The Other McCain

"One should either write ruthlessly what one believes to be the truth, or else shut up." — Arthur Koestler

Will Fabius Maximus Offer A Thorough Analysis?

Posted on | June 19, 2010 | 24 Comments

by Smitty

Fabius puts up a post, “Will people on the right help cut Federal spending?“, that could have as easily been entitled “Will Lopping The Heads Off Of Dandelions Improve The Lawn?”

Fabius, the debt and deficit we face are rooted in the Federal government undertaking non-Federal tasks. Realizing that chronic deficit spending is unethical is a crucial corner to turn, or acute reductions in budgets will remain smoke, mirrors, and gimmickry. Until the economy catastrophically ‘splodes.

Fabius asks:

Will the people on the right, aflame with deficit-cutting fervor, cut the 25 – 30% of the government’s budget spent on defense (DoD, nukes, vets, pensions, foreign intelligence)? Without doing so it’s unlikely the budget can be balanced. . .

Yes, the DoD should feel the axe, particularly in the acquisition realm. Vets, not so much.

However, Defense remains a Constitutional, Federal task. So, until you figure out a way to de-globalize the economy, and re-orient the US away from being Team America: World Police (TAWP) (not a bad idea, but not one that can be achieved as quickly as Ron Paul would like), look for the build-down to go slowly.

Let’s double down on the point, since Fabius mentions Eisenhower: the National Security Act of 1947, too, is a part of Progressivism that must come under scrutiny. Prior to the WWII buildup, the US never maintained substantial military forces between wars. We can argue about Teddy Roosevelt and the Great White Fleet as a precursor to the modern TAWP, and Alfred Thayer Mahan as the face that launched copious tonnage, but that underscores my point.

The transition away from the global military superpower toward whatever nuanced, yet-to-be-named, post-everything utopia will be a slow one. It’s taken over a century to dig the military money-pit. The world direction, politically, seems to want to be in the direction of centralization, with the League of Nations giving way to the perpetually flailing United Nations. The Information Age exposes the truth that these so-called Statesmen would be twice as effective if they were half as bossy, with a quarter of the legislation they sign.

Full circle, then: real improvement will come from mature, historical analysis of what the country is trying to achieve at what level. Historical analysis and Hayek show that vast power in the hands of few is neither traditional, nor healthy, nor (if we dare let the Constitution mean what it says) legal.

Category: Blogging

Comments

24 Responses to “Will Fabius Maximus Offer A Thorough Analysis?”

  1. Joe
    June 19th, 2010 @ 2:16 pm

    We could roll back some DoD spending. Iraq we are pulling out of. Afghanistan will eventually have to sink or swim. I can’t see us sustaining a major war there for decades. If it impodes back to what Afghanistan has always ben (a shit hole) we will constantly pepper the south half with preditor missiles and support the opposition.

    As for the rest of the federal government, it should be slashed massively.

    The big monkey in the room is entitlements (social security, medicare, etc.). We have to cut them to make anything work. We could do that by not increasing benefits, pushing back eligibility, and getting by on less.

    The American people have to support this or we are all screwed.

  2. Joe
    June 19th, 2010 @ 10:16 am

    We could roll back some DoD spending. Iraq we are pulling out of. Afghanistan will eventually have to sink or swim. I can’t see us sustaining a major war there for decades. If it impodes back to what Afghanistan has always ben (a shit hole) we will constantly pepper the south half with preditor missiles and support the opposition.

    As for the rest of the federal government, it should be slashed massively.

    The big monkey in the room is entitlements (social security, medicare, etc.). We have to cut them to make anything work. We could do that by not increasing benefits, pushing back eligibility, and getting by on less.

    The American people have to support this or we are all screwed.

  3. wombat-socho
    June 19th, 2010 @ 2:40 pm

    Agreed, the entitlements are the real beast in the budget. It’s going to be a long fight to get Social Security and Medicare downsized to the point where they’re only taking care of the truly needy and can be farmed out to the states where they belong.

