International News
See other International News Articles
Title: The End of 'Pax' Americana [Pat Buchanan]
Source:
[None]
URL Source: http://lewrockwell.com/buchanan/buchanan187.html
Published: Oct 7, 2011
Author: Pat Buchanan
Post Date: 2011-10-07 11:19:32 by Capitalist Eric
Keywords: None
Views: 3371
Comments: 7
Observing the correlation of forces in this city and the intensity of conviction in the base of each party, the outcome of the ongoing fiscal fight between Barack Obama and the Tea Party Republicans seems preordained. Deadlock. There will be no big jobs-for-taxes deal. The can will be kicked down the road into the next administration. A second truth is emerging. When the cutting comes, as it shall, the Pentagon will be first to ascend the scaffold. Why so? Consider. The Republican House cannot agree to tax increases without risking retribution from the base and repudiation by its presidential candidates. All have pledged to oppose even a dollar in tax hikes for 10 dollars in spending cuts. For his part, Obama has refused to lay out any significant cuts in the big Democratic entitlement programs of Social Security and Medicare. As for the hundreds of billions in Great Society spending for Medicaid, food stamps, Head Start, earned income tax credits, aid to education, Pell grants and housing subsidies, neither Harry Reid's Senate nor Obama, in trouble with his African-American base, will permit significant cuts. That leaves two large items of a budget approaching $4 trillion: interest on the debt, which must be paid, and national defense. Pentagon chief Leon Panetta can see the writing on the wall. Defense is already scheduled for $350 billion in cuts over the decade. If the super-committee fails to come up with $1.2 trillion in specified new cuts, an automatic slicer chops another $600 billion from defense. House Armed Services Committee Chair Buck McKeon has issued an analysis of what that would mean: a U.S. Army and Marine Corps reduction of 150,000 troops, retirement of two carrier battle groups, loss of one-third of Air Force fighter planes and a "hollow force" unable to meet America's commitments. Also on the chopping block would be the Navy and Marine Corps versions of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. If the super-committee trigger has to be pulled, says Panetta, "we'd be shooting ourselves in the head." That half defense-half domestic formula for automatic budget cuts was programmed into the slicer to force Republicans to put tax hikes on the table. They will refuse. For tax hikes would do more damage to the party than the slicing would the Pentagon. Thus America approaches her moment of truth. Thanks to the irresponsibility of both parties, of the Bush as well as Obama administrations, we are facing unavoidable and painful choices. We are going to have to reduce the benefits and raise the age of eligibility for Social Security and Medicare. Cut and cap Great Society programs. Downsize the military, close bases and transfer to allies responsibility for their own defense. Or we are going to have to raise taxes – and not just on millionaires and billionaires, but Middle America. And if our leaders cannot impose these sacrifices, the markets will, as we see in Europe, where the day of reckoning is at hand. Ours is next. But if defense cuts are unavoidable, where should they come? What should our future defense posture be? Which principles should apply? Clearly, the first principle should be that the United States must retain a sufficiency, indeed, a surplus of power to defend all of its vital interests and vital allies, though the defense of those allies must be first and foremost their own responsibility. They have to replace U.S. troops as first responders. During the Cold War, America was committed to go to war on behalf of a dozen NATO nations from Norway to Turkey. Eastern Europe under Moscow's boot was not considered vital. Thus we resisted the Berlin Blockade, but peacefully. We did nothing to rescue the Hungarian revolution in 1956, or the Prague Spring in 1968, or the Polish Solidarity movement in 1981, when all three were crushed. Now that the Red Army has gone home, Eastern Europe is free, and the Soviet Union no longer exists, what is the argument for maintaining U.S. Air Force, Army and naval bases and thousands of U.S. troops in Europe? Close the bases, and bring the troops home. The same with South Korea and Japan. Now that Mao is dead and gone and China is capitalist, Seoul and Tokyo trade more with Beijing than they do with us. South Korea has 40 times the economy and twice the population of North Korea. Japan's economy is almost as large as China's. Why cannot these two powerful and prosperous nations provide the troops, planes, ships and missiles to defend themselves? We can sell them whatever they need. Why is their defense still our responsibility? In the Persian Gulf we have a strategic interest: oil. But the oil-rich nations of the region have an even greater interest in selling their oil than we do in buying it. For, without oil sales, the Gulf has little the world needs or wants. Let the world look out for itself for a while. Time to start looking out for America and Americans first. For if we don't, who will?
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: Capitalist Eric (#0)
Why is it that any reduction in defense spending is always portrayed as reduction in troop levels. Is someone trying to tell me that if we brought home every solider in Europe/Asia/Pacific etc etc etc, but kept them in uniform that there would be NO cost savings?
Stay Hungry...Stay Foolish --Steve Jobs
They see the military as being run like corporations, where in any cost cutting measure the line workers are the first to go.
