The world will not end with bang or a whimper. It will end with the silent slither of jellyfish. Literally. And figuratively. On the literal level, jellyfish are indeed taking over. As a result of global warming, overfishing, and fertilizer runoff, these surprisingly...
As people near retirement age, they enter the twilight years. Sometimes, they rebel against retirement. They want to keep working. They’re not interested in shuffling out of their office never to return. And if they’re in fact the owner of the workplace, conflicts...
Retired Gen. David Petraeus and Michael O’Hanlon are correct that we should protect funding for the State Department and the Agency for International Development (“Fund — Don’t Cut — U.S. Soft Power” POLITICO, May 1) because doing so enhances our national security. Their comments are in line with those of former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, who made this point several times during his time in office.
The political debate over sequestration has thus far focused on tradeoffs between domestic and military spending, tax cuts and deficits. Left out are questions about whether the United States should be responsible for policing the world or whether international agencies might address terrorism, aggression, and political instability in a more consistent, comprehensive, and internationally acceptable manner.
In fact, sequestration will not “gut” our military. Sequestration will take our military budget back to the level it was in 2007, when we were still fighting two wars.
Back in the 1960s, the U.S. peace movement came up with a catchy phrase: “What if the schools got all the money they needed and the Navy had to hold a bake sale to buy an aircraft carrier?” Well, the Italian Navy has a line of clothing, and is taking a cut from a soft drink called “Forza Blu” in order to make up for budget cuts. It plans to market energy snacks and mineral water. Things are a little rocky in Europe these days.
It’s old, and likely thoroughly forgotten now, but last summer the Washington Post ran an excellent article on the U.S. military‘s “pivot” toward Asia, its origins, and its budget implications. It presented some meaningful background on where the pivot came from, and how it so quickly became dogma in Washington as the decade-long ground wars receded in the national rear-view mirror.
Anyone expecting Obama to be decidedly more pro-peace this time around is likely to be sorely dispirited. However, there is a diverse, growing peoples’ movement in the United States linking human and environmental needs with a demand to end our wars and liberate the vast resources they consume.
How much does the United States spend each year occupying the planet with its bases and troops? Forced by Congress to account for its spending overseas, the Pentagon has put that figure at $22.1 billion a year. It turns out that even a conservative estimate of the true costs of garrisoning the globe comes to an annual total of about $170 billion–or maybe even more.
We can save $440 billion over a 10-year period without compromising national security.