Musings Of An Indie Writer| « | Calling Mr. 9mm. |
»
|
|
Wednesday, January 18, 2012
Capitalism And The Military
As little as your Curmudgeon likes the term capitalism -- it was coined by Karl Marx, you know -- it's the standard way of referring to an economic order in which the means of production are privately owned and economic transactions are largely free of government interference. It has no necessary connection to corporate forms, or corporate prevalence. As Thomas Sowell put it, capitalism is what happens when free people tend to their own needs and desires as they see fit.
Governments are hostile to capitalism.
Feel free to argue the point, but you'll be wrong, and contradicted by the entirety of human history, at that. There isn't one single instance of a government refraining from the sort of meddling and coercion that transforms a capitalist order into something far less desirable: typically, either a crony-corporatist system, or a welfare state. Even in the earliest years of the United States, government action at both the state and federal levels acted to restrict, deflect, and otherwise hobble free economic intercourse. No other nation has done better.
The great irony here is that governments like and need coercive power. Coercion is the sole method of governments; they know no other. But the rulers of a nation don't normally sally forth personally to bash in the heads of their adversaries. They hire it done -- and that takes great gouting quantities of what capitalism produces better than any other economic scheme: money. So in hobbling a capitalist order, the State essentially guarantees that it will have a smaller pool of resources upon which to draw when it comes time to pay its armed hirelings.
Consider the late, unlamented Soviet Union as a case in point. That supposed superpower proved at the last to be a hollow shell. Its military, as large and ferocious as it was on paper, was ill-equipped, ill-maintained, and generally unready in every measurable sense. Its greatly feared ICBM batteries were estimated to have at best a reliable-readiness factor of 25%. Its air force and armored divisions were constantly cannibalizing one system to shore up another. Their anemic socialist economy deprived them of funds enough for replacement systems, replacement parts, adequate maintenance, or anything else essential to military power.
Similar conditions now prevail in the states of the European Union. Those nations have "invested" so heavily in dirigisme and welfarism that their economies are at a standstill. They have virtually no combat power at all. A single division of United States Marines could probably conquer the Old World in its entirety. (Not that we would want the place; it's overrun with socialists, Muslims, and other assorted irritants.)
At this time, the armed forces of the United States are in a recovery period. The engagements in Iraq and Afghanistan have wearied our men at arms and have used up large fractions of their fighting tools. To return our military to full fighting trim, and thus retain our global military preeminence, it will be necessary to spend a lot of money.
The Obama Administration has already announced an exactly opposite policy.
From one angle, that was to be expected. Obamunism is explicitly opposed to American military dominance. We're supposed to apologize to the rest of the world for being the big kid on the block, keeping the sea lanes open and safe, doing what we can to punish the excesses of other powers, and so forth. Besides, military men don't typically vote Democrat, and certainly won't vote for a preening socialist who seeks to arrogate the credit for whatever they achieve.
But from another angle, Obama's policy appears self-limiting, even self-negating. A powerful military is the silent participant in every diplomatic negotiation. Governments understand nothing but force; they will yield to nothing else. Without the ability to threaten, credibly, to use military force, dealings with nations whose interests are opposed to ours are unlikely to go our way.
This was the case even during the Cold War years, when America and the Soviets faced off over the status of various protectorates and proxies. During those administrations when the Soviets could be persuaded that America would use force, if necessary, to get what it wanted, we prevailed far more often than not; during milquetoast interregna such as the Carter years, matters were quite different.
If our military is permitted to dwindle, such that its ability to "reach out and punch someone" becomes substantially less credible, other governments will take notice. Changes to regional and global arrangements, transnational institutions, alliances, and balances of power will follow. Would-be aggressors who'd been deterred by the previous fearsomeness of our military will move toward action. These developments will not be to America's benefit.
Given the beating the American economy has taken these past four years, returning the military to peak readiness and performance would put an unprecedented strain on federal finances. It would be necessary to shunt funds from various entitlement programs to military applications -- "from butter to guns." A Democrat administration, committed to the politics of special-interest coalition-building, will always find this distasteful. The Obama Administration, which is fully aware of the trends swelling against it, must find it all but unthinkable. But by its many measures designed to prevent an economic recovery and enlist ever more Americans as dependents of federal largesse, it has confined itself most straitly.
