Neigborhood Watch
The Pentagon is shutting down a bunch of military bases and downsizing. Some personnel will be absorbed into other bases, but there is going to be a net loss of people working for army, navy, air force, and marines. While I can’t say that I’m a big proponent of military action, I do believe that sometimes you’re pushed into a fight (rather than going and hunting for one, read: Iraq) and when you are, you better have something to fight with.
I’m not Mr. Political, and admit that I don’t know even a fraction of what goes on in Washington (I don’t think Washington knows either, for that matter) but I do have some common sense. Here, in the age of Homeland Security, this strikes me as one more step in making the homeland less secure. And it scares me.
The Pentagon is making these cuts in order to save money and ease the national deficit. That would be the same deficit that was a surplus for the first time in decades, but became a deficit again as a result of the War in Iraq, which we did not have to fight in the first place. Old news, I know, but it wasn’t about Sadam and weapons of mass destruction. It was about bubbling crude (cue the banjos)…oil, that is…black gold…Texas tea. And who’s from Texas? But I digress. (cut the banjos). Now, the War in Iraq not only emptied the government’s change jar, but it emptied the military bases, as well. In more ways than one. First, it shipped way more people than planned over there, leaving fewer available to defend the homeland; second, way to many of those people aren’t coming back (and many of those who do return are getting the hell out of the military); and third, because of bully wars where soldiers are sent into the face of death for no real good reason (and without enough or proper equipment to outwit death) nobody wants to join the military. Even the promise of college degrees is not working very well anymore. People would rather scrape through a minimum wage job at Starbucks to put themselves through college nowadays. At least Starbucks gives you proper equipment to do the job. (And you the last thing you’re gonna find is fewer Starbucks).
So the military has already spent a lot of money and basically downsized itself (via death) through a war effort that is only turning prospects away and sent most of our protectors to the other side of the world (and keeping them there!). And now they want to save money by actually downsizing the protection that remains here at home. All this when “Homeland Security” is a mantra. I don’t get it.
If you’ve had signs of a prowler in the neighborhood, it’s probably not a good time to get rid of the dogs or stop paying your ADT bill. And you probably better leave the lights on more, just so they know you’re aware. Hey, look! Kim Jong Il just moved into the old split level rancher on the corner. He’s got something shady going on in his basement. Sex parties? Meth lab? Nuclear weapons? We’d better get a neighborhood watch going. Let’s just hope we haven’t already pissed off too many neighbors by crying wolf.
May 14th, 2005 at 10:23 am
As much as I would like to write a witty, in depth comment, I believe you have said it all. I have nothing to add…and everything to take away from this post. I’m not overly interested or well versed in politics and therefore try to stay just on the edge of informed. Reading opinions and insights like yours make things easier to understand sometimes…Thanks, Tony…Have a great day!
May 14th, 2005 at 11:16 pm
I know where you’re coming from. Please, either you or someone else may correct me on this, but it’s my understanding that the US military is not allowed - BY LAW - to protect the homeland. It is only for outside the borders, I think. The National Guard and Coast Guard are exceptions to this, obviously.
If I am right on this, it must be because we don’t want the miltary acting like so many others on this planet where they will take over the government.
Surely someone out there will correct me or clarify us on this. Your botom line, Tony, is right about what the war in Iraq has done to the overall health of the military. I bet that’s the last thing GW planned on.
May 15th, 2005 at 10:15 am
Except that GW didn’t plan for anything, it appears, except revenge on Saddam for trying to assassinate his dad. I thought WMDs were a good reason to look into something being done about Iraq. Then they picked on Saddam when they couldn’t find any because he supported al Qaida. Except that he actually rejected bin Laden. So, where does that leave us with a justified reason for an invasion? At least look at North Korea, who admits to having nuclear weapons, tests them and has promised to use them whenever they feel like it against the U.S. should we rub them the wrong way.
Well-said post. Well-said.
May 16th, 2005 at 1:12 pm
that’s an amazing analogy, Tony. I’m going to use it in the future myself , if you don’t mind.
The best way to understand the Bush Administration is to realize that they mean exactly the opposite of what they say at all times. I’ts pathological. For instance, Bush campaigned on the promise that he was a uniter, not a divider.He came up with the “clear skies initiative” which relaxed the restrictions on industrial air pollution. Then there’s “no child left behind’ which really meant “no child needs a decent education because my rich buddies need that money to build a new house in malibu”
So if the Chimp in Chief steps out of his bullet proof limo and says “Tony my pal, since the Lord Gawd almighty cursed you with such a tiny little cock, I’m gonna give you a MILLION DOLLAR AWARD!” -run for the hills because it means he’s gonna stick you with a 1 mil. tab! lol
May 19th, 2005 at 12:00 am
It gives new resonance to the word Hypocrite. Double speak for double your money.
I’m waiting for the Draft to come back!