Provided they were in the right place. And that place is the Pentagon.
Our fascination with killing people abroad is killing people at home. Literally. Every cent we spend destroying Third World nations worldwide is a cent we deny the Third World country within our own borders.
"Short of changing human nature ... the only way to achieve a practical, livable peace in a world of competing nations is to take the profit out of war."
-Richard Nixon
I've posted in detail on the obscene levels of Pentagon spending and perverse incentives top brass have to please death merchants. I am sickeningly sure I'll have to write about it again.
But it's worth talking about.
So, quick review of the spending offense that is defense spending:
• US military spending accounts for 46.5 percent, or almost half, of the world’s total military spending
• US military spending is 7 times more than China, 13 times more than Russia, and 73 times more than Iran (note from TWG: even without current war spending, our military budget is several times larger that those of Russia, China and Iran combined).
• US military spending is some 44 times the spending on the six “rogue” states (Cuba, Iran, Libya, North Korea, Sudan and Syria) whose spending amounts to around $16 billion.• US spending is more than the next top 14 countries at least.
• The United States and its strongest allies (the NATO countries, Japan, South Korea and Australia) spend something in the region of $1.1 trillion on their militaries combined, representing 72 percent of the world’s total.
What does this mean to the average citizen? Here's one example: The combined cost of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars is about $190 million per day Assume a few black ops and round up to $200 million. Four days of the wars' cost could freeze tuition at every public institution in the country.
(Numbers taken from this excellent piece by Robert Weiner:)
So what about Libya? The Wall Street Journal, not exactly a paragon of liberal thought, reports that, as of March 29, we've spent over a half billion dollars on our latest war. One hopes the oil there will pay for it, just as it did so successfully in Iraq (dripping sarcasm).
But hey, I understand that the Libya action has some pretty good arguments in its favor, so I'll limit the the discussion there to this:
If we are prepared to spend a half billion dollars in a few days to free the people of Libya from the systematic tyranny of Qaddafi, why don't we spend the same here on concrete ways to free our own people from the systematic tyranny of poverty?
It seems to me that what many have shouted is the highest law of the land mandates that we do so.
The US Constitution (read on the floor of the House at the insistence on our Republican friends) reads as follows:
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
Well, let's urge our lawmakers on both sides of the aisle to be consistent with that. The psychological need for consistency is incredibly powerful. More on that below.
But first let's break that Consitutional sentence down:
"establish Justice": we are fighting unjust oppression abroad that leaves people impoverished, disenfranchised and at the mercy of corrupt leaders. It's consistent to do so at home.
"establish domestic Tranquility": Well, one of the reasons we're fighting abroad is to chase the goal of "stability". We are now realizing that the economic inequalities causing rage all over the Middle East are a threat to stability. It would be consistent to address that threat at home.
"provide for the common Defense". What's the basic purpose of defense? To protect the lives and property of the citizenry. Both of these are more threatened by loss of jobs/housing/health care than by any foreign threat. It is consistent to protect them from immediate, real threats nationwide. Even if you buy the idea that the national debt is a genuine threat, it would be consistent to use defense funds to reduce it. That is real protection of lives and property.
"promote the general Welfare". That one speaks for itself. If "We the People" established the Constitution for this purpose, then "We the People" have an obligation to look after one another. Even if you accept the premise that the Framers were influenced by Christian thought, one of Jesus' commands was to "love thy neigbor". It is consistent for us to help each other in times of need.
"secure the Blessings of Liberty". Well, yeah. And liberty means, in part, the "pursuit of happiness", according to another great document, the Declaration of Independence. hard to pursue happiness if you are ground down by poverty from birth. It is consistent to ensure that everyone gets a fair shot at the American Dream.
So how did we get from spending cuts to the Constitution? In order to carry out the mandates of our founding document, we need cash. Pure and simple. There is a lot of cash going into useless projects in the defense industry. That flow is keeping us from carrying out what our Tea Party friends insist is the supreme and only law of the land.
Let's give our Constitutional enthusiasts what they want: a way to enforce their favorite law.
On to consistency.
The psychological need to be consistent is powerful
This overview of pioneering social psychologist Robert Cialdini's work on influence and persuasion provides some insight:
(all emphasis in citations provided by TGW)
Commitment and Consistency
People have a desire to look consistent through their words, beliefs, attitudes and deeds...
Good personal consistency is highly valued by society.
Consistent conduct provides a beneficial approach to daily life....
...The drive to be and look consistent constitutes a highly potent tool of social influence, often causing people to act in ways that are clearly contrary to their own best interests.
How does this help?
1. Public commitments are the strongest. An official who has made a public commitment to a position will be loath to change it, even if staying the course has a political cost.
2. If a public official has to change from a previous public commitment, supporters will see him/her as a hypocrite.
So, we need to look for ways to force the opponent into a no-win situation in which they loose some support either by pursuing or abandoning a position. (Conversely, we need to frame the positions we want in such a way that it is consistent for our allies to adopt them). The commitments made to the Constitution and its principles lately, and the language used to justify foreign military action, give us ample opportunity to do this.
So it's time to use all the psychological judo we can muster to grab and hold the terms of the argument. We have a chance to steal the momentum and use it ourselves.
(For more on persuasion, see my post How to stop losing: The politics of persuasion)