The military want large appropriations, etc. They do NOT want war. Generals have kept the U.S. out of war on occasion.
But capitalism (crudely personified here) _does_ want a "friendly climate for business," and it is _not_ just left governments that often fail to provide such a friendly climate. And when a government fails to provide such a climate (for any reason) _discipline_ becomes necessary. Hence the endless war being waged by the U.S. And hence the stationing of u.s. troops in some 80+ nations around the world. Raghu's argument is almost a pure example of vulgar Marxism. Carrol > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:pen-l- > [email protected]] On Behalf Of Jim Devine > Sent: Monday, June 17, 2013 2:53 PM > To: Progressive Economics > Subject: Re: [Pen-l] Is Obama falling into a black hole > > Me: > >> I think he [Obama] and his advisers would like to have war without the > standard trappings, since they evoke protest. That's the whole point of using > drones, JSOC, stuxnet, and the like.<< > > raghu <[email protected]> wrote: > > Why? If the purpose of war is to feed the hunger of the military-industrial > complex, a low-intensity war is no good, right?< > > I don't think that the purpose of war is to feed the > military-industrial complex. Instead, the MIC represents one interest > group among others; it can't dictate policy, though of course it's an > important force. (Is it really a unified force? I've heard that a lot > of generals don't want a ground war.) Other important forces include > the pro-Israel lobbies, which may be more important in the decisions > about Syria. Part of the White House's job is to somehow reconcile > maintenance of the imperialist system, the status of the US as hegemon > within this system, and the interests of all of the various forces > pushing for and against war. One thing that would really put a spoke > in the imperialist wheel would be a return to a more labor-intensive > form of war, since it would revive the anti-war movement (unless a > clear and present danger can really be proved to people). > > In any event, drones, cruise missiles, JSOC, and stuxnet are > expensive, which should keep the MIC happy. Even maintaining the > current armed forces on alert is expensive: a voluntary army is more > expensive per soldier than the old conscripted one. A lot of it has > been privatized and thus more costly. I believe that my Dad's old part > of the armed forces, i.e., the U.S. Navy Supply Corps, has currently > been replaced by private contractors who are much more expensive > (though they likely provide better food). > -- > Jim Devine / "Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti." (Go your > own way and let people talk.) -- Karl, paraphrasing Dante. > _______________________________________________ > pen-l mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
