While [Donald Trump] campaigned on, for example, a “trillion-dollar investment in infrastructure,” the chances of such a program being passed by Congress are between slim and none. So offering a de-facto trillion-dollar increase in defense spending is the next best thing, as it may well translate into enough jobs in key states to ensure a margin of victory in the 2020 election.
But there is also a deeper sense to this effort, as the US establishment seems to try to re-enact the 1980s. And for a good reason. It was quite literally the last decade of America’s greatness, the last decade in which the country elected a president by a landslide–Ronald Reagan in 1984–and the last decade in which it scored a genuine, unalloyed geopolitical triumph in the form of the collapse of USSR and the emergence of the US as the sole hegemonic power. Therefore it is no surprise that US decisionmakers want to use it as a blueprint for repeating the earlier success.
Indeed, if one looks at the origins of America’s 1980s triumph, it is easy to see similarities between the current policies and US policies of 1970s and 1980s. The prescription for success looks something like this: first, end unpopular costly quagmire wars, retrench, carry out domestic reforms liberalizing the economy, run up national debt through massive deficit spending, pump hundreds of billions of dollars of new spending into a revitalized all-volunteer force benefiting from a technological leap forward, and watch the geopolitical benefits practically reap themselves!
But it’s unlikely this feat can be repeated....
Unfortunately, there are few indications the US elites have accommodated themselves to the new, post-hegemonic, international balance of power, and the boost in military spending is a reflection of their efforts to recapture past glories. But it is unlikely they can reverse the process of US hegemonic decline. Indeed, this effort actually represents a still-heavier burden on the already weak US economy.SouthFront
US Boosts Defense Spending – To What End?
J.Hawk, Daniel Deiss, Edwin Watson
9 comments:
"But it’s unlikely this feat can be repeated...."
Says this person....
As the authors point out, getting into an arms race with China and Russia will be different this time around.
We are going to see because the new arms race is already in full swing — for control of space and cyberspace, development of hypersonic weapons, etc.
It's gonna get interesting.
We've entered a new area, the richest doesn't always win. The gold-rush mentality of the corporate-financial-congressional-military-industrial complex has blown trillions on hafnium research, Ospreys, F35s, and hundreds of payday boondoggle techs, not to mention payoffs to warlords, the black hole budgets of the black agencies, etc., etc. and has literally bankrupted the country - $20t debt, 50% living paycheck to paycheck, collapsing social systems, etc.
None of which is humanitarian, ecologically sound, of capable of generating positive geopolitical results. Aside from the fact that the world's most expensive and technologically sophisticated military has been defeated (thrice, now) by asymmetrical warfare.
"Has been defeated thrice..."
Please we could kill all of them in about 2 minutes....
Please we could kill all of them in about 2 minutes....
The US tried in Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Libya. Even toyed with using nukes in Korea (Mac Arthur wanted to nuke China) and Vietnam (Nixon considered nuking North Vietnam).
And in both Korea and Vietnam the US had lots of boots on the ground.
What's technically difficult is trying to do it without killing them all.... it's not easy...
That's what the US military tried to do in Korea and Vietnam, and is still trying to do in Afghanistan and Iraq. Easier said than done.
It's proved impossible to kill them all or permanently secure an area without doing so.
And the US is still occupying Europe, Japan, and South Korea.
It's like saying Mayweather beat MacGregor in a fight....
Post a Comment