I see that the Washington Post is reporting that we have basically killed everyone in al-Qaeda of any consequence. They’re supposedly down to two leaders, one of whom isn’t popular. At least, this is supposedly true for the original organization that was based in Pakistan and Afghanistan. They tell us that we still have to worry about al-Qaeda cells in Yemen.
Interestingly, Yemeni President Ali Abdullah Saleh has signed an agreement to step down from power.
Mr Saleh signed the agreement in the presence of Saudi King Abdullah and other senior Saudi officials after flying to Riyadh on Wednesday morning.
Under the plan, the president will hand over power to deputy Abdrabuh Mansur Hadi in return for immunity from prosecution.
Mr Hadi is then expected to form a national unity government and also call for early presidential elections within 90 days.
The deal envisages that Mr Saleh will remain an honorary president for three months after signing the agreement.
In Riyadh, Mr Saleh pledged to co-operate with the new government which would include the opposition.
He also called on all Yemenis to be partners in rebuilding the conflict-torn country.
With any luck, the move will divert Yemeni energies away from anti-Western terrorism and towards domestic tussles for influence, power, and accountability.
What will happen to the Pentagon’s budget if announce we’ve destroyed al-Qaeda?
It will grow, of course. Always a new enemy. Always.
Iran might get the bomb! Or not. Oh, wait: We need to encircle China! What’s that, you say? The Pentagon’s budget is made possible by our being in debt to China? Um…never mind.
The irony is that there is, in fact, a gi-normous threat to national (and global) security staring us square in the face, and the Pentagon knows it. But since one of our two political parties insists that climate change is a myth fostered by greedy liberal scientists, they don’t dare mention it a whole lot on Capitol Hill. Sigh. We are so fucked.
It will grow, of course. Always a new enemy. Always.
That’s not what happened after the Soviet Union collapsed. People forget, but there was actually, within the last 20 years, a period when military spending went down significantly.
Yes, obviously, the defense contractors, top Pentagon staff, and certain Congressmen will make a stink. I remember back in the 90s, reading a report somebody submitted to Congress explaining that aircraft carriers were just perfect for dealing with “narco-Stalinists,” meaning the Burmese regime. That doesn’t mean they’re going to automatically get what they want.
We’re looking at the same situation as the early 90s: the global enemy we’ve been worried about disappearing, during a time when there is a broad consensus that we need to reduce the deficit in coming years.
I’m optimistic.
Never again.
Bet on it.
Never again.
They are on the take now and they will never stop unless they are forced to stop.
Intelligence money
Homeland Security money
Military money
Arms manufacturer money
So-called ‘contractor” money
And biggest/most important of all…secret money. You know…the kind that the intelligence services get by the trillions?
You are an optimist?
Does the mafia just “stop” when things change?
Of couse not. Alcohol goes legal after Prohibition? So what. There’s always drugs.
Is this hustle any different?
Yes…in one way and one way only.
It’s much, much bigger.
Bet on it.
There is a fine line between optimism and being a Ppllyanna.
You have erased that line, apparently.
You think they’re just gonna back offa the feed trough?
Hell no.
Not on your life.
Just look at the preznit candidates for all you need to know on that account. The candidates and the media coverage.
Not one of them but but Ron Paul…and I include Barack Obomb’em in that “not one” group…is saying anything substantive about the military money hustle. They’re just moving pieces around on the board in an attempt to look like they are actually doing something.
But they’re not.
Deal wid it.
AG
What is the point of you, Arthur? How did you come to post on this minor little blog that decidedly does not cater to your particular ideology or sensibilities?
I for one appreciate Arthur’s presence here.
I don’t think there is much point in visiting blogs that only cater to one set of ideologies or sensibilities. Especially if they get ban-happy with people who don’t fit in.
I don’t agree with a lot of the things AG says, but he usually makes me think about things from a different perspective.
Thanks for saying this. I think it’s well worth recalling the historical context in which these blogs were formed and in which much of their core readership (and posting) was established. Back around 2004 and 2005 there was a broad group of people who were very – and correctly – outraged over the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the emerging torture scandal, and the increasingly draconian economic and social policies being pushed then by the Bush White House and the leadership in Congress. This was a rather diverse and divergent bunch – including not only liberals, but others who shared the outrage from other ideological traditions. So you do get a few paleocons and libertarians (the sorts who are most likely to be into Ron Paul), as well as some actual leftists (representing perhaps any of a number of flavors of Marxian and/or anarchist perspectives), etc. It’s true that there are a number of us who don’t have a lot in common outside a few issues. And many of these folks (myself included) remain off and on as time permits believing that if nothing else we can plant some seeds.