  4. wombat-socho
    June 19th, 2010 @ 10:40 am

    Agreed, the entitlements are the real beast in the budget. It’s going to be a long fight to get Social Security and Medicare downsized to the point where they’re only taking care of the truly needy and can be farmed out to the states where they belong.

  5. richard mcenroe
    June 19th, 2010 @ 2:56 pm

    Why only half measures? Let’s just put cannon on rowboats to defend our harbors! It worked for Jefferson! Oh, wait,no it didn’t.

    Absolutely, let’s stop being the world’s cop. After all, the US is completely self-sufficient in the raw materials needed to maintain a modern technological society. Oh, wait,no we’re not.

    After all,it’s not like some homicidal barbarian can leave his cave in the Hindu Kush and be anywhere in the world in 24 hours, is it? Oh, wait, yes he can.

    And the Great White Fleet was not about being the world’s policeman. It was about being _this country’s_ policeman and demonstrating that we could and would stand up for OUR interests.

  6. richard mcenroe
    June 19th, 2010 @ 10:56 am

    Why only half measures? Let’s just put cannon on rowboats to defend our harbors! It worked for Jefferson! Oh, wait,no it didn’t.

    Absolutely, let’s stop being the world’s cop. After all, the US is completely self-sufficient in the raw materials needed to maintain a modern technological society. Oh, wait,no we’re not.

    After all,it’s not like some homicidal barbarian can leave his cave in the Hindu Kush and be anywhere in the world in 24 hours, is it? Oh, wait, yes he can.

    And the Great White Fleet was not about being the world’s policeman. It was about being _this country’s_ policeman and demonstrating that we could and would stand up for OUR interests.

  7. Stogie
    June 19th, 2010 @ 3:55 pm

    Richard:

    WELL SAID! Let’s leave the DoD alone. I would like more research into modern weapon systems, ones that save American lives while taking out more of the enemy. Robotic weapons, like the Predator drones, have proven very effective.

    Again, well said.

  8. Stogie
    June 19th, 2010 @ 11:55 am

    Richard:

    WELL SAID! Let’s leave the DoD alone. I would like more research into modern weapon systems, ones that save American lives while taking out more of the enemy. Robotic weapons, like the Predator drones, have proven very effective.

    Again, well said.

  9. Joe
    June 19th, 2010 @ 4:41 pm

    A map to see whether your county is happy or not, based on the direction people are heading. People vote with their feet if you will.

    H/T to Ace for for finding this gem.

  10. Joe
    June 19th, 2010 @ 12:41 pm

    A map to see whether your county is happy or not, based on the direction people are heading. People vote with their feet if you will.

    H/T to Ace for for finding this gem.

  11. republicanmother
    June 19th, 2010 @ 4:42 pm

    I found an interesting little nugget from the 1961 State Department for you all to analyze.

    http://dosfan.lib.uic.edu/ERC/arms/freedom_war.html

    The DoD is costing us 800 billion a year and is the most costly of all the departments. If we were actually spending that money to defend American interests, it would be one thing, but to be spending it just to be the United Nations errand boy is another.

  12. republicanmother
    June 19th, 2010 @ 12:42 pm

    I found an interesting little nugget from the 1961 State Department for you all to analyze.

    http://dosfan.lib.uic.edu/ERC/arms/freedom_war.html

    The DoD is costing us 800 billion a year and is the most costly of all the departments. If we were actually spending that money to defend American interests, it would be one thing, but to be spending it just to be the United Nations errand boy is another.

  13. Adobe Walls
    June 19th, 2010 @ 5:12 pm

    Repubblicanmother:
    Was the author of Freedom from War imprisoned or executed or did they manage to escape back to the Soviet Union before being detected?

  14. Adobe Walls
    June 19th, 2010 @ 1:12 pm

    Repubblicanmother:
    Was the author of Freedom from War imprisoned or executed or did they manage to escape back to the Soviet Union before being detected?

