Reply #59: NY Times Takes on Pentagon Spending With Two Hands Tied Behind Its Back

[Demeter]

http://warisacrime.org/content/ny-times-takes-pentagon-spending-two-hands-tied-behind-its-back

*

The New York Times has posted seven super-short columns on how to cut the U.S. military. All seven seem to support cutting the military in one way or another. That's excellent, and I don't mean to complain, but . . . .

The United States has the largest military in the world. We could cut it by 85% and still have the largest military in the world. And that's without counting all the military spending that we funnel through departments other than the Pentagon, spending that brings our annual total to around $1 trillion.

Seeking to dominate the entire planet by force is a losing proposition, but it isn't challenged in the New York Times' columns. In fact, the case for even teeny cuts to the military isn't so much made as assumed, as is the case for ending current wars. But the possible need for future wars is simply accepted, and the damage the wars do -- outside of budgetary concerns -- is either avoided entirely or reduced to purely U.S. terms:

"The lethality of the World War I battlefield -- a war in which we sustained 310,000 casualties in less than six months -- was far greater than anything we've witnessed over the last 10 years in Iraq or Afghanistan."

Tell that to 1.3 million dead Iraqis.