Why becoming an EMPIRE is so costly...

The following commentary was broadcast by Michael Meeropol over WAMC radio on April 6, 2007.

DO THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION’S MILITARY ACTIONS IN AFGHANISTAN AND IRAQ HARM OUR MILITARY CAPABILITIES?

On March 19, the Washington Post reported that top military leaders were concerned that the demands of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have created serious problems. Quote:

“… the high and growing demand for U.S. troops … has left ground forces in the United States short of the training, personnel and equipment that would be vital to fight a major ground conflict elsewhere, …”[1]

In economics classes we note that even resources for the military are not infinite – choices must be made.[2] One of the reasons many members of Congress are critical of the Bush Administration’s decision to go to war in Iraq is that they fear it has reduced our country’s ability to wage the war on terrorism in Afghanistan. In other words, the resources are being spent in the wrong place to reach our goal which is finding and defeating the people who attacked us on September 11, 2001.

The evidence from the article suggests that other goals of our nation’s military have been slighted because of the failure to win the War in Iraq decisively, quickly and as cheaply as promised by the leaders of the Administration. General Peter Pace addressed Congress about this problem.

" ‘You take a lap around the globe -- you could start any place: Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Yemen, Somalia, Sudan, Venezuela, Colombia, Philippines, Malaysia, Indonesia, North Korea, back around to Pakistan, and I probably missed a few. There's no dearth of challenges out there for our armed forces,’ … He [Pace] said the nation faces increased risk because of shortfalls in troops, equipment and training.”[3]

Some of you listening may see this as another example of the “incompetence” of the Bush Administration but that is not the focus of my comments today.

My concern is with the implications of General Pace’s testimony – with his characterization of these shortfalls in troops, equipment and training as creating “increasing risk” for the nation.

Let me ask a question: How does our nation face increasing risk because we cannot move our armed forces rapidly to fight wars in all these countries?[4]

Not one member of Congress suggested to General Pace that it is wrong for the US to consider the ability to invade countries who have never attacked us and who have never behaved in a hostile manner towards us as essential to our nation’s survival. That is the language of an Empire like Rome talking about its restless barbarian populations, or the Soviet Union talking about its satellites, not a Democratic Republic such as the United States.[5]

Every May, my college’s ROTC graduates take an oath upon enlistment into the armed forces. They promise to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.” Unless Syrians, Lebanese, Yemenis, Venezuelans, etc. suddenly make a military effort to destroy the Constitution of the United States by making war upon us, I personally do not think it matters that the US military cannot “meet challenges” in these countries.

That should NOT be their job.

Here’s a troubling thought.

Maybe the fact that Bush is misusing the Army and Marine corps so much that they cannot fulfill what General Pace thinks is their world wide mission is a GOOD THING.

Maybe replacing Bush with someone who “fixes” the ability of the military to invade all 14 of the above countries would actually be a bad result.[6]

We the American people have to answer a question. Do we want to abandon the American Republic and embrace our role as a Global Empire with all its costs in terms of military preparedness and military casualties?

I would like to see a serious national dialog about that issue.

---

[1] Military Is Ill-Prepared For Other Conflicts

By Ann Scott Tyson
Washington Post, March 19, 2007; Page A01

[2] Virtually all economics textbooks introduce the problem and scarcity and choice right at the beginning. See, for example, Campbell R. McConnell and Stanley L. Brue Microeconomics (17^th ed): NY: McGraw-Hill Irwin, 2008, pp. 10-13. There they note that if society had only two choices, Pizza and Robots to the extent that the society used all its resources at maximum efficiency, the only way to have more of one good, say, more Robots, would be to give up some of the other good, in this case, Pizza. Sometimes in class we switch the choice to national defense goods and civilian goods. We can try to minimize the amount of civilian goods produced so as to maximize military goods – as the US and other combatants did during World War II – but we cannot produce ONLY military goods (if we tried all the soldiers would starve!) and even if we could that would be a finite amount.

[3] Washington Post (same as note 1)

[4] I was inspired to do this commentary and ask this question by an article by Chris Floyd: “Hard Truths for Hard Times” posted on the “Global Research” web site on March 21, 2007. http://www.globalresearch.ca/ After going to this web site, type in Chris Floyd in the “search” box about 2/3 of the way down on the left and you will be directed to all of his articles. Floyd presents detailed arguments as to why General Pace’s comments and the response from both the members of Congress and the media are much more worrisome than the alleged fact that President Bush’s policies have “depleted” our armed forces. If we leave out Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, and North Korea, that still leaves Syria, Lebanon, Yemen, Somalia, Sudan, Venezuela, Colombia, Philippines, Malaysia, Indonesia, and Pakistan, as areas where according to General Pace it is important that the US military be able to invade. And note, he stated “I probably missed a few…” Do we really believe that the United States will be HARMED if we do not have a military capable of invading and conquering all of these countries? How do most other countries in the world survive with tiny militaries compared to us – or is it only us who are the object of such universal world-wide hatred that we need to be able to conquer virtually every poor country on earth? The logic of global empire truly escapes me.

[5] For some extremely valuable historical background, see the following works by and about William Appleman Williams: The Tragedy of American Diplomacy, America Confronts a Revolutionary World, 1776-1976, Empire as a Way of Life (1980). For an excellent biography see Edward Rice-Maximim and Paul Buhle, William Appleman Williams: The Tragedy of Empire. (1990).

[6] Before anyone complains, I want to make it clear that I, too, believe that the Bush Administration’s neglect of our military personnel in terms of care and equipment in the field is virtually criminal. That is not my point. My point is, a smaller military with a mission consistent with a democratic republic not a worldwide empire is what we should all prefer. Not only will it cost less for taxpayers – it will also cost less in terms of world wide resentment and hatred for us as a country. And the most important point I would like to make is that we as a society LOSE on balance by attempting to become a world wide empire. True, some individuals and businesses gain dramatically but the average taxpayer pays more, the average citizen (potentially) sacrifices more (in terms of being wounded, killed or having a family member be a casualty) than would be the case if we remained true to our ideals as a republic and eschewed Empire.