  15. theCL
    June 19th, 2010 @ 8:51 pm

    However, Defense remains a Constitutional, Federal task. So, until you figure out a way to de-globalize the economy, and re-orient the US away from being Team America: World Police (TAWP)

    Yeah, defense is legitimate, but is nation-building? After all, we don’t like nation-building at home for a host of reasons, one of them being it doesn’t work. It’s impossible. So why are we spending lives and treasure nation-building?

    What happened to old school war? Pound the blank out of your enemy and let them pick up the pieces. Sounds like a far more effective strategy, especially considering we’ve been at war in Afghanistan longer than anywhere else in our history. Certainly not a factoid to be proud of.

    And it’s not the economy that starts wars, the looser our trading policy, the less likely we are to be at war with a given country. We need free trade with all, and I’m not talking that crap they call free in Washington. I’m talking genuine free trade.

    Nixon made a deal with the devil (Mao), opened trade, and now China isn’t about to attack us any time soon. Of course, that could change when the dollar implodes. But I think we’ll (the People) be at war with Washington over that (figuratively speaking) before China ever launched an attack. Even then, it’s doubtless they would.

    I’d rather have the military protecting our borders than off on utopian nation-building escapades in far away lands. And if they need to go to war on the other side of the globe, then fight, brutally, and come home!

  16. theCL
    June 19th, 2010 @ 4:51 pm

    However, Defense remains a Constitutional, Federal task. So, until you figure out a way to de-globalize the economy, and re-orient the US away from being Team America: World Police (TAWP)

    Yeah, defense is legitimate, but is nation-building? After all, we don’t like nation-building at home for a host of reasons, one of them being it doesn’t work. It’s impossible. So why are we spending lives and treasure nation-building?

    What happened to old school war? Pound the blank out of your enemy and let them pick up the pieces. Sounds like a far more effective strategy, especially considering we’ve been at war in Afghanistan longer than anywhere else in our history. Certainly not a factoid to be proud of.

    And it’s not the economy that starts wars, the looser our trading policy, the less likely we are to be at war with a given country. We need free trade with all, and I’m not talking that crap they call free in Washington. I’m talking genuine free trade.

    Nixon made a deal with the devil (Mao), opened trade, and now China isn’t about to attack us any time soon. Of course, that could change when the dollar implodes. But I think we’ll (the People) be at war with Washington over that (figuratively speaking) before China ever launched an attack. Even then, it’s doubtless they would.

    I’d rather have the military protecting our borders than off on utopian nation-building escapades in far away lands. And if they need to go to war on the other side of the globe, then fight, brutally, and come home!

  17. republicanmother
    June 19th, 2010 @ 10:25 pm

    @ Adobe Walls
    This is what I found out about the authors of Freedom from War via the writing of Jon Christian Ryter: (If anyone else can verify this, please do.)

    The authors of the Council on Foreign Relations plan promoted by President John F. Kennedy were CFR members Dean Rusk, Kennedy’s Secretary of State, Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara, and presidential advisors John J. McCloy and Robert Lovett.

    I saw another source that cited McCloy, it’s hard to find because this went down the mainstream media hole a long, long time ago.

    Where are they now you ask?
    Dean Rusk – former Sec. of State, member of Rockefeller Foundation, CFR, Pilgrims Society and all that good stuff, died in 1994.

    Robert McNamara – everyone knows him from those exciting Vietnam days when he was Sec. of Defense, he was also president of the World Bank, in the CFR, the Trilateral Commission, and all those fun clubs we small people don’t get invited to. He died about a year ago.

    John J. McCloy – was also a World Bank president (1947-1949), also a member of CFR and the Ford Foundation. He died in 1989. He was also on the Warren Commission.

    Robert Lovett – was Sec. of Defense under Truman; he didn’t seem to be in the loop with rest of them as far as international policy think tank groups are concerned. He died in 1986.

    Everyone of these men served in the U.S. military, so I would presume they were buried with full honors.

    The John Birch Society was maligned because they said that there were communists in our government. They were right. I miss you Larry McDonald!

    (If everyone out there would start researching some of these old documents, I promise your mind will be blown. The Deliberate Dumbing Down of America is a good place to start – it’s free and is mostly just excerpts from documents you can independently verify: http://www.deliberatedumbingdown.com/)

    Happy Hunting!

