The Somali Pirate Story Proves Why It's So Hard To Dismantle the Military Industrial Complex

[Yavin4]

It's difficult, nearly impossible, to completely dismantle the Military Industrial Complex because it's so easy for the media to whip the populace into a paranoid frenzy over any international incident. Whether it's the North Korean missile or the Somali pirate story, you can trust the media to jump into full crisis mode and demand immediate military action regardless of the consequences, and any lack of immediate military action is seen as being weak and therefore unworthy of being a leader of the United States. Thus, craven politicians give in and write the Pentagon blank checks even though we cannot afford it, even though we have far more pressing problems that need our resources, even though massive military action is far from the wisest course of action.

Look at how much our current military budget has ballooned since 9/11. It's larger now than what it was at the height of the Cold War. Why? Because 19 nationals commandeered airplanes using box cutters. We don't need F-22 fighter jets on 9/11. All we needed was a damn lock on the cockpit door.

[David Dunham]

1. One Navy destroyer alone could sink all these pirate ships

[Alamuti Lotus]

6. 'don't use cannon to kill mosquito'

Would you match a Destroyer against a jet ski?

[Mika]

2. We've always been at war with Eastasia!

[Supersedeas]

7. this two minutes of hate is brought to you by Advertisers paid by Defense Contractors

[MadMaddie]

3. Agreed about the lock on the cockpit doors.

This goes back to giving the airlines the "choice" to secure the doors. They chose to go the cheap route.

The incident with the Captain though has nothing to do with the military complex...it has to do with toxic waste being dumped in the Somali coast and their fishing has been destroyed by Corporate companies overfishing. This does not excuse the Piracy but to stop these events from happening the countries that have committed the dumping and over fishing must pay to restore those waters.

[Turbineguy]

4. We'll be spending $14.5 billion on

an aircraft carrier.

For a commercial container shipping company to spend that kind of money on a ship they would have to be able to project earnings of $300 million per week.

That would mean the vessel would have to be able to carry 300,000 containers. The largest vessels now carry about 6000.

If McDonalds wanted to charge $500 for a hamburger, they should go take lessons from the Pentagon in methods on how to get people to accept those sorts of prices. Because nobody there seems to be saying "WHAT??!!?? YOU PEOPLE ARE OUT OF YOUR FUCKING MINDS!

[Alamuti Lotus]

5. or it's a story of how to bleed an empire with mosquitos & papercuts

if 19 boxcutters (on sale for $9.74/ea @ Office Depot) have cost over $1,000,000,000,000 in wars that have followed,
what would a few ex-fisherman on jet skis & speed boats cost? much as it would give a nice chubby for the keyboard commandos to consider, the ocean is too big to be patrolled by military force at the level necessary for a military solution (the cost-benefit ratio is astronomically awful, even for a military business scenario). successful 'crime fighting' should not be considered from the standpoint of reacting to individual acts, but considering the conditions and motivations for doing so; I can already hear myself being mocked for suggesting such a heresy, so I don't imagine anything will improve any time soon. Enjoy the headlines, keyboard-crusaders.

[jeanpalmer]

8. The only thing that will stop

the MIC is national bankruptcy. Imperialism and militarism is too engrained in the national identity. Plus, military spending provides a lot of economic stimulus. Politicians in both parties lobby for defense spending in their districts. It's quite a sight to see liberal Democrats lobbying for defense earmarks in their districts. The MIC also knows how to organize politically and apply political pressure. It has gotten so big it can't be defeated politically.

It will take a special type of President to change course. Someone who is committed to turning the military into an instrument of defense instead of offense. It would be a radical but necessary change. The only two people on the national scene I see who advocate such a change are Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich. Both want a limited foreign policy and a downsized military. And a few other Democrats support that position. Obama is not that person. He doesn't seem to have the conviction about the issue. But if he really wants to implement some of the changes he is prposing, like universal healthcare, he's going to have to drastically cut back on military spending. So far, he hasn't indicated a willingness to do that. Necessity might force him to do it.