Real Security
Top Stories
Imperial Blues
December 2nd, 2009
..."[O]ur troop commitment in Afghanistan cannot be open-ended -- because the nation that I am most interested in building is our own."—President Obama
But Afghanistan comes first?
more »Featured Issues
Afghanistan: Financial Folly
December 1st, 2009
President Obama’s expected announcement Tuesday night of a 34,000 troop surge in Afghanistan is indeed a worrisome as well as costly decision. more »
Commander-in-What, Again?
If you're worried that this country is drifting inexorably, even under Barack Obama, from a republic to a national-security state with a President/Decider, you may have worried about his comment in Oslo that "I am the commander in chief of the military of a nation in the midst of two wars." He is, indeed, but how did the nation get into those two wars — and an endless war on terror — when, Constitutionally, the nation is the President's commander-in-chief?... more »
Afghanistan Policy Not Working, There and Here
September 11th, 2009
As today marks the eighth anniversary of the tragic September 11th attacks, it is also a reminder of the calamitous road of foreign policy that the Bush administration took us down shortly after. The Iraq War was of course an outright disaster, but Obama’s recent troop escalation into Afghanistan should worry progressives equally. more »
The Case
Shorter Tours of Duty in Iraq?
"With an effective date of August 1st, this means that not one troop will benefit from this deployment reduction until August 2009--seven months into the next Presidential administration." -- VetVoice's Brandon Friedman, 4/10/08more »
President's Security Budget Shortchanges Security
Actually, the president’s 2009 budget is way out of balance, throwing money at the military and on feared future terrorist threats while shortchanging the everyday security needs of the American people. The budget cuts homeland security grants to state and local governments by 48 percent — a whopping $2 billion. That includes a 79 percent cut in the largest state homeland security grant program, a 60 percent cut to firefighters, a 56 percent cut to transit security grants, and a 48 percent reduction to port security grants. Plus, the office that investigates waste, fraud and abuse in the Department of Homeland Security is being cut $7 million.
If the administration was really focused on homeland security, the Department of Homeland Security, with a proposed 6.8 percent budget increase, to more than $50 billion — would be able to adequately fund programs for first responders who are not only at the front lines of reacting to a disaster, but are at the first lines of prevention as well. The administration would also fund the dozens of other initiatives — from crime-prevention programs at the Department of Justice to youth programs at the Department of Education — that contribute to making our nation safer but whioh have been given the cold shoulder by conservative government.more »
The Facts
Costs of Worn-out Iraq Equipment High
The U.S. Government Accountability Office reports that it will take years and cost about $200 billion to repair or replace equipment that was worn out or broken in the Iraq war.
Pentagon Budget Consumes More than Half of Spending
The Pentagon’s budget accounts for more than half of all “discretionary spending”— that is, half of everything the federal government spends after paying for entitlements like Social Security and Medicare, and interest on the national debt. .
The News
U.S. Ramps Up Withdrawal From Iraq
August 31st, 2009
Senate Rejects Additional F-22 Fqunding
July 22nd, 2009
The Case
Our Wars Are Killing us
The tea-party crews don’t rail against Pentagon giveaways, nor do Massachusetts voters grumble about them. Unfettered Pentagon budgets pass in the tick-tock of a Washington clock and no one seems fazed when the Wall Street Journal reveals that military aides accompanying globe-hopping parties of congressional representatives regularly spend thousands of taxpayer dollars on snacks, drinks, and other “amenities” for them, even while, like some K Street lobbying outfit, promoting their newest weaponry. Think of it, in financial terms, as Pentagon peanuts shelled out for actual peanuts, and no one gives a damn. more »
“Us” versus “them”: on the meaning of fascism
People bandy the term fascism around sometimes without fully understanding what it means. Roger Tucker guides you through the roots of fascism going all the way back to the Romans. There is an uncomfortable examination of Italy's fascist manifesto from 1919. Roger Tucker, a Jew himself, examines two modern examples of fascist states America and Israel.
He reaches a very progressive and challenging conclusion.
Fascinating.more »
Latest from our Bloggers
dec
18
2009
7:19 am
7:19 am
Similar to Iraq, the use of contractors by the U.S. government in Afghanistan stands at unprecedented levels. In fact, contractors in Afghanistan outnumber American troops –and will continue to do so despite Obama’s troop increase in 2010. more »
dec
4
2009
5:52 pm
5:52 pm
On this week's edition of WHMP's The LiberalOasis Radio Show, Jo Comerford of the National Priorities Project discussed with me the fiscal ramifications of the increase of troops in Afghanistan, and expressed significant concern that the ratio of military to humanitarian aid in Afghanistan is currently an astonishing 95%-5%, and may be skewed even further by the new policy.
LIsten to the interview below.
For additional background, check out the NPP report, "The Numbers Behind the Troop Increase."more »
dec
2
2009
8:30 am
8:30 am
Without a doubt President Obama can deliver a speech. However, beyond the eloquence of his troop surge announcement that was given on Tuesday night, his Afghanistan policy misses key details –this should worry progressives. more »
nov
30
2009
10:40 am
10:40 am
I know this seems like low hanging fruit. But Sarah Palin is back, and along with her mindless blather has returned the chorus of "do not under estimate Palin" and/or "Sarah must be taken seriously."
Seriously? We're supposed to take seriously someone who just days ago was spouting nonsense (in the words of a conservative blogger) about mammograms and death panels, and only weeks ago was seriously claiming a conspiracy to move "In God We Trust" off U.S. currency? We're supposed to take seriously/placate/cower in fear of the mindlessly vehement incoherence of her followers?
We're supposed to take seriously someone who bad mouthed her almost-son-in-law for being too busy being "in the media" and pushing his own potential book to see his own baby, while sitting across from (arguably) the "queen of all media" herself, and one of the biggest book promoters in the publishing world, spending an hour talking about her book and her own baby who has Down's Syndrome and thus has special needs? We're supposed to take seriously someone who implied that her daughter's baby's father was using his physical assets to promote himself, who did as much of the same as she could get away with in Runners' World? We're supposed to take seriously someone too stupid (Yeah, I said it.), to even recognize the hypocrisy, let alone the irony, of what she was saying?
Are we seriously supposed to overestimate thier importance as much as they do themselves?
more »oct
20
2009
1:20 pm
1:20 pm
Cross-posted from Tomdispatch.com.
So you thought the Pentagon was already big enough? Well, what do you know, especially with the price of the American military slated to grow by at least 25% over the next decade?
Forget about the butter. It's bad for you anyway. And sheer military power, as well as the money behind it, assures the country of a thick waistline without the cholesterol. So, let's sing our praises of perpetual war. We better, since right now every forecast in sight tells us that it's our future.
more »
aug
12
2009
6:36 am
6:36 am
Recently reported in the New York Times, Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) hopes to win Senate support for climate change legislation by linking global warming with national security. Long time hawk and former Sen. more »
aug
5
2009
2:32 pm
2:32 pm
As I’ve written prior, the very expensive F-22 fighter jet program will likely end when Congress passes the defense authorization later this year. Its demise though came only after a hard fight between the Obama administration and Congress. more »
jul
21
2009
8:11 pm
8:11 pm
Facing a stern veto threat from President Obama, the Senate voted to strip funding for the F-22 Raptor jet on Tuesday. The contentious vote came after the House authorized F-22 funding, and amid weeks of pushback between Administration officials and members of Congress – the former looking to rein in wasteful defense spending, the latter backed by the defense lobby. more »
