May 25, 2011
Sounds Good, Bob. Letís Give It a Try.
From the Associated Press:
ďA smaller military, no matter how superb, will be able to go fewer places and be able to do fewer things.Ē ó Defense Secretary Robert Gates warning that shrinking defense budgets will mean a smaller military and a diminished American role in the world.
Posted by Jerome Doolittle at May 25, 2011 10:02 AM
Actually, it would be best if they went nowhere and did hardly anything, except in the case of actual military attack on the actual territory of the United States. While the attack is going on, that is, and not just as misdirected revenge afterward.
Yes, a somewhat smaller U.S. military would likely enhance the safety of America and the world; the "defense" program savings could realize real tax reductions and, more importantly, some tax income could be applied to the repair/revitalization of domestically-located non-military industries and infrastructure, thus retaining, hopefully increasing, domestic employment levels. Unfortunately, in the immediate financial debacle, our overgrown, out-of-control military capacity and capability is the financial/industrial "specialty" of the United States [other than the corporate mafia government/taxpayer insured financial sector]. Reducing the U.S. military budget would in the short run immediately reduce U.S. citizenry employment domestically and overseas. At this time in our history it is the only "productive" game the United States plays even half-competently--at least it employs people and exports military products around the world, though it is thereby logical it can't allow its wars ever to be completed.
Hi, Hoffmann. There's something I'd like to talk to you about, offline. Could you get in touch with me at my gmail address? It's jerome.doolittle on the left of the symbol and the rest as usual. Thanks, Jerry