We are spending roughly 2 billion dollars daily on our military. It is hard to grasp just how vast our military empire is and why we would need augment it with an additional 100K troops. Our closest rival spends a fraction of that amount.
There are approximately 2,685,713 men and women in the armed forces. We keep hearing that our military is being "stretched too thin." Could it be that we are not using our armed forces effectively?
As of 2003, the United States occupied military bases in approximately 130 different countries including Germany (69,395), Japan (35,307), South Korea (32,744), Italy 12,255, and United Kingdom (11,093). The list goes on and on. A Democratic candidate that proposes a strong defense based on 21st century military realities and a realistic assessment on how best to use our military empire, could challenge conventional wisdom, inertia and provide real national security.
Congress seemingly has given a blank check to the military-- again. The Congressional Budget Office has estimated the cost to be a 30-year commitment both to the soldier and his (or her) family at $99,000 per year--a figure which includes medical care, housing, and family benefits. Please someone do the math! Is there anyone in the Democratic Party questioning this seemingly unnecessary and costly expenditures vs spending the money on health, education, poverty etc.?
The "war of terror" again seems to be the blanket rationale for this massive new military cost. Yet, as Juan Cole an expert on the Middle East has pointed out recently, "Al-Qaeda was never very large or powerful, and it is increasingly clear that the September 11 attacks were a fluke. The fact is that al-Qaeda cannot overthrow the Egyptian government, or any other government, and cannot actually harm the United States or its way of life in any prolonged or serious way. This small band of 5,000 to 12,000 men in Afghanistan now largely killed or scattered..."
Is it possible to have a debate to answer the question why we need an additional 100K soldiers to fight a "small band of 5,000to 12,000... largely killed or scattered al-Qaeda members? Could it be that the resources have already been allocated albeit ineffectively?
The new Democratic Congress seems awkwardly unable to even bring up the subject. I think it is time for a review on how our military is addressing and adapting to fighting this "most important battle of the 21st century." What made sense for the cold war seems wildly out of date.
We could always start with something that doesn't cost much and doesn't take soldiers like solving the Israel/Palestinian conflict which as everyone agrees is at the heart of the current "war on terrorism."