The Price of America Having the Greatest Military in the World? It's Destroying the Country
http://www.alternet.org/world/tragic-history-us-military-supremacy
The idea of U.S. "national security" seems inextricably entangled with the notion of "military supremacy." Over the past 15 years, this has served to rationalize the most expensive unilateral military build-up in history. But there is no evidence that having the most expensive and destructive military forces makes Americans safer than people in other countries, nor that restoring a more balanced military posture would leave us vulnerable to dangers we are currently protected from. Many countries with smaller military forces do a better job of protecting their people by avoiding the hostility that is generated by U.S. imperialism, aggression and other war crimes.
Now, successful diplomacy over Syria's chemical weapons has demonstrated that diplomacy within the framework of international law can be a more effective way of dealing with problems than the illegal threat or use of military force. Our government claims that its threat of force led to the success of diplomacy in Syria, but that's not really what happened. It was only when the sleeping giant of American democracy awoke from its long slumber and pried the cruise missiles from our leaders' trigger fingers that they grudgingly accepted "diplomacy as a last resort." For once in a very long while, our political system worked the way it's supposed to: the public made its views clear to our representatives in Congress, and they listened. We saved our leaders from the consequences of their own criminality, and their efforts to sell a propaganda narrative that turns that on its head is a sad reflection on their disdain for democracy and the rule of law.
For most of our history, Americans never dreamt of global military supremacy. At the turn of the 20th century, even as the U.S. waged a genocidal war that probably killed a million Filipinos, American diplomats played key roles in the Hague Peace Conferences and the establishment of international courts, eager to adapt American concepts of democracy and justice to the international arena to develop alternatives to war and militarism.
In response to the horrors of the First World War, an international social movement demanded the abolition of war. In 1928, the U.S. government responded by negotiating the Kellogg-Briand Pact, named for U.S. Secretary of State Frank Kellogg, in which all major powers renounced "war as an instrument of national policy." The treaty failed to prevent the Second World War, but it provided the legal basis for the convictions of German leaders at Nuremberg for the crime of aggression. And it is still in force, supported by subsequent treaties like the UN Charter and conventions against genocide, torture and other war crimes, under which senior U.S. officials must also eventually face justice.
= new reply since forum marked as read
should TPTB ever desire to do so. 
- Hell, we could just buy off our enemies with that kind of money.
That's it in a nutshell. They are siphoning the treasury to the 1% & militarizing our police forces at the same time.
See my post below, http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3970700
A four minute video with incredible graphics & stunning statistics that will make you seethe.
on edit: That's a helluva screen name! 
It wasn't so much the American people, as it was diplomacy, pressure and common sense from Russia. Even many right here on DU though it would be OK to blow up parts of Syria.
So there's that.
But really, this is so true. I'm sickened to my core about the priorities of this country.
I have somewhat of a different view, both to those who never served and those who are gung-ho drunk with U.S. military power.
In the Air National Guard of my day, I performed the "defence of country" role about as closely as anyone can in the military. 100% of the air defence of CONUS is provided by the ANG, and North America in partnership with the Royal Canadian Air Force.
However, starting in the Bush years, the ANG has been gutted by closing down/re-roling a lot of its fighter units. Their F-16's, which had a lot of usefulness in them left, are now sitting in the "boneyard" at Davis-Monthan AFB.
The vast majority of these were F-16ADF (Air Defence Version) specialised for the Guard - to defend U.S. skies.
http://www.f-16.net/f-16_versions_article14.html
Bush decided, in his infinite wisdom, that "boots on the ground" (read: Army and Marines) in Iraq were more important in his "War On Terror."
I am proud to have done my bit in home defence.
DoD is not a good steward of the public purse.
There is so much duplication of roles it's unreal.
The Army has an "air force," mostly of helicopters.
The Navy has an "army" (the Marine Corps) and its own sea-going "air force."
The Marine Corps has its own "air force," nominally part of the Navy, but dedicated to support of the Marines.
The Air Force has its own "army special operations" units (AFSOC).
The Coast Guard is a military service, but it is not part of DoD except in declared wartime.
The Army has both an Army Reserve (federal only) and an Army National Guard (state/federal). The Air Force has the same situation. Yes, the Guard is available for state duty but is more often deployed federally these days. In the Guard we used to joke about why a State Governor would need a wing of F-16's.
And all of those, with the exception of the Coast Guard, have a possible nuclear role, which is just nuts.
Canada in 1968 unified its Armed Forces to prevent these duplications. They went too far, even having them wear the same uniform, but by now it's shaken itself out...if it slings a rifle, it wears green and belongs to the Canadian Army. If it floats, it wears dark blue and belongs to the Royal Canadian Navy. If it flies, it wears light blue and belongs to the Royal Canadian Air Force. The RCAF provides ALL aircraft - the RCN or Army do not have their own.
If we would only go partially down that road, we would have so much left over for other things, not least the poor and needy, or at the very least improving the lives of service personnel. In many cases those at paygrade E-4 (Corporal/Specialist in the Army, Corporal in the Marines, Senior Airman in the Air Force, Petty Officer 3rd Class in the Navy/CG) are eligible for welfare benefits because their base pay is so low.
I will be the first to admit that there is a culture of glorification of the Armed Forces, mostly by the chickenshit chickenhawks on the far right who never served a day in uniform. They are the ones who usually call for unilateralist military action, because they have no idea of what it's like to actually be in battle. I learned on my first day of Basic Training that my life was no longer my own and I could be ordered to take another life or give my own...thank God that never happened.
The Constitution specifies that Congress holds the power to declare war, yet we have taken part in how many wars that were never declared? Korea, Vietnam, Grenada, Panama, Iraq I & II, Afghanistan...even though the War Powers Resolution was supposed to prevent this!
We have not had a Constitutionally-declared war since...wait for it...1941, when we declared war on Japan after Pearl Harbour. In response, Germany and Italy declared war on the United States, and we reciprocated.
As a former member of the Armed Forces, it sickens me to see how these men and women who (nowadays) voluntarily give up their lives and liberty are so often tools of the military-industrial complex that Ike warned us about.
I guess we didn't learn anything from the man who wore five stars and oversaw the final destruction of Hitler's Third Reich...Ike knew all too well that there are human costs from military operations.
It's also devouring the world. 
