Slashing defense spending while President Obama puts U.S. troops in harm’s way in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya, is an idea only a leftist could love, but there is a certain logic to it.
That’s because to American liberals and radicals, the purpose of government is forcibly redistribute wealth and dole out “free” goodies, not protect U.S. interests at home and abroad.
So it makes perfect sense to left-wingers to gut the nation’s defenses in order to hand out ever-growing mountains of freebies to a population increasingly dependent on government largess.
Congressman Barney Frank (D-MA) openly admitted in 2009 that he wanted to curtail military spending to make room for more social spending. (Quoted from The Nation):
The math is compelling: if we do not make reductions approximating 25 percent of the military budget starting fairly soon, it will be impossible to continue to fund an adequate level of domestic activity even with a repeal of Bush’s tax cuts for the very wealthy.
Frank, like nearly all congressional Democrats, won’t be satisfied until all Americans bow down to the federal Leviathan, so it’s not too hard to figure out what he means by “an adequate level of domestic activity.”
Incidentally, Frank and others on the Left are most comfortable when U.S. soldiers serve as globetrotting social workers, preferably under the command of the anti-American United Nations. This is probably why so many leftists enthusiastically support President Obama’s ill-defined humanitarian military adventure in Libya.
President Obama, too, shares Frank’s hostility to the idea of soldiers acting like soldiers, so it’s not much of a surprise that he is making the Department of Defense a scapegoat for the nation’s fiscal problems. Obama has demonstrated this hostility in many ways. He explicitly rejects the tenets of the Global War on Terror, which is why his regime provided the now watered-down military project with the odd moniker “Overseas Contingency Operations.”
Pages: 1 2