Safe from whom?

So, the ideal is more effective spending, but how does one decide what stays and what goes? One of the best examples of distorted priorities and twisted logic, of course, is US defense spending. Oh, sure, most Americans will tell you that it is important to remain safe, to be secure from military threats, but they don't often stop to ask who's threatening whom. What is more, they don't spend enough time thinking about what it means not only to be safe, but to stay safe and secure in the long-term. And, they certainly don't think about the price they actually pay for what it is they think they're getting.

In response to the attacks on the World Trade Center in 2001, one of the most cowardly acts of violence committed, a war was declared on terrorism. But like all the wars the US has waged on ideas before, like the war on drugs or the war on poverty, this one was condemned to failure before it even started. The US spends more on defense than the next 20 big-military spenders combined. That is, the next 20 countries, who even have defense budgets worth mentioning, all together don't spend as much as America. And what does America have to show for it? Nothing positive. The threat of terror is as large as it ever was. They have spent trillions of dollars they never had, incurring more debt than they will ever pay back. They are committing troops in remote locations that are either coming home in body bags or wounded in some way that they are hardly productive members of society any more (and of course, there's as good as no money to support them then). But most of all, most of the world simply sees the US as a big, tough bully that is simply trying to impose its will on other people. I'm not saying that they are; I am only saying what impression they make in more places than not (especially if they aren't a ally). So it seems reasonable to me to ask if you are really getting your money's worth. It doesn't seem so.

There are government programs that do no good and it is good and proper to reconsider whether they should be discontinued. The criteria for discontinuing, however, should never be political positioning, but instead, whether they do what they intend to do, and whether they are providing value for money. Anyone involved in the defense industry, I can assure you, thinks it's a good idea because they make inordinate amounts of money that they can then contribute to political campaigns to get the things they want. It is obvious that this is what is happening, but we find one euphemism after the other to simply lie to ourselves that it is the right thing to do. I'm not saying, of course, the whole defense budget should be eliminated, but if you want to trim fat, start with the fattest pieces.