Serial Denial and the Permanent War System

Floridatexan wrote:
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/08/11

"...In his latest book, Washington Rules, historian Andrew Bacevich points to this largely un-discussed aspect of recent U.S. wars. The "Washington rules" to which the title refers are the basic principles of U.S. global policy that have been required beliefs for entrance into the U.S. political elite ever since the United States became a superpower. The three rules are U.S. global military presence, global projection of U.S. military power and the use of that power in one conflict after another.

Bacevich suggests that personal and institutional interests bind the U.S. political elite and national security bureaucrats to that system of global military dominance. The politicians and bureaucrats will continue to insist on those principles, he writes, because they "deliver profit, power and privilege to a long list of beneficiaries: elected and appointed officials, corporate executives and corporate lobbyists, admirals and generals, functionaries staffing the national security apparatus, media personalities and policy intellectuals from universities and research organizations."

Guest wrote:If you have a problem with the US being a super power, then you will have to accept the US as a 3rd world nation


The world is harsh, and it's not just us.

2seaoat wrote:Making intelligent military cuts does not have to expose our nation to more risk. The proper question should be what is the military mission. If it is to project power all over the world with our massive investment in our carrier groups which are entirely vulnerable to modern technology by an enemy state who has nuclear capability. Tactical nuclear weapons against military targets by a nation state like China, Russia, India, Pakistan, or even North Korea to a lesser extent could render our current military mission toothless.

Start with the proposition of how to define the military mission in America to one of defense of American territory and critical national interests. If one does that the massive investment in overseas bases, carrier groups, and large standing army becomes cumbersome and ineffective in a changing world of technology and weapon systems. We can defend this nation more effectively than we are now with recognizing the fallacy of the French preparation for the next world war by exhausting their resources on the defensive structures of the last war. The carrier groups made sense in 1945. The bases in Germany, Korea, and around the world made sense when there was actual nation state instability. They make less sense at the investment levels our GDP can sustain without damaging our economy and actually making us less able to defend this nation.