This essay is not an anti USA military screed; rather it is an analytical and dispassionate conspectus of the current USA military encompassing its philosophy, budget, and the worldwide distribution of its personnel. The truly anti-military far left loons may agree with what I am initially espousing, but wait – they will violently (as only they can) oppugn my wrap-up. You may not accept my thesis completely; that is your prerogative. Still, I shall endeavor to make my case as logically and persuasively as I am capable of.
My premise is simple: I believe the United States of America should not be the world’s policeman and yet that is what we essentially are. There may have been justification in some people’s minds, although not in mine, that the USA needed to fill that role during the Cold War. During this War on Terrorism we should certainly co-operate with other willing nations to oppose and thwart the Islamic fanatics who want to kill us. On the other hand, I don’t think the United States would be abrogating any moral imperative by not shouldering the burden of large scale military action against the client states of the terrorists as we are now doing in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The nominal USA military budget is $664 billion of which $534 billion is the base budget. This represents 40% of all of military spending in the world. Total military spending for fiscal year 2010 will be between $880 billion and $1.03 trillion. In 2005 the military budget was 4.06% of GDP; the low in recent years was 1999-2001 where the figure was 3.0% of GDP. The high occurred during WWII in 1944 at 37.8% and during the Vietnam War in 1968 it was 9.4%.
There are 1,454,000 active duty people in the USA military and 848,000 in the military reserve. Only China has a larger standing active military, but their military expenditures are 1/9 of ours. That represents considerably lower pay and more modest benefits for their soldiers as well as a mere fraction of the complex military hardware developed and manufactured by the United States.
There are 820 USA military installations in 135 countries around the world. These vary from small scale observer sites manned by a couple dozen or fewer people to huge military army, navy, or air force bases with tens of thousands of soldiers, sailors, or air force personnel. The USA has 142,000 soldiers in Iraq; 56,000 in Germany; 40,000+ and increasing in Afghanistan; 33,000 in Japan; 28,500 in South Korea; 9700 in Italy and Great Britain. By geographic area these figures breakdown as follows: 85,000 in Europe; 78,500 in North Africa, the Near East, & South Asia; 70,000 in East Asia & the Pacific; and 2000 in the Western Hemisphere (excluding the USA).
A partial list of the countries that the United States has military personnel in is as follows: Aruba, Australia, Bahamas, Bahrain, Canada, Denmark, Djibouti, Ecuador, Egypt, Ghana, Greenland, Hong Kong, Iceland (one can never tell when hostilities are going to break out in Iceland requiring intervention by USA troops), Kyrgyzstan, Norway, Oman, Qatar, Saint Helena, Senegal, Singapore, Uganda, UAE, US Virgin Islands. How on earth can the citizens of the countries, possessions, or principalities other than the 135 the USA protects, sleep peacefully at night?
Never in the history of the world, not during the time of Alexander the Great, the Roman Empire, the reign of the Mongols, the Mayans, or the Ottoman Empire has one entity spread its military might to more places on earth as the USA has currently done. It is not for conquest or subjugation of other peoples that the USA has done this. It was done with the best intentions. However, never let us forget what the “Road to Hell” is paved with. It is time, nay it is past time, the USA, however well meaning, solely occupies and protects its own land. Few other countries merit or, in fact, even desire we do this for them.
If we are to greatly curtail our overseas military, then how are we to protect ourselves? Here is what we should not do: give captured terrorists the same rights USA citizens get in civilian courts; so restrict our intelligence community that they can not monitor our ubiquitous enemies; impede communications between our domestic and foreign intelligence agencies.
What we should do is spend enough money and attract sufficient talent to ensure that we are in the forefront of nuclear weapon and delivery technology so that potential enemies such as Iran, North Korea, possibly Pakistan, and whomever are sufficiently deterred from even thinking of attacking us without the fear of themselves being completely destroyed by our retaliatory might. Let the nations who would appease the terrorists go down the path of nuclear disarmament. The modern “Better Red than Dead” crowd would be horrified and appalled by my assertion in this paragraph – so be it. I am for protecting this country from all enemies, foreign and domestic.
To accomplish this transformation of pulling in and reducing our military from around the world would take time, even a decade or longer, as a matter of simple logistics, treaty agreements, and so not to unnecessarily disrupt our economic equilibrium. What is the chance that this will be done? Likely in this decade, as the cliché goes, slim to none. Yet, done it must be, if only for economic reasons. As a people we are economically impelled to put Social Security and Medicare /Medicaid on a sound financial footing else the country will sink under unsustainable debt. There are several ways to do it: cut benefits, increase the fees for both the beneficiaries and working contributors, and increase medical services efficiencies by instituting tort reform and allowing interstate health insurance coverage. Likewise our military expense must share the cost reductions of Social Security and our health service. The voting public will insist upon it.
Sunday, February 7, 2010
THE COPENHAGEN CONFERENCE – THE SUPREME IRONY-54
Before launching into the crux of this essay, let me settle a small point of pronunciation. Is the capital of Denmark pronounced Copenhāgen, with a long “a” or a short “a” as in Copenhăgen? The answer depends on whether one uses the American pronunciation or the Danish, and actually all of Europe, pronunciation. Columnist Charles Krauthammer brought up a rather picky point by scolding Barack Obama for using the European pronunciation of Copenhăgen when speaking to an American audience. Krauthammer asked if Obama would be telling us that he would be stopping in Paris (pronounced Părē) and Deutschland on the way home.
President Obama had to make a hurried departure from the Global Warming Conference in Copenhagen back to Washington D.C. because of the heavy snowfall which was accurately predicted for much of the Northeastern Coast. On RAI News (the Italian Worldwide TV Network) on 12/20/09, the headlines on the weather segment of the broadcast were: “Il Posto Piu Freddo d’Italia”(The coldest place in Italy); “Gelo Nord & Centro d’Italia”(Icy conditions in Northern & Central Italy”; “Tutta Europa Sotto la Neve” (All of Europe is under snow); “Washington, Nevicata Record” (Record snowfall for Washington D.C.). An added benefit of reading my essays is being given the opportunity of learning esoteric words or, as in this case, foreign phrases.
And of course the cold and snowy weather in Europe did not exempt Denmark. During a snafu for several hundred journalists waiting in a queue to enter the conference hall some conference official was handing out sandwiches and coffee to the waiting journalists. One of the journalists shouted out “I don’t want food, I want heavy socks, I am freezing my a** off!” We all know that during adversity, journalists are far less likely than normal people to suffer in silence.
This two-week Brummagem and paralogistic Global Warming Conference was attended by representatives from 120 or so countries. In order for these people to get to Copenhagen there were 1200 limos and 140 private aeroplanes used. In fact there was insufficient space for all of these aeroplanes in the Copenhagen airports so some pilots had to fly to neighboring countries and wait there until it was time to return to Copenhagen to pick up their passengers. A rather large carbon footprint was left for this event I would say, but then these crapulous G.W. enthusiasts never have worried about their own carbon pollution high jinks.
After all of this expenditure of money, time, energy, and pollution was anything of substance accomplished? The straight up answer is no and for valid and logical reasons. No country, industrialized or becoming so, wants to cripple its economy. China, India, Brazil, the European countries, and the United States, hopefully (although with the current administration I am not so sure), will not commit economic suicide just to appease the G.W. mob. By the way, the majority of the protestors at this conference are the same motley gang of hoodlums who protest at G-8 and G-20 meetings. They are self-avowed Communists and Marxists who are parasites living off the unearned fruits of capitalism. What a revolting and contemptible lot they are.
I have addressed the Global Warming issue in three previous blog essays (Global Warming; Global Cooling or Warming – Which the Heaven or Hell is it?; Beer Consumption & Other Little Ice Age Phenomena) so I will confine myself here to just a few ancillary remarks.
Is global warming occurring and is it anthropoidally caused? The answer to the first part is that it depends upon what time period you mean. From the late 1970’s to the late 1990’s there was perceptible global warming after cooling in the 1960’s to middle to late 1970’s such that the mainstream news media were all atwitter about how there appeared to be another Little Ice Age in the making. In the past 10 years there has not been any worldwide warming. This, by itself, does not prove anything – there could be CO² warming going on which is temporarily being overtaken by certain cooling factors.
The second part of the question is a decided yes. As I have stated previously (somewhere) Pittsburg, PA used to be known as the “Smokey City” due to all of the pollution from steel mills, but not anymore owing to anti-pollution devises and greatly reduced steel making. Los Angles had more pollution 30/40 years ago than now largely from automobile emissions which were greatly reduced over the intervening years. The topography (LA sits in a bowl) and wind patterns made the Los Angles area particularly susceptible to man-made pollution. London had fewer hours of sunshine 100 years ago and more, than now because of all the coal that was burned in factories and homes at that time.
Therefore if anthropoidic activity can influence weather and cause significant pollution locally, then surely more widespread pollution could conceivably affect weather on a broader worldwide scale. Having said that, the question, and a multi-trillion dollar question it is, is what is the evidence that man-made pollution is causing the globe to warm to increasing and dangerous levels to the detriment of the earth’s inhabitants? Given the myriad periods, on long term (1000’s of years), intermediate term (100’s of years), and short term (10’s of years) where mother earth (Gaia) has alternately been hotter and colder long before humans had initiated the industrial age or in fact were even around, what logical reasons are there to definitively assert that any current warming (especially since the end of The Little Ice Age, circa 1850) is caused by perfidious and unkind mankind?
Before committing to an international policy where the industrialized nations of the world cripple their economies, therefore retrograding to past decades the economic wellbeing of their citizens, and transfer 100’s of billions of dollars annually to third world nations, especially the so called kleptocracies, this whole subject of climate change needs to be thoroughly, honestly, and objective discussed and debated. Unfortunately the Global Warming “True Believers” clearly have no desire to engage in an exchange of data and discuss this singularly important question, as the infamously leaked East Anglia e-mails and previous refusal of Global Warming energumen such as Al Gore, Michael Mann, James Hansen, et al to debate the issue show.
