Military Spending Must Be on the Table
Click here to listen to this commentary.
This past week various news events once again made it abundantly clear that our foreign policy is an abject failure. Unfortunately, in spite of this, the administration is determined to stay on this destructive course, despite any past promises to change it. For Afghanistan especially, if ever there was an opportunity to admit shortcomings and change strategies along with leaders, this past week was it.
There really is nothing for us to win in Afghanistan. Our mission has morphed from apprehending those who attacked us, to apprehending those who threaten or dislike us for invading their country, to remaking an entire political system and even a culture. I remain highly skeptical that, as foreign occupiers, we can ever impose Western-style democracy on another country. Our troops have debilitating restrictions on defending themselves against enemies, which are so often indistinguishable from civilians. They also face dire setbacks in winning hearts and minds when innocents are mistakenly harmed, which happens all the time. We can never make friends this way; the tactic never works.
This is an expensive, bloody, endless exercise in futility. Not everyone is willing to admit this just yet. But every second they spend in denial has real costs in lives and livelihoods.
Many of us can agree on one thing, however. Our military spending in general has grown way out of control. This is largely because fiscal accountability in military budgeting is seen, by many, as weak on defense. This is absolutely wrong and a dangerous way to think. It is certainly possible for the military to waste money, or to spend money counterproductively, and indeed it has. But out of political correctness, the military has been getting blank checks from the administrations and Congress for far too long.
It is important to defend our soil, but let us defend our own soil instead of defending Europe’s soil. Our willingness to defend Europe enables their lavish social spending at our expense, while they criticize our model of capitalism. It is time they allocated the money for their own defense. The same goes for Korea, Japan, and other countries like Egypt and Israel.
It is also important that while our troops are in combat, our soldiers have what they need to do the best they can, even if we disagree with why they are there. It is an embarrassment that some soldiers and families have had to buy body armor at their own expense when billions are awarded to politically well-connected defense contractors for weapon systems that don’t work, are over-budget, and are past deadline. This is the kind of waste that needs to end. I firmly believe that there is enough waste in the military budget that we can both save money overall and at the same time be safer.
Of course, the obvious way to save money and be safer is to stop
meddling in the affairs of foreign countries and just bring our troops
home. This will happen eventually if our empire, like every other
fallen empire, insists on spending itself into collapse. If we
want to avoid this, we must look into ways to bring our costs under
control. Military budgets must be on the chopping block along
with everything else.
Read more by Rep. Ron Paul
- Stop Internet Censorship – January 23rd, 2012
- The NDAA Repeals More Rights – December 27th, 2011
- Mutually Assured Destruction vs Mutually Assured Respect – December 9th, 2011
- The Folly of Sanctions – November 29th, 2011
- Iran Sanctions Act Definite Step Toward War – November 4th, 2011





Tweets that mention Military Spending Must Be on the Table by Rep. Ron Paul -- Antiwar.com -- Topsy.com
June 28th, 2010 at 9:30 pm
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Antiwar.com, slashnewsslash and Nda Gell, Melm Pem. Melm Pem said: Military Spending Must Be on the Table: http://bit.ly/bC54yY [...]
pwi
June 29th, 2010 at 9:55 am
Will a democrat congress in an election year not fund troops in the field for a democratic President?
Has the Pentagon's budget ever gone down under any President since 1945?
Bruce Richardson
June 29th, 2010 at 1:13 pm
Congressman Ron Paul is so on target. What an America would emerge were we to have a majority of Congress think as Ron Paul.
Wildey
June 29th, 2010 at 3:29 pm
I know Ron Paul since the days at the Foundation of Economic Education (FEE).org. This man is a rock to his convictions. He uses President Washington's Farewell Address. "War is a Racket" by Two time winner of the Congressional Medal of Honor, Major General Smedley Butler USMC. "Not yours to give" by Davy Crockett and other books for reference.
"The only thing new is the history you haven't read yet". Ron Paul would be the first to tell you that what he says and does aren't new. They are FACTS: Period, not open for discussion.
Harsh Times
June 29th, 2010 at 4:25 pm
Basically ALL YOUR TAX money goes for the military. All social spending is just added to the national debt.
V for Vendetta
June 29th, 2010 at 5:16 pm
Congressman Ron Paul is 100% correct! America is now finds itself in the Greater Depression. The American people are groaning under the weight of military empire. We must put an end to the military-industrial complex before it completely destroys what is left of an already shattered economy. With the lone exception of Ron Paul, it is time to vote every encumbent in the Congress out of office.