  18. republicanmother
    June 19th, 2010 @ 6:25 pm

    @ Adobe Walls
    This is what I found out about the authors of Freedom from War via the writing of Jon Christian Ryter: (If anyone else can verify this, please do.)

    The authors of the Council on Foreign Relations plan promoted by President John F. Kennedy were CFR members Dean Rusk, Kennedy’s Secretary of State, Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara, and presidential advisors John J. McCloy and Robert Lovett.

    I saw another source that cited McCloy, it’s hard to find because this went down the mainstream media hole a long, long time ago.

    Where are they now you ask?
    Dean Rusk – former Sec. of State, member of Rockefeller Foundation, CFR, Pilgrims Society and all that good stuff, died in 1994.

    Robert McNamara – everyone knows him from those exciting Vietnam days when he was Sec. of Defense, he was also president of the World Bank, in the CFR, the Trilateral Commission, and all those fun clubs we small people don’t get invited to. He died about a year ago.

    John J. McCloy – was also a World Bank president (1947-1949), also a member of CFR and the Ford Foundation. He died in 1989. He was also on the Warren Commission.

    Robert Lovett – was Sec. of Defense under Truman; he didn’t seem to be in the loop with rest of them as far as international policy think tank groups are concerned. He died in 1986.

    Everyone of these men served in the U.S. military, so I would presume they were buried with full honors.

    The John Birch Society was maligned because they said that there were communists in our government. They were right. I miss you Larry McDonald!

    (If everyone out there would start researching some of these old documents, I promise your mind will be blown. The Deliberate Dumbing Down of America is a good place to start – it’s free and is mostly just excerpts from documents you can independently verify: http://www.deliberatedumbingdown.com/)

    Happy Hunting!

  19. Mike M.
    June 19th, 2010 @ 10:29 pm

    Military strength, particularly seapower, is essential for a trade power like the United States. Spend money on the military and you get something. Squander it on welfares and you get dependents demanding MORE money.

    If you want to argue strategy, that’s another matter. Iraq merely reiterated the fact that Americans have never been willing to support long wars. Go in, smash the foe, get out.

  20. Mike M.
    June 19th, 2010 @ 6:29 pm

    Military strength, particularly seapower, is essential for a trade power like the United States. Spend money on the military and you get something. Squander it on welfares and you get dependents demanding MORE money.

    If you want to argue strategy, that’s another matter. Iraq merely reiterated the fact that Americans have never been willing to support long wars. Go in, smash the foe, get out.

  21. republicanmother
    June 20th, 2010 @ 3:00 am

    Update: the Freedom from War paper was replaced a year later by Blueprint for Peace:

    http://www.libertygunrights.com/Blueprint4PeaceRace.pdf

    Military strength, like educational excellence doesn’t get better just because money gets thrown at it. There is a huge bureaucracy that exists in DoD. I say scrap the bureaucracy and give the troops a raise!

  22. republicanmother
    June 19th, 2010 @ 11:00 pm

    Update: the Freedom from War paper was replaced a year later by Blueprint for Peace:

    http://www.libertygunrights.com/Blueprint4PeaceRace.pdf

    Military strength, like educational excellence doesn’t get better just because money gets thrown at it. There is a huge bureaucracy that exists in DoD. I say scrap the bureaucracy and give the troops a raise!

  23. The Osprey
    June 21st, 2010 @ 2:53 pm

    As a country with two coasts engaged in international trade, we need a strong Navy. However I think you are right that we need to eliminate the Defense Department. It needs to go back to being what it was before the Age of Doublespeak: The War Department. Have we won any of the wars we have been engaged in since it was renamed “The Defense Department”?

  24. The Osprey
    June 21st, 2010 @ 10:53 am

    As a country with two coasts engaged in international trade, we need a strong Navy. However I think you are right that we need to eliminate the Defense Department. It needs to go back to being what it was before the Age of Doublespeak: The War Department. Have we won any of the wars we have been engaged in since it was renamed “The Defense Department”?