“Back around 2004 and 2005 there was a broad group of people who were very – and correctly – outraged over the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the emerging torture scandal, and the increasingly draconian economic and social policies being pushed then by the Bush White House and the leadership in Congress.”
Yep. Now it’s 2011 and there’s a broad group of people who are very — and correctly — outraged over the war in Afghanistan, the emerging torture scandal (Baghram + drone executions), and the increasingly draconian economic and social policies being pushed by the Obama White House and the leadership in Congress.
Oops, sorry, I dissented. Now you’re going to ask me to leave, amirite? Hey, is your Democratic Party getting kind of small all of a sudden?
In 2004-2005, there as a tiny, itty bitty fringe that was outraged about Afghanistan.
I suppose if you’re counting the people who were outraged that the Afghan War and the war against al Qaeda weren’t getting enough attention or resources, we can bump that up to “a broad group of people.”
How? Why?
Ejmw seems to understand.
That’s why.
So does Don Durito.
That’s why, too.
You want a monochromatic blog?
Go play in the Daly Kos sandbox w/the other leftiness clones.
i disagree with Booman at least as often as I agree with him, but the fact that he has kept this blog open to dissenting opinions makes me respect his commitment to freedom of thought and that respect keeps me on the site.
AG
Never again.
Bet on it.
Never again.
Thank you for your naked assertions of your own superior vision, but they would have been a lot more plausible if you had offered any counter-argument whatsoever about how this situation is different from that at the end of the Cold War.
You’re just made a kinda-sorta-argument about why it’s impossible for military spending to ever go down.
Which is great, except that within the past 20 years, it did:
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/spending_chart_1990_2015USk_11s1li1181020_550cs_30t_30_Defense_S
pending_Chart
If you are naive enough to believe reports of this sort despite ample evidence to the contrary then there is no reasoning with you. he money continues to flow. It just takes oher channels so that it will not be discovered. let me ask you one question.
No…two/
1-Do you consider the intelligence community and its contractor satellites to be part of our military force?
2-If yu do…and bet on it, they are…I challenge you to find the true intelligence budget in the public record.
Redacted every which way possible. Like one of their own “public” disclosures.
C’mon, Joe.
Say it ain’t so.
Prove it ain’t so.
I dare ya.
AG
If you are naive enough to believe reports of this sort despite ample evidence to the contrary then there is no reasoning with you.
WTF are you talking about? I just showed you the evidence, Arthur: an example, from less than two decades ago, of the Pentagon budget being cut a significant amount. And in response, you play the “you’re so naive” card…and then you lecture me about evidence?
Arthur, do you see those words in my comment that are green? That’s called a link, Arthur. Roll your mouse…that is, move the little pointer thing on your screen over those words…and then click. See what comes up.
You can keep posturing all you want, but you just assured me that something cannot happen, and I’ve proven to you that is did.
No Joe, you have simply shown what the people who claimed there were WMDs in Iraq although they knew damned well that there weren’t claim to have spent on “defense budgets.” There are more ways to roll a porkbarrel than just one. If you believe anything whatsoever that the government claims is true about its disbursement of funds to the various secret, no-so-secret and totally above board but hiding as much as they can anyway arms of our lovely offense department your naiveté is off the charts.
Deal wid it.
AG
There was a black budget before the end of the Cold War too, Arthur.
To date, you’ve offered absolutely no evidence whatsoever that it increases AT ALL during the 1990s, never mind any evidence that it increased by an amount sufficient to cover the $100 billion per year decrease from the Pentagon budget.
Nothing, that is, except for the same titanium certainty in the infallibility of your gut that failed you so miserably on Libya and on Iraq withdrawal.
??????????
What “titanium certainty in the infallibility” of my gut? Whatchoo talklin ‘ ’bout?
Chickenfeed.
We’re talking about trillions!!!
Wake the fuck up.
