|
Before we upgrade the military to an even higher level that Bush, let's stop and think about what it would really do. First of all, in the Clintonian years, the military was already the largest in the world, far exceeding any other. Yet, everyone seemed to agree that it was in bad shape, and who do we ask as experts on that? Oh yeah, Republicans and military officers. Good, unbiased sources. So, then Bush gets elected and this already ridiculously large upgrade happened. But still, have we answered the question of why we need such an outstanding military?
The United States before Cheney waged his imperial conquest into Iraq, and before 9/11 had no major rivaling, hostile nation-state, bloc or alliance to require such a military. Our main involvement in military operations since Veitnam has been always been to act as a "peacekeeper," which is term used to describe out presence.
We've been involved all over Latin America, in some countries more so than others. What interest did we have down there? Fighting revolutions that threated US interests, such as cheap coffee, sugar, fruit, oil, tin, etc. Why did we get involved in Kosovo, and use so much force so quickly? Violence in Europe, our most dear ally aside from Israel or Japan - our reason for keeping North Korea at bay - could not have a war within or near its territory. The reason is less material, so we needed to make the war short and to the point. If we had people dying there, being attacked like in Somalia or recently now in Iraq, the public would start to question it. Kosovo was perhaps the most selfless war though, as it did stop a genocide, but only because it was directly in our interest. All of these were because they were in our interests, not out of any benevolent, "peacekeeping" love.
So we need a larger army to do this? Extend the empire? Yes, we do need one to protect our homeland, but the army is so large today, and has been so large since WWII, that no one could even fathom a successful ground assult of the US. But that gets me to the question of Homeland Security and the war on terror.
We shouldn't be in Iraq in the first place, Yes, we are there, so we need to finish the rebuilding project. But does having a strong military really make us that much safer? Had we had a larger military pre-9/11, the only difference would have been that Al Qaeda would have a larger number of targets, closer to them. Take the USS Cole as an example. Why was it in the Persian Gulf? 'Peacekeeping,' maybe? Had it not have been there, there would have been no target so easy for Al Qaeda to attack. Having a large military would not have stopped those hijackers from getting on those planes. Having more security might, but a standing military is only good for one type of strategy, an offensive one.
|