General Wesley Clark's article
http://www.huffingtonpost.
Bob Woodruff's article
http://www.huffingtonpost.
What these two articles highlight are the soldiers-the human cost- to warfare. In Wesley Clark's article he asks that we "pledge to shop at Beyond Tribute business partners and show that you're committed to truly honoring, and actually helping, former service members." Clark says that Beyond Tribute convinces"stores to donate a portion of their holiday promotion proceeds to medical treatment and family support for veterans."
Woodruff repeats Clark's indirect call for more voluntary giving to the military veterans by saying we must educate others about the impact war is having on soldiers lives, we must "invest" in charities and people that support veterans, and we must finally collaborate "across civilian and military cultures and political lines to find solutions" to soldiers transitioning into civilian life.
While these are "good causes" that help the human cost of war, it begs the question, "Why aren't we giving enough money to support our veterans"?
The answer to this question must be dependent on the whole military budget which this google article explains-
http://www.google.com/host
this google article from Agence France Presse in February says that in absolute terms, the U.S. FY 2010 budget for the military is 663 billion dollars (not counting war funding that goes in emergency appropriations).
The google article states that the "US defense budget represents more than 40 percent of the world's total military spending and US spending will continue to grow under Obama's budget."
With this kind of monetary commitment, how much more money are Wesley Clark and Bob Woodruff expecting we "donate" to these people who were property of the state when they were harmed?
I hope the answer is obvious, but in case it is not, the human effects that the two men describe in their articles are real, and they do occur. However, we should not spend a dime more in either taxes or voluntary giving to military families, soldiers, contractors, or VA hospitals. The Pentagon should pick up the tab for the people they destroy, both in foreign countries and in our own. Instead of using R and D money for more mindless destructive machines to kill people, they should spend money on doctors and medicine to care for the men in whose employment they were injured and maimed. At a time when Americans are losing jobs and wisely reigning in spending, they cannot afford to spend even more for the military.
That is why I ask you to stand this Memorial day against "voluntary" acts of charity toward soldiers, and instead demand more from your government.
- I ask you to stand against Wesley Clark's "patriotic business model" where business are rewarded by fealty towards the state, and aim your dollars (if it must be spent) in electoral races against the politicians that voted for wars that created these wounded veterans in the first place.
- Demand that priorities remain focused on the human toll of suffering in wars, and make sure that those that pay for warfare also pay for the welfare of soldiers when they return to civilian life.
- Furthermore, demand an end to the illegal occupation of Iraq, and a withdrawal from the Af-Pac theater to stop the continuous influx of new combat veterans.
This is but a start to a new dynamic in thinking that needs to occur.
A more radical approach to the role of America's military must be established if we are to prosper as a superpower. Warfare succeeds only so much in establishing control over territory. With the last century of no-win wars, priorities for the state must change. The American state can no longer plant its flag under military domination of third world nations. Iraq and Afghanistan (not to mention Korea, Vietnam, and Afghanistan under the Soviets) demonstrated the true "viability" of war as a means to an end.
America must re-evaluate its military spending towards more "human" spending. As the Agence France Presse Article clearly stated, we spend more than 40% of the worlds military expenditures. Does this expenditure best defend America, or does it bring more resentment toward our nation and our people? Does it save more American lives or bring them into further danger? If anything the "War on terror" has taught us is that it brings us all into further danger.
We should draw down our foreign expenditures and spend more money on education, health care, or even to cut down our immense debt to foreign nations. American values- free enterprise and freedom- instilled in educated foreigners can do much more to end violence and war across the globe than the bludgeon of the American military machine.
This Memorial Day, let us retire the bloody flag of occupation and imperialism, and replace it with a long-term strategy for peace and friendship with the rest of the world.
P.S. Howard Zinn recently made a speech at the The Progressive magazine's one hundredth anniversary. In it, he made excellent observations questioning the wars that are unquestionable in American "patriotic theology"- the three "holy wars" - The Revolutionary War, the Civil War, and World War II.
http://www.youtube.com/wat
Posts
2 comments:
""It is true, US military spending is excessive. There is no point in 'improving' our weapons and military infrastructure to the point that we are when we're already significantly ahead of the pack as it is.
Here's a bit on WWII alone. Not too much of a change since then.
""By 1943, the Navy's size was larger than the combined fleets of all the other combatant nations in World War II.By war's end in 1945, the United States Navy had added hundreds of new ships, including 18 aircraft carriers and 8 battleships, and had over 70% of the world's total numbers and total tonnage of naval vessels of 1,000 tons or greater.
The potential for armed conflict with the Soviet Union during the Cold War pushed the U.S. Navy to continued its technological advancement by developing new weapons systems, ships, and aircraft. United States naval strategy changed to that of forward deployment in support of U.S. allies with an emphasis on carrier battle groups.""
Eric Rodrigues
""I mistyped. What I intended to say was that we don't need as many weapons as we have. While it is true that we should continue to innovate, we don't need to pour as much money into the military complex as we have been. We already have the largest navy, the largest air force, the largest stockpile of ballistic missiles, the best tanks in the largest of quantities, the 2nd largest army [behind China's 2 million man peasant army], the most naval and military bases, and the largest merchant marine in the world. We have enough resources to defeat the ten largest militaries in the world several times over without having to actually produce more weapons. I think that's already quite a bit.
Oh, did I happen to mention that we have a military presence in nearly every single nation? At last count, it was 135 out of a total of 192 nations. Do you think that's enough, or should we go for all 192?
If you don't believe me, then just read this article: http://www.lewrockwell.com/vance/vance8.html ""
Eric Rodrigues
Post a Comment