The one thing the great majority of Americans agree on, with regard to the federal government, is the desirability of absolute global military preeminence. That, too, will weigh against the Obamunists come November, no matter how loudly they preen about the deficit-reduction effects of their proposed cuts to the defense budget.
Our soldiers must be paid, housed, fed, and trained.
They must be adequately transported and equipped.
Their tools must be maintained, even as we develop new and better tools for them.
Not to be neglected: They must not be exhausted in futile efforts, from which American interests do not prosper, or non-military exercises, properly left to private parties.
The Obamunists aren't terribly bright, but they're bright enough to grasp those things. They've cornered themselves with their assault on capitalism, leaving them not even enough federal revenue to meet entitlement obligations without printing money. They certainly don't have enough to restore the American military to its proper condition. So they have to argue for its diminution as a matter of fiscal discipline. That might be the strongest of all indicators of their downfall to come.
Comments
I am forced to ponder the ramifications to Europe if we cut our military enough that we are no longer protecting their interests and they are forced to defend themselves once again. What country other than britain could do so at this point? Could Britain?
As to keeping open shipping lanes, I can’t see the logic in sending our Navy to keep the Straight of Hormuz open while at the same time we are blocking Keystone XL - a pipeline, not a shipping lane, that is almost entirely within our sovereign boundaries and the boundaries of a country who has been and will continue to be our ally for the years to come.
Not addressing the topic at hand, but these items are definitely tied to it.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 01/18/2012 at 11:51 AMMark Steyn had something to say about this… he suggested a “leaner meaner” military as a response to financial burdens we can no longer afford.
I think there’s something to this. Often times we fight our enemies with one hand tied behind our back. Often we bother with fighting the wrong kind of war.
America doesn’t have the manpower to fight extended ground wars. We haven’t since World War II. What we have is the world’s strongest naval force and air force. Obama is an idiot, he’s just going to cut as much money as he can wherever he can, without thought or care about tactics.
I say, cut our ground forces by an order of magnitude. Cut all our “small power” such as smaller vessels (Frigates, patrol boats and below) and our obsolete craft. However, allocate at least 50% of those savings to INCREASE our air power, in both numbers and technology, and our large vessel construction. Reorient our ground forces along the Marine lines, not as an occupation army, but as a quick insertion force.
That and change the rules of engagement. Free the forces that remain to the threats against us more effectively. If the enemy is a uniformed combatant, provide them with the full protections of international law. But if they are un-uniformed terrorists or spies, torture for information if you must. Be cruel. As evil as it sounds, it will provide a negative incentive to our terrorist enemies. If you hide behind civilians, then you could die in the most horrid fashion.
Make our military a weapon to be feared. A lightning strike that could come at any time, and be gone as soon as the sun rises. Roaming aircraft carriers loaded to the brim with the best technology and amphibious landing craft able to project power under far more lenient rules of engagement.
Forget trying to occupy and rebuild countries that harbor our enemies. Simply bomb them into submission. War is Hell, it’s not trying to make friends with someone, it’s destroying their ability to wage war until they yell “Uncle” and give up.
A leaner, meaner military could do that, and save us money at the same time.
But Obama cares nothing for any of this. In fact, if he could disband the entire military and get away with it, I’m sure he would. The liberal fantasy land of unicorns and rainbows will never match up to reality.
Posted by Xealot on 01/18/2012 at 04:31 PMForget trying to occupy and rebuild countries that harbor our enemies
My sentiments exactly. We need to maintain our ability to project force, quickly, violently, and decisively. But we HAVE TO learn what it means to go kick ass and then come home. Staying is not an option. You can’t force a people to accept a government that they don’t want wtihout force of arms. Unless you plan to stay forever, they are going to install whatever government they want once you leave. If you leave immediately upon acheiving your objective, then you’ve minimized your casualties and expense to the barest minimum. if you stay ten years, losing men and treasure along the way, fighting to keep a friendly government in place, you are only more likely to get an unfriendly government at the end. And your expenses will be too much to bear.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 01/18/2012 at 06:56 PMWhat’s more, hanging around for ten years and bleeding men and material also gives the leftist media countless opportunities to work their traitorous propaganda.
Posted by KG on 01/19/2012 at 05:49 PM
Comment Form
Commenting is not available in this weblog entry.