AG
People forget, indeed. Yes, some domestic bases closed. There was also, within five years of the fall of the Berlin Wall, the Gulf War (1991), the intervention in Somalia (1992-3), and Marines in Haiti (1994). Then intermittent bombings of Iran throughout the ’90s, errant cruise missile attacks on “Al-Qaeda” that killed civilians in Sudan and Pakistan, and the US-led intervention in Kosovo and bombing of Serbia circa 1999. And a vast expansion of military bases overseas, particularly in Central Asia (before 9-11). And a bunch of new bases in SE Asia and the Pacific to replace Clark Air Base and Subic Bay after Filipino people power and a volcano threw us out.
Compared to the ’80s (Grenada – the original “let’s get over that irritating Vietnam Syndrome” invasion – Libya, Panama, and the Cold War), the US was at least as active overseas militarily post-Cold War, if not more so. But it was a Democratic president most of those years, who was smart enough not to warble on about winnable nuclear wars, so, yeah, people forget.
People forget, indeed.
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/spending_chart_1990_2015USk_11s1li1181020_550cs_30t_30_Defense_S
pending_Chart
Name checking military operations you didn’t like doesn’t change what we can see on that chart: military spending decreased significantly after 1990, dropping almost $100 billion – better than 20% – between 1990 and the mid-90s.
This was a thread about military spending.
Yes, some domestic bases closed. There was also, within five years of the fall of the Berlin Wall, the Gulf War (1991), the intervention in Somalia (1992-3), and Marines in Haiti (1994). Then intermittent bombings of Iran throughout the ’90s, errant cruise missile attacks on “Al-Qaeda” that killed civilians in Sudan and Pakistan, and the US-led intervention in Kosovo and bombing of Serbia circa 1999. And a vast expansion of military bases overseas, particularly in Central Asia (before 9-11). And a bunch of new bases in SE Asia and the Pacific to replace Clark Air Base and Subic Bay after Filipino people power and a volcano threw us out.
Compared to the ’80s (Grenada – the original “let’s get over that irritating Vietnam Syndrome” invasion – Libya, Panama, and the Cold War), the US was at least as active overseas militarily post-Cold War, if not more so.
And even given all of those things, military spending still declined. Not a little, a lot – a much larger cut than the $60 billion per annum in the triggers.
Someone noting these two events happening at the same time – a large decline in the amount of money going to the MIC, and “the US was at least as active overseas military post-Cold War” – might even conclude that a mono-causal explanation explanation of American military policy that seeks to explain everything in terms of the MIC’s lobbying power in the pursuit of more funding isn’t adequate to explain those events.
But, then, that would require treating the “I can quote Dwight Eisenhower!” argument as a hypothesis that might or might not be true to varying degrees in different situations, which the evidence might or might not support. As opposed to an eternal, universally-applicable, all-encompassing truth that is to be assumed.
Right on the money.
Their money, unfortunately.
Thank you…
AG
It’s interesting that you would use the post title “So, the war’s over then?” on a day when the US and Turkey order an evacuation of their citizens in Syria and France, for the first time, proposes a forceful humanitarian intervention on the ground.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/11/23/us-syria-idUSTRE7AM0QA20111123
I think the shiny new NATO-Arab League alliance might pick up another war before the year is out. I worry that it will be far more Iraq than Libya. Though I’m also not sure that there’s an alternative at this point.
I don’t think that either NATO or the Arab League wants another war at the moment.
If you think that there will be intervention in Syria, my guess is that Turkey puts the kabosh on that. (And Israel, by the way, is quite comfortable with Assad.)
The Arab League is not likely to want external troops in Syria for a variety of reasons. And the Syrian opposition very much want foreigners to stay out and avoid politically muddling a revolution.
The Arab League is also not likely to want intervention in Iran, and it is unlikely that the Gulf Cooperation Council does either. But the harsh words between Iran and Saudi Arabia will continue – Sunni-Shia split and all that.
The Reuters article is not terribly clear what it is that Alain Juppe has proposed or how it would work. And Turkey’s statements are more diplomatic expressions of frustration that Assad is not grasping the real situation than threats. Turkey stands to lose a lot (and so does Israel and Lebanon) from a full-scale war in Syria.
I don’t think much of anyone is itching for war in Syria, not even Republicans. (Their focus is on Iran.)
Agreed. Libya will very likely be a one-off situation, not a precedent. The Libyan people, the Arab League, the UN, and NATO all supported western military intervention into a Middle Eastern country. That is a very unusual situation, and I don’t expect to see it repeated any time soon.
Muammar Khadaffy managed to piss off a truly impressive array of people. How often do you see the United States, Saudi Arabia, al Qaeda, and France all on the same side?
One homegrown Jihadist throwing a fire cracker is worth a couple trillion. Then there is China we love being scared of them. Thats worth easy another ten trillion long term. We need a serious attitude adjustment or we are going to be broke.
Yup. Check out the foofaraw over NYC’s latest “terrorist.”
Another fool used to ramp up the whole terror thing. More money for the anti-terror coffers. Bet on it. Even in the face of ample evidence that he was simply a little soft in the head.
Sad shit indeed.
AG
Wow more bullshit give me your protection money.
We are being held hostage by our steroid addicted security forces. A Frankenstein of our own creation. Best we starve the beast.
“What will happen to the Pentagon’s budget if announce we’ve destroyed al-Qaeda?”
Nothing will happen. Instead, we will find a new Emmanuel Goldstein. I understand the President of Luxembourg is a brutal dictator. He has the nude bomb.
It is not a done deal until Saleh hands power to his vice president. And the regime and the people besides Saleh that are drawing the protests will still be in power unless the vice-president opens a path to change or responds to the popular will.
Yemeni energies, despite the Pentagon rhetoric have not been highly directed toward anti-Western terrorism. What was called al Quaeda in the Arabian Peninsula had a regional foothold and was attempting to exploit regional conflict to bring Saleh down. With the assassinations of al-Awlawki and others, the regional fighters remain but lack the global network that al Quaeda briefly provided them.
Saleh was using al Quada in Arabia as an excuse not to step down or undertake reforms–apres moi, les deluges sort of strategy.
The assassinations of the high-profile al Quaeda leaders in Yemen have taken Saleh’s excuse away. In one sense, he is now more subject to US pressure to step down. The US generally not tying its military collaboration with a single person but with a large part of the officer corps. The question now is how will the US use this relationship after Saleh (if he indeed does) step down. Complicating that is Obama’s situation with respect to the suppression of the Occupy Wall Street encampments. Something that, at the least, foreign leaders will (diplomatically) throw in Obama’s face.
There are hundreds of thousands of Yemenis who have peacefully demonstrated for ten months under violent attempts to suppress them and militant forces opposing Saleh who caught them in the crossfire of violence. Day after day, week after week, they have been in the streets of Sanaa, Tais, Aden and the towns and cities news media don’t regularly cover. They have said that they want an end to corruption, a workable democracy, and a better life. That has destroyed al Quaeda more than the drone strikes carried out by the US.
al Quaeda has only been extreme and violent. It hasn’t brought anything positive to people. It was bound to fade when people start wanting a modern life.
I hope we get out more quickly from Afghanistan.
That has destroyed al Quaeda more than the drone strikes carried out by the US.
This is one of the most important reasons why the success of the Arab Spring uprisings in Egypt, Libya, and Tunisia are so important to our own national interests, not just our values.
Bin Ladenism has succeeded in bringing down exactly zero corrupt, oppressive dictators. People power, in support of democracy and human rights, is up to three and counting.
What’s going to happen to the Pentagon’s budget? I suspect a cut by about $60 billion in FY 2012, maybe another one that size in FY 2013.
Beyond that, it depends on what happens between now and January 2013.
The US national security institutions are due for a fundamental overhaul and downsizing, something that has certainly been avoided to any great extent since the end of the Cold War. And there are arguments that the Cold War itself was a strategy to prevent the downsizing after World War II. Nonetheless, it is almost 65 years since there was any thought put into what the national security institutions of the US need to look like.
This discussion is going to be difficult to have in the midst of the Great Recession. What will the hundreds of thousands of uniformed military, civilian defense, and contractor employees going to do? What about the folks whose only experience is in defense industries?
So far, the neo-cons are vetting Iran, China, and Russia as potential future enemies. And the Asian subcontinent as a major worry. For them, having bases in Afghanistan deals with all of these. Regardless of the cost to keep those bases there. There is going to be a major propaganda war next year to make sure that they can keep their bases. By November 2012, the neo-cons hope you think that President Obama weakened America and sold out to its enemies. And watch for large amounts of money from the defense industry to be dropped into (1) institutional “good guy” media campaigns for the companies and (2) blistering negative political campaigns against any politician who has the temerity to suggest that the military budget can be cut.
I hope that the change occurs that sees AG being wrong, but for now I’m betting he’s right about the permanent institutions of violence. They always seem to find another sociological form.