Open Letter to the White House - Base Closings (or, How Not to Win the War on Terrorism)
Dear Mr. President,
For all my deep, profound and irreconcilable disagreements with you, I always assumed you really wanted to win the war on terror. Although I believe you're fighting the war in a very stupid manner - in fact not fighting it at all, and heading for certain defeat - I took it for granted that you at least thought your actions would lead to victory. You were, I figured, dead wrong, and more interested in oil than in security, but still sincerely pursuing the win. I was mistaken. I don't know anymore what you're really after in this war, but it obviously isn't the end of terrorism.
The Pentagon proposes to close 180 military installations, including 33 major bases, for a total loss of 29,000 jobs. The reason given is financial, an opportunity to save some money. In truth, I have no idea if those physical plants are at all useful for fighting terrorism, but even if they have no immediate usefulness, it's inconceivable that those facilities and personnel should be tossed aside in the middle of a war. Surely the bases could be refitted, and the people retrained, for life in 2005. But clearly someone in the military governing body has decided that, despite recent testimony regarding the overextension of our troops in Afghanistan and Iraq, we don't really need all this stuff, and it's more important to save money.
Now, I suppose it's possible that the Pentagon made these plans without your instructions - it's even possible that Mr. Rumsfeld participated in the process without your instructions - but I do not believe for one minute that the story is clear of your fingerprints. Nor do I suppose for one moment that you will raise any questions when these plans are submitted for your approval (let alone fail to sign off on them), nor permit Congress to do so. Given your ongoing emphasis on loyalty and secrecy, I hold you personally responsible for this lunacy.
You've never claimed to be a scholar, sir - you don't even read books. This, however, is a matter of simple arithmetic. Maybe I'm naive, but I assume you know how to add, so let's go over this carefully:
According to news reports, the Pentagon projects a savings of some $50 billion over 20 years due to these closings. On the other hand, your Iraq war has so far cost some $170 billion over about four years. That's a savings of about $2.5 million a ear from the closings, as opposed to about $42.5 billion a year in spending to date, or about a 0.00005% savings; if anyone in your office has a calculator they could tell you that in five minutes or less. Financially speaking, then, these base closings are less than negligible.
Furthermore, you have not permitted any Congressional oversight of how these billions in Iraq are spent. Even during World War II, the Senate kept control of the purse strings - Harry Truman and his committee were by no means lacking in patriotism, but they saved the United States many millions of dollars in military spending and we won the war anyway. Today, you and yours suggest constantly that anyone asking for a modicum of fiscal watchfulness in Iraq is some kind of traitor, and Americans continue to die over there while billions of dollars disappear into corporate sinkholes.
In short, Mr. President, if you really want to save military money, mathematics suggests that these base closings don't do the job. If you permitted competitive bidding for Iraqi contracts, say, and allowed Congress to make sure that military money is spent for military uses rather than for corporate bonuses, you could save a whole lot more. With some simple budgetary techniques, like shopping for the best value, that the average American family uses every day (particularly in the wake of the tremendous job loss caused by your administration), you could probably save $50 billion in two or three years rather than twenty. It still wouldn't be enough, but it might be as noticeable as a needle in a haystack, at least.
All of this, of course, begs the question of whether we should be in Iraq at all, or whether you took us into this war for good or bad reasons, or whether this war really helps eliminate world terrorism, or whether American efforts are promoting democracy. I lost hope long ago of making you see reason on any of these subjects. With these base closings, I'm about to lose hope of making you see any reason at all. Are you sure you've stopped drinking?
For all my deep, profound and irreconcilable disagreements with you, I always assumed you really wanted to win the war on terror. Although I believe you're fighting the war in a very stupid manner - in fact not fighting it at all, and heading for certain defeat - I took it for granted that you at least thought your actions would lead to victory. You were, I figured, dead wrong, and more interested in oil than in security, but still sincerely pursuing the win. I was mistaken. I don't know anymore what you're really after in this war, but it obviously isn't the end of terrorism.
The Pentagon proposes to close 180 military installations, including 33 major bases, for a total loss of 29,000 jobs. The reason given is financial, an opportunity to save some money. In truth, I have no idea if those physical plants are at all useful for fighting terrorism, but even if they have no immediate usefulness, it's inconceivable that those facilities and personnel should be tossed aside in the middle of a war. Surely the bases could be refitted, and the people retrained, for life in 2005. But clearly someone in the military governing body has decided that, despite recent testimony regarding the overextension of our troops in Afghanistan and Iraq, we don't really need all this stuff, and it's more important to save money.
Now, I suppose it's possible that the Pentagon made these plans without your instructions - it's even possible that Mr. Rumsfeld participated in the process without your instructions - but I do not believe for one minute that the story is clear of your fingerprints. Nor do I suppose for one moment that you will raise any questions when these plans are submitted for your approval (let alone fail to sign off on them), nor permit Congress to do so. Given your ongoing emphasis on loyalty and secrecy, I hold you personally responsible for this lunacy.
You've never claimed to be a scholar, sir - you don't even read books. This, however, is a matter of simple arithmetic. Maybe I'm naive, but I assume you know how to add, so let's go over this carefully:
According to news reports, the Pentagon projects a savings of some $50 billion over 20 years due to these closings. On the other hand, your Iraq war has so far cost some $170 billion over about four years. That's a savings of about $2.5 million a ear from the closings, as opposed to about $42.5 billion a year in spending to date, or about a 0.00005% savings; if anyone in your office has a calculator they could tell you that in five minutes or less. Financially speaking, then, these base closings are less than negligible.
Furthermore, you have not permitted any Congressional oversight of how these billions in Iraq are spent. Even during World War II, the Senate kept control of the purse strings - Harry Truman and his committee were by no means lacking in patriotism, but they saved the United States many millions of dollars in military spending and we won the war anyway. Today, you and yours suggest constantly that anyone asking for a modicum of fiscal watchfulness in Iraq is some kind of traitor, and Americans continue to die over there while billions of dollars disappear into corporate sinkholes.
In short, Mr. President, if you really want to save military money, mathematics suggests that these base closings don't do the job. If you permitted competitive bidding for Iraqi contracts, say, and allowed Congress to make sure that military money is spent for military uses rather than for corporate bonuses, you could save a whole lot more. With some simple budgetary techniques, like shopping for the best value, that the average American family uses every day (particularly in the wake of the tremendous job loss caused by your administration), you could probably save $50 billion in two or three years rather than twenty. It still wouldn't be enough, but it might be as noticeable as a needle in a haystack, at least.
All of this, of course, begs the question of whether we should be in Iraq at all, or whether you took us into this war for good or bad reasons, or whether this war really helps eliminate world terrorism, or whether American efforts are promoting democracy. I lost hope long ago of making you see reason on any of these subjects. With these base closings, I'm about to lose hope of making you see any reason at all. Are you sure you've stopped drinking?
posted by benshlomo at 3:05 PM
1 Comments:
Such a megilah you go to to tell such a man that he is stupid?
Not that it could hurt to scream at the clouds as they bring the storm.
It feels good to know you are doing something.
Personally, I agree with you. The people in power seem to be idiot's in every respect, except their application of cruelty, and their use of communication media in the dehumanization of those who stand in their way.
The storm troops are not assembled, but I fear they are on their way.
So maybe when they begin rounding us up we'll end up in the same detention center. We can tell each other some jokes, and keep hope alive that we have a part to play if goodness shall prevail.
Post a Comment
<< Home