Now that the Red Army has gone home, Eastern Europe is free, and the Soviet Union no longer exists, what is the argument for maintaining U.S. Air Force, Army and naval bases and thousands of U.S. troops in Europe? Close the bases, and bring the troops home. The same with South Korea and Japan. Now that Mao is dead and gone and China is capitalist, Seoul and Tokyo trade more with Beijing than they do with us. South Korea has 40 times the economy and twice the population of North Korea. Japan's economy is almost as large as China's. Why cannot these two powerful and prosperous nations provide the troops, planes, ships and missiles to defend themselves? We can sell them whatever they need. Why is their defense still our responsibility? In the Persian Gulf we have a strategic interest: oil. But the oil-rich nations of the region have an even greater interest in selling their oil than we do in buying it. For, without oil sales, the Gulf has little the world needs or wants. Let the world look out for itself for a while. Time to start looking out for America and Americans first. For if we don't, who will? Absolutely, 100% agree. We spend more money on the military than the next 17 countries combined. We could chop the defense budget in half and still spend TWICE as much as Russia and China combined. We don't need to do more than this. The real problem is that the government is incapable of changing. As Reagan said: the closest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on earth is a government program. Why are their 72 welfare programs? Why do struggling working families have to pay to support retirees who have pensions or investment incomes that make them "rich"? Why do we still need farm price supports? On and on...
And if our leaders cannot impose these sacrifices, the markets will, as we see in Europe, where the day of reckoning is at hand. Ours is next. Buchanan left off another possibility that classical Athens initiated. Athens created the Delian League, a version of NATO of that time to fight the Persians. The Persians were the evil empire back then and they lost and retreated. The Athenians turned the Delian league into an Athenian empire. At first all the members had to contribute to the military effort individually. Then Athens forced the members to pay her direct for protection or Athenian Marines would storm your city-state and impose a compliant pro-Athens regime. I don't see Americans, who are near sighted and unable to sacrifice going the route of austerity. I can see in the very near future the USA forcing the Europeans and others to hand them over protection money. I can even imagine right wing media and forums praising this arrangement.
"This is what economic policy in the West has become--a tool of the wealthy used to enrich themselves by spreading poverty among the rest of the population." Paul Craig Roberts
The USA is an empire. In history, for example Ptolomiac Egypt was Rome's biggest trade partner with an army as large as Rome's was but Rome was wary (as all empires are) of Egypt acting with any independence from Rome. This led to invasion then occupation and then subjugation. That is why Japan and South Korea will never be allowed to be on their own. Turkey, which has been an American client state since the 1950s, as soon as she got some wealth and stability started to chart policies in contradiction to America's wishes as would any independent nation. Turkey is now seen warily by DC and I can see Japan and South Korea following a Turkish example and enacting self interest policies that may conflict with America's. I am not saying that is a bad thing if Korea and Japan went their own way, just illustrating the reality of the situation and why America's MIC would be against that.
"This is what economic policy in the West has become--a tool of the wealthy used to enrich themselves by spreading poverty among the rest of the population." Paul Craig Roberts
See Jane Jacobs and Cities and the Wealth of Nations. We've been milking Germany/Japan since WWII. It's the USSA Empire. If there are US Troops in 177 Nations. Those 177 Nations are our Colonies. " That’s where Wall Street comes in. Big Wall Street banks have lent German and French banks a bundle. The Street’s total exposure to the euro zone totals about $2.7 trillion. Its exposure to to France and Germany accounts for nearly half the total. I do not know where Reich got that total—$2.7 trillion. A little investigation turned up nothing. That's a big number. You would think a number that big would be all over the news. As Reich goes on to explain, the problem is not with direct exposure (loans) to financially shaky countries. The problem is with derivatives." Nothing has really changed since 1919. It's a vicious $1.5 Quadrillion circle. Just waiting for the music to stop. Anytime now.
The Foundations of USSA Empire shake. Israel really shouldn't have tried to assassinate Erdogan...;}
#2. To: war (#1)
Why is it that any reduction in defense spending is always portrayed as reduction in troop levels.
#3. To: Capitalist Eric (#0)
Honest Socialism
#4. To: Capitalist Eric, war, mininggold, mcgowanjm (#0)
We are going to have to reduce the benefits and raise the age of eligibility for Social Security and Medicare. Cut and cap Great Society programs. Downsize the military, close bases and transfer to allies responsibility for their own defense. Or we are going to have to raise taxes – and not just on millionaires and billionaires, but Middle America.
#5. To: jwpegler (#3)
South Korea has 40 times the economy and twice the population of North Korea. Japan's economy is almost as large as China's. Why cannot these two powerful and prosperous nations provide the troops, planes, ships and missiles to defend themselves? We can sell them whatever they need.
#6. To: Godwinson (#4)
I don't see Americans, who are near sighted and unable to sacrifice going the route of austerity. I can see in the very near future the USA forcing the Europeans and others to hand them over protection money. I can even imagine right wing media and forums praising this arrangement.
#7. To: Godwinson (#5)
Turkey is now seen warily by DC and I can see Japan and South Korea following a Turkish example and enacting self interest policies that may conflict with America's.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]