Why we can't

Commentary By Ron Beasley

There are those, both Democrat and Republican, they say we can't afford universal health insurance.  They also say we can't afford to educate children or repair the crumbling infrastructure.  Well they are right.  Why is that when every other developed nation seems to manage?  The answer is pretty simple - our treasure is being spent on wars we can't win but continue to fight because a few corporations are making lots of money. 

Over at FDL Stirling Newberry offer this:

Escalation in Afghanistan means more military deaths, 9 coalition fatalities in 48 hours. This is the war we did not fight, which has festered. Iraq and Afghanistan were planned on the "1 1/2" conflict doctrine, that the US could face two strategic conflicts at the same time by a "fight - hold - fight" strategy. When it was introduced, it was called the "fight lose fight" strategy; and Iraq and Afghanistan show the problem with it: it is enough to tempt military minded Presidents to over-reach, but not enough to win. It is too small for massive response; but too large for the US economy to afford, as Wesley Clark's classic short polemic Winning Modern Wars pointed out. Any military country with an economy that can build this kind of military can't afford it.

What did our blood and treasure investment in Iraq accomplish?  It replaced a secular tyrant with a religious tyrant.  It replaced a stable tyranny that hated Israel with an unstable tyranny that hates Israel.  If there was a winner in Iraq it would have to be Iran who's arch enemy was replaced by a friendly government. 

In Afghanistan there will be no winners.  When we leave, and leave we will, the country will look much the same as it did when we first invaded.  The only difference will be the Afghan people will hate the US and the West even more. 

Of course in both cases the winner was the defense industry that made billions and the losers were the families that lost loved ones, the economy of the US that was crippled with debt and the American people who couldn't get health care, who's children weren't educated and who had to live with a crumbling infrastructure.

We should have listened to Ike:

Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense. We have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security alone more than the net income of all United States cooperations -- corporations.

Now this conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence -- economic, political, even spiritual -- is felt in every city, every Statehouse, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet, we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources, and livelihood are all involved. So is the very structure of our society.

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.