[Dialogue] Haarly a lefty!

[KroegerD@aol.com]

Published on Thursday, March 2, 2006 by the _Seattle Times _ 
(http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/) 
The Real Threat to US Security 
by Rick Steves 
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 and  ecological 
damage caused by our nation's economic priorities grows, it's  becoming clear 
that we're addicted to more than oil — we're addicted to  military 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 military 
expenditures, these days it's hard to  get elected without promising 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 to take the name of our "Department of  Defense" literally?  
Let's be honest: Is there anyone out there who would actually want to —  or, 
more importantly, be able to — invade the United States? Consider  today's 
biggest perceived threat, al-Qaida. Do Osama bin Laden and his  gang want to ride 
into Washington, D.C., take over our government, and  turn us into an 
Islamo-fascist nation? Or — as his recent offer of a  "truce" suggests — do they 
instead want dignity for the Palestinians,  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's Canada — $15 billion; Mexico — $6 billion;  everyone from there to 
Tierra del Fuego — about $16 billion. Round the  total up to $40 billion. Add 
to 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 we could use to tackle not "Islamo-fascism," but  more-fundamental 
concerns: 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 
U.N. 140-4 on Cuba, Israel, torture, the international court, and  issues of 
desperate importance to the developing world (such as global  warming, land mines, 
debt relief and AIDS), we believed it was good for  our "homeland security" 
interests to be supported by the U.N. 140-4?  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 late 1940s. Every time I see them, I'm reminded that there was a  time when 
our 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 superpower in a positive sense — so  appreciated that other 
nations would fund their militaries to protect us.  
The prospect of al-Qaida attacks is frightening. But America is being  held 
hostage not by a man in a cave, but by clever people with a different  agenda. 
They use Osama bin Laden to scare us — even terrorize us — into  funding an 
agenda that's weakening our country.  
It's time for patriots to stand up to fear-mongering and broaden our  
definition of "sanctity of life" and "homeland security." It's time for  some courage 
and eloquence on the left. And it's time 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 could report that "the  state of our union is 
strong" — and it would be true.  
Edmonds-based travel writer Rick Steves (_www.ricksteves.com_ 
(http://www.ricksteves.com/) )  produces and hosts the public-television series "Rick Steves' 
Europe" and  the public-radio show "Travel with Rick Steves."  
© 2006 The Seattle Times Company 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://wedgeblade.net/pipermail/dialogue_wedgeblade.net/attachments/20060302/d173435f/attachment-0002.htm