V for Vendetta
June 29th, 2010 at 8:26 pm
Thousands upon thousands of GI lives have been wasted and hundreds of billions of dollars have been flushed down the toilet in Afghanistan. And for what purpose? Oil pipelines, minerals and the dope trade, that's what. Afghanistan…where empires go to die.
Jane Roe
June 29th, 2010 at 9:14 pm
He makes some ok points, but he doesn't like abortions so I'll have to ignore him.
V for Vendetta
June 29th, 2010 at 9:54 pm
He wants to abort the empire and its enormously wasteful, unjustified, immoral and murderous wars of aggression. For that reason alone, he cannot be ignored and we must rally to him.
RogueBuddha
June 29th, 2010 at 11:20 pm
WHATTT??? He wants to abort the empire??
He is not going to do it with that grin on his face, let me tell you that.
First, he needs a nice mask and a cape with a logo.
What kind of car does he drive?
Can he jump from rooftop to rooftop?
E. A. Costa
June 30th, 2010 at 12:08 am
First, Paul systematically ignores the economic connection between Capitalism and Imperialism, which Lenin, for example, had down cold.
Second, his picture of the pre-Federal Reserve US is a bad joke. That Capitalism was also imperialist, slashing and burning across a continent, and committing genocide, pillage, and theft on everything in its way.
Third, his Constitutionalism is inconsistent and naive, in both theory and practice.
Fourth, he wants to restore classic British Liberalism, which was in fact Social Darwinist and used law as a weapon.
That's just scratching the surface.
E. A. Costa
June 30th, 2010 at 12:14 am
'Read the following excerpt closely , Doctor Diaulus, and the work it is excerpted from. You might learn something:
"We must now try to sum up, to draw together the threads of what has been said above on the subject of imperialism. Imperialism emerged as the development and direct continuation of the fundamental characteristics of capitalism in general. But capitalism only became capitalist imperialism at a definite and very high stage of its development, when certain of its fundamental characteristics began to change into their opposites, when the features of the epoch of transition from capitalism to a higher social and economic system had taken shape and revealed themselves in all spheres. Economically, the main thing in this process is the displacement of capitalist free competition by capitalist monopoly. Free competition is the basic feature of capitalism, and of commodity production generally; monopoly is the exact opposite of free competition, but we have seen the latter being transformed into monopoly before our eyes, creating large-scale industry and forcing out small industry, replacing large-scale by still larger-scale industry, and carrying concentration of production and capital to the point where out of it has grown and is growing monopoly: cartels, syndicates and trusts, and merging with them, the capital of a dozen or so banks, which manipulate thousands of millions. At the same time the monopolies, which have grown out of free competition, do not eliminate the latter, but exist above it and alongside it, and thereby give rise to a number of very acute, intense antagonisms, frictions and conflicts. Monopoly is the transition from capitalism to a higher system.
If it were necessary to give the briefest possible definition of imperialism we should have to say that imperialism is the monopoly stage of capitalism. Such a definition would include what is most important, for, on the one hand, finance capital is the bank capital of a few very big monopolist banks, merged with the capital of the monopolist associations of industrialists; and, on the other hand, the division of the world is the transition from a colonial policy which has extended without hindrance to territories unsiezed by any capitalist power, to a colonial policy of monopolist possession of the territory of the world, which has been completely divided up.
But very brief definitions, although convenient, for they sum up the main points, are nevertheless inadequate, since we have to deduce from them some especially important features of the phenomenon that has to be defined. And so, without forgetting the conditional and relative value of all definitions in general, which can never embrace all the concatenations of a phenomenon in its full development, we must give a definition of imperialism that will include the following five of its basic features:
(1) the concentration of production and capital has developed to such a high stage that it has created monopolies which play a decisive role in economic life; (2) the merging of bank capital with industrial capital, and the creation, on the basis of this “finance capital”, of a financial oligarchy; (3) the export of capital as distinguished from the export of commodities acquires exceptional importance; (4) the formation of international monopolist capitalist associations which share the world among themselves, and (5) the territorial division of the whole world among the biggest capitalist powers is completed. Imperialism is capitalism at that stage of development at which the dominance of monopolies and finance capital is established; in which the export of capital has acquired pronounced importance; in which the division of the world among the international trusts has begun, in which the division of all territories of the globe among the biggest capitalist powers has been completed.