President Obama had to make a hurried departure from the Global Warming Conference in Copenhagen back to Washington D.C. because of the heavy snowfall which was accurately predicted for much of the Northeastern Coast. On RAI News (the Italian Worldwide TV Network) on 12/20/09, the headlines on the weather segment of the broadcast were: “Il Posto Piu Freddo d’Italia”(The coldest place in Italy); “Gelo Nord & Centro d’Italia”(Icy conditions in Northern & Central Italy”; “Tutta Europa Sotto la Neve” (All of Europe is under snow); “Washington, Nevicata Record” (Record snowfall for Washington D.C.). An added benefit of reading my essays is being given the opportunity of learning esoteric words or, as in this case, foreign phrases.
And of course the cold and snowy weather in Europe did not exempt Denmark. During a snafu for several hundred journalists waiting in a queue to enter the conference hall some conference official was handing out sandwiches and coffee to the waiting journalists. One of the journalists shouted out “I don’t want food, I want heavy socks, I am freezing my a** off!” We all know that during adversity, journalists are far less likely than normal people to suffer in silence.
This two-week Brummagem and paralogistic Global Warming Conference was attended by representatives from 120 or so countries. In order for these people to get to Copenhagen there were 1200 limos and 140 private aeroplanes used. In fact there was insufficient space for all of these aeroplanes in the Copenhagen airports so some pilots had to fly to neighboring countries and wait there until it was time to return to Copenhagen to pick up their passengers. A rather large carbon footprint was left for this event I would say, but then these crapulous G.W. enthusiasts never have worried about their own carbon pollution high jinks.
After all of this expenditure of money, time, energy, and pollution was anything of substance accomplished? The straight up answer is no and for valid and logical reasons. No country, industrialized or becoming so, wants to cripple its economy. China, India, Brazil, the European countries, and the United States, hopefully (although with the current administration I am not so sure), will not commit economic suicide just to appease the G.W. mob. By the way, the majority of the protestors at this conference are the same motley gang of hoodlums who protest at G-8 and G-20 meetings. They are self-avowed Communists and Marxists who are parasites living off the unearned fruits of capitalism. What a revolting and contemptible lot they are.
I have addressed the Global Warming issue in three previous blog essays (Global Warming; Global Cooling or Warming – Which the Heaven or Hell is it?; Beer Consumption & Other Little Ice Age Phenomena) so I will confine myself here to just a few ancillary remarks.
Is global warming occurring and is it anthropoidally caused? The answer to the first part is that it depends upon what time period you mean. From the late 1970’s to the late 1990’s there was perceptible global warming after cooling in the 1960’s to middle to late 1970’s such that the mainstream news media were all atwitter about how there appeared to be another Little Ice Age in the making. In the past 10 years there has not been any worldwide warming. This, by itself, does not prove anything – there could be CO² warming going on which is temporarily being overtaken by certain cooling factors.
The second part of the question is a decided yes. As I have stated previously (somewhere) Pittsburg, PA used to be known as the “Smokey City” due to all of the pollution from steel mills, but not anymore owing to anti-pollution devises and greatly reduced steel making. Los Angles had more pollution 30/40 years ago than now largely from automobile emissions which were greatly reduced over the intervening years. The topography (LA sits in a bowl) and wind patterns made the Los Angles area particularly susceptible to man-made pollution. London had fewer hours of sunshine 100 years ago and more, than now because of all the coal that was burned in factories and homes at that time.
Therefore if anthropoidic activity can influence weather and cause significant pollution locally, then surely more widespread pollution could conceivably affect weather on a broader worldwide scale. Having said that, the question, and a multi-trillion dollar question it is, is what is the evidence that man-made pollution is causing the globe to warm to increasing and dangerous levels to the detriment of the earth’s inhabitants? Given the myriad periods, on long term (1000’s of years), intermediate term (100’s of years), and short term (10’s of years) where mother earth (Gaia) has alternately been hotter and colder long before humans had initiated the industrial age or in fact were even around, what logical reasons are there to definitively assert that any current warming (especially since the end of The Little Ice Age, circa 1850) is caused by perfidious and unkind mankind?
Before committing to an international policy where the industrialized nations of the world cripple their economies, therefore retrograding to past decades the economic wellbeing of their citizens, and transfer 100’s of billions of dollars annually to third world nations, especially the so called kleptocracies, this whole subject of climate change needs to be thoroughly, honestly, and objective discussed and debated. Unfortunately the Global Warming “True Believers” clearly have no desire to engage in an exchange of data and discuss this singularly important question, as the infamously leaked East Anglia e-mails and previous refusal of Global Warming energumen such as Al Gore, Michael Mann, James Hansen, et al to debate the issue show.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
