http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/152393/20110526/us-president-barack-obama-david-cameron-bbq-food-10-downing-street-michelle-obama-samantha-cameron-h.htm
Leaders of the 'free' world sucking up big time to the military...as usual
I hope these 2 'leaders' are ashamed of themselves
Perhaps those 2 may even consider something taboo like actually downsizing the military to a reasonable and human size rather than serve them food...
http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/152393/20110526/us-president-barack-obama-david-cameron-bbq-food-10-downing-street-michelle-obama-samantha-cameron-h.htm
Leaders of the 'free' world sucking up big time to the military...as usual
I hope these 2 'leaders' are ashamed of themselves
Perhaps those 2 may even consider something taboo like actually downsizing the military to a reasonable and human size rather than serve them food...
Well it's a bit more complex than that. In fact it's a military industrial complex with ex-soldiers reaping huge rewards in weapons industries. As well there is the fact of careerism in the military as opposed to upholding the values of the country and its national sovereignty.
A Cow Most Sacred
Why Military Spending is Untouchable
By ANDREW BACEVICH
Like concentric security barriers arrayed around the Pentagon, these four factors -- institutional self-interest, strategic inertia, cultural dissonance, and misremembered history -- insulate the military budget from serious scrutiny. For advocates of a militarized approach to policy, they provide invaluable assets, to be defended at all costs.
Andrew J. Bacevich is professor of history and international relations at Boston University. His most recent book is Washington Rules: America's Path to Permanent War.
Well it's a bit more complex than that. In fact it's a military industrial complex with ex-soldiers reaping huge rewards in weapons industries. As well there is the fact of careerism in the military as opposed to upholding the values of the country and its national sovereignty.
A Cow Most Sacred
Why Military Spending is Untouchable
By ANDREW BACEVICH
Like concentric security barriers arrayed around the Pentagon, these four factors -- institutional self-interest, strategic inertia, cultural dissonance, and misremembered history -- insulate the military budget from serious scrutiny. For advocates of a militarized approach to policy, they provide invaluable assets, to be defended at all costs.
Andrew J. Bacevich is professor of history and international relations at Boston University. His most recent book is Washington Rules: America's Path to Permanent War.
http://counterpunch.org/bacevich01272011.html
Robert Gates' Farewell Address
Most importantly, it acknowledges that cold hard fact that DoD will have to do it with less money, and that this is ok. Money quote:
But as I am fond of saying, we live in the real world. Absent a catastrophic international conflict or a new existential threat, we are not likely to return to Cold War levels of defense expenditures, at least as a share of national wealth, anytime soon. Nor do I believe we need to."
Translation: sorry, folks: but you can't fight a couple of costly wars, experience a major global financial meltdown, and spend nearly a decade cutting taxes, and still expect to have lots of money to throw at national security. And it would be foolish to do so even if we did, because we live in an era where we face no existential great power threats. Instead, our main priority needs to be getting our economic house in order and preparing for longer-term challenges down the road, while maintaining the essential elements of our current global security role.
http://walt.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2011/05/26/robert_gates_farewell_address
Robert Gates' Farewell Address
Most importantly, it acknowledges that cold hard fact that DoD will have to do it with less money, and that this is ok. Money quote:
But as I am fond of saying, we live in the real world. Absent a catastrophic international conflict or a new existential threat, we are not likely to return to Cold War levels of defense expenditures, at least as a share of national wealth, anytime soon. Nor do I believe we need to."
Translation: sorry, folks: but you can't fight a couple of costly wars, experience a major global financial meltdown, and spend nearly a decade cutting taxes, and still expect to have lots of money to throw at national security. And it would be foolish to do so even if we did, because we live in an era where we face no existential great power threats. Instead, our main priority needs to be getting our economic house in order and preparing for longer-term challenges down the road, while maintaining the essential elements of our current global security role.
http://walt.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2011/05/26/robert_gates_farewell_address
http://www.defense.gov/speeches/speech.aspx?speechid=1570
