Brad here. I'm not sure Doug Bandow has thought
his latest proposal all the way through.
Today the U.S. underwrites the defense of wealthy nations across the globe. Washington should stop using the Pentagon as a global welfare agency.
Uncle Sam at least should charge for his defense services, as Donald Trump has suggested. America shouldn’t be defending its rich friends for free.
Bandow proposes that other countries should pay one to four percent of their GDP to the U.S. Notice that's not based on an accounting of services rendered; that's based on GDP...in other words, it's an income tax, not a fee.
More accurately, it's a protection racket -- the same racket the U.S. offers to its citizens, whether they want it or not; only this time without the supposed controls of a democratic election. (Strictly speaking, it's a tribute. Making the occupied country pay for its occupation has a long and ignoble history. Perhaps Bandow should consider why the U.S. Constitution has a Third Amendment.)
The proposal does graciously allow that other countries should be free to opt out of U.S. defense "services." How would that work for Canada, whom Bandow wants to charge $18 billion a year? Canada has only one national border -- with the U.S. And the U.S. does have contingency plans for invading Canada. Is Bandow suggesting that Canada will be threatened by the U.S. if it doesn't pay up?
There's also a bit of historical revisionism going on here.
Bandow seems to think that the U.S. builds military bases all over the world out of the goodness of its national heart; in a spirit of selfless altruism. Bunkum. The U.S. government builds bases around the world for its own perceived self-interest, sometimes browbeating reluctant countries to allow U.S. forces on their soil. Some countries would be delighted for the opportunity to evict U.S. forces. (Iraq for one, and quite possibly Japan, who have had to deal with U.S. military rapists.)
It's also a bit presumptuous to charge for "the nuclear umbrella," as though that were an unqualified good, rather than a deadly risk that the U.S. and Russia impose on the entire world. I wonder how Bandow would react if his next-door neighbor decided to store a few tons of nitrogylcerin for "defense," and on top of that, charge Bandow one percent of his income because he didn't need to keep a handgun any more -- the neighbor would provide "mutual assured destruction." This is a service?
At some level I wonder if this proposal is tongue-in-cheek, meant to highlight the silliness of the idea (being bandied about by Trump, among others). Or perhaps this is a devious way of getting U.S. troops out of other countries, while still retaining the approval of the right wing. Unfortunately, irony is a very dangerous and unpredictable weapon in the field of political discourse. As the saying goes, "when Congress makes a joke, it's a law."
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by timosman
Connect With Us