Tag Archives: US foreign policy

Op-Eds

War Party’s New Line: Vladimir Putin is Why We Can’t Have Nice Things

2 Comments
English: Richard Nixon meets Leonid Brezhnev J...
Nixon meets Leonid Brezhnev June 19, 1973 during the Soviet Leader’s visit to the U.S.  (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Remember the good old days? The US and the Soviet Union constantly staring each other down? Mutual Assured Destruction? Perpetual brushfire and proxy wars punctuated by deadly and disastrous conflicts like Korea and Vietnam?

They’re baaaaaaack …

America’s War Party (a faction that sprawls across Democratic and Republican affiliation lines) has been looking for something to replace the Cold War ever since it ended.

As the Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact collapsed, the rationale for spending one of every four US government budget dollars on a military jobs program and corporate welfare for “defense” contractors evaporated. With peace breaking out, American politicians faced the daunting task of remaining relevant without an external boogeyman to scare the bejabbers out of us commoners.

Bush the Elder and Bill Clinton tried hard to keep the scare up with Iraq, but after Desert Storm nobody really bought Saddam Hussein as a major threat to world peace. It took 9/11 to really put the War Party back in charge. They took full advantage, joyfully dancing on 3,000 graves while they dragged the US into interminable and expensive fiascoes in Afghanistan, Iraq and elsewhere, all the while grooming a reluctant China as the next monster under the foreign policy bed.

All that was wearing thin, too, even after US president Barack Obama drew his “red line” in Syria and went to war without so much as a do-you-mind to Congress, seemingly unable to decide from day to day whether the enemy was the Islamic State or the Assad regime.

Enter Vladimir Putin. He’s perfectly suited to serve as the War Party’s new hobgoblin: Former KGB agent, head of an authoritarian regime, already on the US enemies list after frustrating US ambitions in Georgia and Ukraine … what’s not to like?

As I write this, Putin is escalating Russian involvement in the Syrian conflict, going from airstrikes against Islamic State targets to having the Russian navy fire cruise missiles in support of a regime ground offensive.

Frankly, Putin seems to be going gangbusters at  one of the two jobs Obama can’t seem to decide between (liquidating the Islamic State as a military force) while making it clear that the other job (“regime change” in Syria) is no longer on the table unless we want to go back to the days of two superpowers brandishing nukes at each other.

No more solitaire for the American empire. It’s back to high-stakes poker. Which, of course, is exactly what War Party politicians on both sides of the aisle want. Gambling with our money and lives is their bread and butter.

Can we build a real American peace movement to call the War Party’s bluff? Our lives may depend on it.

Thomas L. Knapp is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY

Op-Eds

They Want to Talk About Israel. OK, Let’s Talk About Israel.

4 Comments

American and Israeli Flags (public domain)

In The Best and the Brightest, David Halberstam quotes US president Lyndon Baines Johnson on his desired qualities in an assistant: “I want loyalty! I want him to kiss my a– in Macy’s window at high noon and tell me it smells like roses.”

Nearly every “major party” presidential candidate this year and in past election cycles seems to have taken that advice to heart, but in an odd way. They come off less as applicants for the presidency of the United States than for  the position of personal aide to Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

The second Republican presidential primary debate looked a lot like Macy’s window at high noon:

Jeb Bush: “[T]he first thing that we need to do is to establish our commitment to Israel …”

Carly Fiorina: “On day one in the Oval Office, I will make two phone calls, the first to my good friend to Bibi Netanyahu to reassure him we will stand with the state of Israel.”

Marco Rubio: “If I’m honored with the opportunity to be president, I hope that our Air Force One will fly, first and foremost, to our allies; in Israel …”

Mike Huckabee: “At the end of my presidency I would like to believe that the world would be a safe place, and there wouldn’t be the threats. Not only to the US, but to Israel …”

Ted Cruz: “If I’m elected president our friends and allies across the globe will know that we stand with them. The bust of Winston Churchill will be back in the Oval Office, and the American embassy in Israel will be in Jerusalem.”

If you expect to hear anything much different from the Democratic candidates, you’re engaged in wishful thinking. Immediate and unqualified obedience to Benjamin Netanyahu has replaced Social Security as the third rail in American presidential politics — don’t step on it or you’ll die.

The question for me is not “pro-Israel” versus “anti-Israel.”

Nor is it, as conservative pundit Ann Coulter tweeted foot-in-mouth, about courting the “f—ing Jews,” who are no longer the swing voting bloc they used to be, if for no other reason than that American Jews tend on average to be a little less “pro-Israel” than major party presidential candidates.

What it’s about is whether or not American voters should continue to give a foreign power’s  well-financed lobby significant control over US foreign policy decisions and presidential choices.

In future debates, presidential candidates of all parties should be asked whether or not Israel is one of the 50 states — and if not, why they think it deserves large welfare checks drawn on the treasury of, and veto power over the actions of, the US government.

Thomas L. Knapp is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY

Op-Eds

“Defense” Spending: Time For More Than Cosmetic Cuts

Leave a comment
Military expenditure as percent of GDP, data t...
Military expenditure as percent of GDP, data taken from the CIA factbook. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

The US Army is on track to reduce its size from current levels (490,000 troops) to 450,000 in 2017 and 420,000 by 2019. In a July 24 editorial, the New York Times came out in mild support of the half-measure and against “maintaining bases and a level of troops that go beyond what the country needs and can afford.”

The Times doesn’t go far enough. The cuts are, at best, a good start. By any reasonable “need and affordability” standard, military (euphemistically referred to as “defense”) spending cuts should go far deeper. A worthwhile goal would be to cut US military spending by 75% between now and 2025.

If those cuts seem unduly deep, keep in mind that military spending is the single largest item in the federal budget, and that the US has now shouldered the burden of defending western Europe and the Pacific Rim since the end of World War II.

We’ve been waiting for our promised “peace dividend” for nearly a quarter of a century since the collapse of the  Warsaw Pact. It’s time to furl the US “defense umbrella” and let Germany, France, the United Kingdom, Japan, South Korea, the Philippines, Taiwan and other US clients assume responsibility for (and cover the costs of) their own defenses.

Through the first half of this decade, the partisan fight over military spending has devolved from an argument over how much to increase that spending (the Obama administration proposed 10% growth by 2018; congressional Republicans referred to that proposal as a “draconian cut” and demanded 18% growth) to acceptance of actual minor cuts. It’s time to take the next step.

A 75% reduction would still leave the US in the position of, by far, top military spender in the world (the cut would have to be more like 90% to match China, the second place spender). Given the American weapons technology edge, an existing arsenal that can be mothballed and re-activated at need, a reserve and National Guard system which can deliver well-trained troops on relatively short notice, and a buffer zone of two oceans between the US and its most likely future enemies, 25% of current spending levels would remain an embarrassment of riches.

Politicians of both parties perpetually promise balanced budgets — some day. They’ll never get there without first reining in a military-industrial complex which has sucked America’s economy dry for three quarters of a century now.

Thomas L. Knapp is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

AUDIO VERSION

 

 

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY