You probably know about or have seen Rick Steves; he's the savvy travel guide
and commentator whose programs appear regularly on PBS. From his web site at
www.ricksteves.com, here's his take on the fear and fright being peddled by the
repugs to keep us shelling out the billions in military spending that help line
their pockets.
"Islamo-Fascist Terrorism" Hides Our Real Threat
I believe the greatest risk to our society today is not Islamo-fascist
terrorism, but the people who use that term to scare us. As the human, fiscal,
spending, too.
The United States spends as much on its military as the rest of humanity
combined: more than $400 billion annually (not including the hundreds of
billions of dollars for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan). These military
expenses are "off limits" as we sharpen our collective pencils to find $39
billion to cut from domestic programs. And yet, despite our already huge
even more military spending.
Recently, San Francisco Supervisor Gerardo Sandoval appeared on the Fox News
program "Hannity & Colmes." Frustrated by our government's budget priorities,
Sandoval suggested America would be better off without a military. Instead, he
said, "we should invest our money in our kids." Right-wing pundits pounced on
these statements, and even many prominent Democrats distanced themselves from
Sandoval.
Should we abolish the American military altogether? Of course not. But daydream
with me for just a moment: What if we gradually scaled down military spending,
chose not to rush off to foreign wars based on questionable motives, and began
perceived threat, al-Qaeda. Do Osama and his gang want to ride into Washington
Palestine, Christian armies out of sacred Muslim territory, and freedom for the
Arab world to control its own natural resources? "We do not negotiate with
terrorists," our administration gravely informs us. But forcing our interests on
the ever-more-volatile Middle East doesn't seem to be helping much, either.
Isn't it ironic that this planet's most overtly "Christian" nation is feverishly
pounding plowshares into swords?
So let's try something different. Imagine if we required our military to manage
with a budget no bigger than all the militaries of our hemisphere combined:
that a healthy sum to support the United Nations and our allies in their
peacekeeping work (say $60 billion a year). Grand total: $100 billion.
That saves more than $300 billion a year ($400 billion less $100 billion), which
dependence on oil, both foreign and domestic; a skyrocketing debt that allows
other nations (such as China and Saudi Arabia) to gain economic and political
leverage over our homeland; progressively violent weather and a rising sea
caused by global warming; and a lower class that's chronically in need of
affordable housing, good education, and reliable health care. We could even let
the wealthy keep their tax cuts.
And what if we decided that, rather than being outvoted routinely in the UN 140
to 4 on Cuba, Israel, torture, the international court, and issues of desperate
importance to the developing world (such as global warming, landmines, debt
to be supported by the UN 140 to 4? Instead of being at odds with the rest of
the world, we could join the family of nations in dealing with the pressing
problems that confront us all.
I have many friends in Europe named "Frankie" or "Johnny" who were born in the
allies in Europe gave their children Yankee names in gratitude for what America
meant to them. This can happen once again across the world: America can become a
their militaries to protect us.
The prospect of al-Qaeda attacks is frightening. But America is being held
hostage not by a man in a cave, but by clever people with a different agenda.
for our electorate to wake up and see the real threats to our
for-the-time-being-still-great nation. If we rose to this challenge, I think we
|
|