "Brothers" the book on the JFK brothers and you'll see what I mean.

Listen to first hand accounts of the hard right hawks in the military telling Kennedy that they can strike Russia with nukes during the Missile Crisis. Hardliners were all over him to do it. Thank God he didn't. JFK was a hero if only during that one moment of truth. Standing up, takes courage. Sometimes it takes your life.

Thanks Chalmers, there is hope if you keep up the great work!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

has to be thought of
Posted by: Şömine on Feb 23, 2009 2:13 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
it is an interesting article that has to be thought of it.

Şömine
Şömine
Şömine

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement