Subscribe
Notify of
guest

17 Comments
Most Voted
Newest Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Bill Kupersmith
Bill Kupersmith
1 month ago

Ah yes, the Quincey Institute. Helping small nations resist bullies like Putin & Xi is now being ‘pro war’. Actually, it’s called collective security.

Christopher Michael Barrett
Christopher Michael Barrett
1 month ago

According to Barack Obama, America had no strategic interest in Ukraine.

El Uro
El Uro
1 month ago

Putin & Xi have

Cathy Carron
Cathy Carron
1 month ago

‘Never cared for Obama, but he was correct and dealt with the Ukraine by only offering non-lethal aid. However Biden, a man who Obama is known to have characterized as a man who never fails to ‘fxuck thinks up”, has shoveled $185 Billion to fight a useless war that had seen hundreds of thousands killed on both sides and it’s still on going. It’s just one more stink-bomb of a parting gift Biden leaves for Trump.

Andrew Holmes
Andrew Holmes
1 month ago

He certainly didn’t distinguish himself with a $1.5 billion bribe to Iran, his demonstrated contempt for our longest allies, Britain and Israel, Libya, and his idiotic support for Iran, which constantly was attacking our interests, to be the major player in the Middle East. I add Ukraine to his list of misjudgments.

rob clark
rob clark
1 month ago

Unfortunately, Washington DC never heeded President Eisenhower’s advice about the MIC given so long ago!

Naren Savani
Naren Savani
1 month ago

This is an excellent article highlighting all the pigs feeding at the trough

mike flynn
mike flynn
1 month ago
Reply to  Naren Savani

No, not ALL the pigs. Every cabinet dept. and subordinate agency has its own cadre of rent seekers.

Recall the story of planned parenthood getting $500 mil from US Govt, much of which is recycled back to DEM politicians as campaign money. Hundreds of similar situations.

Jerry Carroll
Jerry Carroll
1 month ago

Hold on a minute. The outgoing transphile Biden administration (moving toward the door at a snail’s pace) told us the nation’s greatest threat is “white nationalism.” And now all of a sudden it’s crickets on that front.

Dougie Undersub
Dougie Undersub
1 month ago

So, necessary defence spending helps the bottom line of defence contractors. Well colour me shocked.

Steve Jolly
Steve Jolly
1 month ago

I am of two minds about this article. The author is of course correct that these ‘think tanks’ are basically just bought and paid for lobbyists with a thin veneer of intellectualism layered over the top. They’re not even close to objective, and it’s also not limited to defense. There are ‘think tanks’ and ‘research groups’ for other things as well. Big pharma funds all kinds of medical research showing the economic costs of various conditions and implying how valuable a treatment would be. The farm and agriculture lobby funds studies about food security and pests and most of the research that shows GMO foods are not a threat. Big energy companies have figured out they can profit from climate change hysteria through higher energy prices and subsidies for building new ‘green’ infrastructure that they then control. Just about every major industry has its own groups that do the equivalent of this for their own industry, and quite a few other groups funded by the super wealthy to push their ideologies. This is, as the author concedes, how the game is played. In addition to competing for funds, these various groups may also spar with each other over various policies which might benefit or harm their industries, which brings us to the topic at hand.

Part of the impetus for the retreat from unrestricted globalism has come from the MIC. They’ve calculated sometime over the past decade that they can profit more from selling more weapons to the US and others than they will lose in terms of higher costs that will come with a less globalized economy. More countries buying more weapons means more money flowing into American defense firms. There hasn’t been nearly as much opposition to Trump and populism from them than from other lobbying groups except on Ukraine for obvious reasons. They are clearly biased, but just because they’re biased it doesn’t necessarily mean they are wrong. In this case, I mostly agree with the MIC. Most people consider the money invested in defense and military technology during the Cold War to be money well spent because the US won that conflict and reaped considerable benefit. It was massive defense spending and a significant nuclear deterrent that helped prevent conflict. The other side didn’t believe it could win and no war was fought, though we came close.

China is an even greater threat than the Soviets, and they have many advantages the Soviets did not. If we want to prevent a conflict, the only alternative is to make war such a daunting prospect that even Chairman Xi checks his ambition. Further, there may come a point when the US faces a choice between giving Chairman Xi something he wants or going to war. Keep in mind the list of things Xi wants already includes Taiwan, the entire South China Sea, several small Japanese islands, and some of the disputed area from their war with India in 1979. What do we do if he just marches in and takes something then dares anyone to stop him? Do we just roll over and give him what he wants? How sure are we he won’t then demand something else. Do we just cede the entire Indo-Pacific region? These are serious questions we should all be asking. There hasn’t been an all-in war between major powers since 1945, and since 1991 there’s been no credible threat of one. There is now, and it’s something that has to be considered.

Whether our goal is to avoid such a conflict or win the conflict when it comes, the prescription is the same. If you want peace, prepare for war. The US can’t outproduce China. There is no prospect of catching up in terms of manufacturing in the short to medium term. What we can do is invest money in keeping the technology advantage we have. It pains me greatly to say so, but as corrupt and inefficient as the system has become, it’s the system we have, and circumstances are such that we need it now, not after taking a decade or two to invest in domestic manufacturing capacity, breaking up big companies into smaller and more innovative firms, and thoroughly reforming the system to eliminate corruption and graft. That needs to be done, but it will probably take more than a decade, and we don’t have that long.

Andrew Fisher
Andrew Fisher
1 month ago
Reply to  Steve Jolly

Excellent and well balanced argument!

Ex Nihilo
Ex Nihilo
1 month ago

“It’s the United States public that has to start paying attention…”

The U.S. public will not be animated about this issue as long as 1) the military is staffed exclusively by volunteers who shoulder all the physical/emotional hazards of war thus insulating the majority of citizens from the human cost of combat and 2) the trillion dollar annual defense budget is funded with borrowed funny-money to keep taxes artificially low. In other words, most Americans have no (perceived) skin in the game. For them it is an abstraction appearing on their news feed that asks nothing of their courage nor purse.

mike flynn
mike flynn
1 month ago
Reply to  Ex Nihilo

Corollary to that statement is, institute the general draft and watch the MIC get dissolved by the electorate.

Andrew Holmes
Andrew Holmes
1 month ago

This article uses the standard ploy; if you can’t refute the policy, ascribe low motives to its authors. And to them it appears that money is the only reason anyone proposes anything.

El Uro
El Uro
1 month ago

Follow the money: the Quincy Institute, where the author works, got money from George Soros’ Open Society Foundations.
The Quincy Institute states that it is a nonprofit research organization and think tank that hosts scholars, participates in debates, publishes analysis pieces by journalists and academics, and advocates for a “less militarized and more cooperative foreign policy”. According to its statement of purpose, it is opposed to the military-industrial complex described by President Dwight D. Eisenhower in his farewell address.
Over the past four years, we saw the amazing results of this cooperative foreign policy.
.
Good job, ma’am

Andrew Fisher
Andrew Fisher
1 month ago

Well ok, but isn’t it the fact that China is hugely increasing its armed forces, as are the Russians who have the world’s largest nuclear arsenal, and that there is (inevitable?) geopolitical competition? It is China and I think not mainly the US which is trampling all over international law in the South China Sea.

There is a lot of mention here about other countries, which presumably want to make sure that they are well armed and defended against the likes of rogue states such as Iran.

There is another debate about whether the US is always spending these large sums wisely and on the right equipment to meet today’s threats and presumably tomorrow’s. I don’t think we can be breezily dismissive about the huge potential military significance of AI technology, which is massively gaining in power.