We shall see later that imperialism can and must be defined differently if we bear in mind not only the basic, purely economic concepts—to which the above definition is limited—but also the historical place of this stage of capitalism in relation to capitalism in general, or the relation between imperialism and the two main trends in the working-class movement. The thing to be noted at this point is that imperialism, as interpreted above, undoubtedly represents a special stage in the development of capitalism. To enable the reader to obtain the most wellgrounded idea of imperialism, I deliberately tried to quote as extensively as possible bourgeois economists who have to admit the particularly incontrovertible facts concerning the latest stage of capitalist economy. With the same object in view, I have quoted detailed statistics which enable one to see to what degree bank capital, etc., has grown, in what precisely the transformation of quantity into quality, of developed capitalism into imperialism, was expressed. Needless to say, of course, all boundaries in nature and in society are conventional and changeable, and it would be absurd to argue, for example, about the particular year or decade in which imperialism “definitely” became established….."
Vladimir Lenin
E. A. Costa
June 30th, 2010 at 12:40 am
The US is a predatory Capitalist warfare state.
The US is Communism for the rich, Capitalism for the poor.
The US is from each according to need, to each according to greed.
V for Vendetta
June 30th, 2010 at 1:16 am
1. Ron Paul does not oppose true capitalism (free markets). He does oppose crony capatalism (government protected monopolies that stifle competition).
2. The FED is not a government agency. It is a private banking CARTEL that creates money out of thin air, "lends" it to the federal government to finance enormous deficit spending, and then turns around and collects hundreds of billions of dollars in interest each year from the taxpayers for its "services." The FED is a gigantic ripoff Mr. Costa.
3. "his Constitutionalism is inconsistent and naive, in both theory and practice." Would you mind citing some examples, sir. I'll bet you can't.
4. "he wants to restore classic British Liberalism." What Ron Paul has consistently said he wants to do is this: restore a constitutionally limited federal government that; upholds and protects individual liberties and rights; upholds and protects private property rights; does not launch endless, unjustified, immoral and aggressive wars, balances its budget by matching expenditures with tax receipts. Now, Mr. Costa, what in the hell to you find wrong with that!
V for Vendetta
June 30th, 2010 at 1:41 am
Thank-you Mr. Costa. I had never read the above before. It is quite remarkable that Mr Lenin understood that crony capatalism (government sanctioned monopoly for gigantic corporations) is not free markets and in its latter stages becomes nothing more than an imperialistic and evil tyranny. Unfotunately, as history has proven, Mr. Lenin replaced crony capatalism with a system that was as bad if not worse. Now, sir, what kind of system do you propose to replace the one we presently are suffering under here in America? Hmmm?
E. A. Costa
June 30th, 2010 at 1:43 am
"True Capitalism"–hahaha. Go back to your utopian dreams, mon enfant.
The Fed is private, yes–but it does not create "money" out of thin air–in fact it does not create "money" at all. It creates debt credit.
Not that Paul or his Austrians or British Classic Liberals are capable of understanding the distinction.
You point four is terminally naive, like all of what Paul peddles, and what Paul says amounts exactly to Classic British Liberal Social Darwinism–under that same "Constitution".
That is exactly what leads to Imperialism and Faince Capitalism, it almost goes without saying.
But that is a complex subject and one does not have the time to instruct you or Paul.
And certainly not for free.
E. A. Costa
June 30th, 2010 at 1:59 am
USD does not even rise to the level of a fiat currency.
And, contra Paul, fiat currencies are operable under certain strict conditions.
What the US has is debt credit instruments used as currency, that is, a quasi-currency.
It is an aspect of Finance Capitalism that Lenin discusses, and in regard to which he was was ahead of Marx. But compared to Austria or the British Empire, the malady is much more severe and advanced.
Moreover, given the present collapse, including the total hollowing out of the genuine economy, substituting a commodity currency would be a complete disaster–especially gold, all of which would wind up in Asia in two weeks.
Solutions?
Things have gone too far for any simple solutions. There are a number of measures that must be taken even before getting to the point of longer term solutions having some little possibility of success.
If Obama had come in and done some of them immediately, there might be a chance.
He didn't, and if he had had the brains even to try he would have faced a Right Wing (and Paulist) outcry a thousand times more intense than what he faced being a Center Right Democrat Corporate Fascist Imperialist, which he what he and most Democrats are.
But discussing even the pre-solutions with Conservatives or Paulists or most of the faux Libertarians is a waste of breath.
It is easier just to sit black, enjoy the show, and laugh one's ass off. The aftertime promises to be interesting.
E. A. Costa
June 30th, 2010 at 2:44 am
You might read some actual history before you shoot your mouth off about what Lenin did or did not do.