Donald Trump was first to point out that America has a dismal war record. He went on to say that America has a terrible track record when it comes to winning wars. Even though Trump was right he was bombarded by "boo's" from an audience of Republicans who believe in a tried and true myth that America is safe because it has the greatest military war machine in the world and, as such unbeatable.
That being said, then why is it that America hasn't won a war since dropping the A Bomb on Japan in the 1940's? Is Trump right?
Kasic was also right when he chimed in and said America should not involve itself in other countries "civil" wars because they are not winnable.
If that's true then why does America continue to inject itself into civil wars in countries thousands of miles from our shores?
America does not wage war to win or lose or promote freedom and democracy. America wages war to make money; lots of it. NO, it's not what you think. Main street Americans are not making money from war. The people that profit from war are a small group of very rich and well connected Americans who invest heavily in what Ike called the Military Industrial Complex (MIC) made up a small group of very big corporations who are paid Trillions of "taxpayer" dollars to maintain a military that for all practice reasons, serves little purpose when it comes to protecting Americans and keeping America safe.
Trump received another volley of boo's when he reminded Jeb! and the other Republicans in the room that his brother George did not keep Americans safe on 9/11. (OMG! You could hear heads exploding.)
What Trump could have gone on to say; and probably would have been dragged off the stage and stoned to death, was that the U.S. Military did not keep America safe on 9/11.
Truth be told the U.S. Military was not able to stop the attack on the Twin Towers in NYC on 9/11. The U.S. Military was not even able to prevent or stop an attack on it's own Headquarter (the Pentagon) on 9/11. And, as ironic as it sounds, it was not the U.S. Military that prevented an attack on the White House on 9/11 but a small group of very brave civilian Americans who stopped the attack with nothing more than their bare hands and heroic determination.
No planes, no tanks, no battle ships or drones or the Trillions of dollars worth of hardware stockpiled all over the country played a part in the 9/11; the worse attack on American soil since Pearl Harbor.
What happened on 9/11, however, did make a lot of money for the MIC (Dick Cheney being one of them) who have their fingers in the cookie jar. When America responded to 9/11 it waged two (not one) wars in Iraq and Afghanistan that have lasted well over a decade and netted Trillions in profits to those who hold stock in MIC at the cost of the American tax payer. Just like the financial crash of 2008 Americans were forced to not only finance but even sacrifice some of their own to wage wars on people on the other side of the planet, that aside from a handful of fanatics with box cutters, were of absolutely no threat to the Homeland.
The simple truth is America is not at war. What America is involved in are other people's wars in other countries outside America's borders. The threat to America is minimal and hardly requires the military juggernaut taxpayers are asked to continue to bankroll at the expense of the poor, the elderly, the unemployed and uneducated, the sick and disabled, many of which gave all they had to fight these mythical wars only to return home in body bags or wheelchairs and treated like damaged goods.
How do we explain that given the Trillions of dollars Americans taxpayers are asked to give in support of the military there are countless veterans that roam the streets of America, homeless or spend months or years on waiting lists waiting to see a doctor or mental health professional?
Why is it that when the military cuts it's budget the cuts are aimed at those that fought the wars rather than those that profited from it?
Military families had lobbied furiously against the cuts, which the Pentagon says are needed to bring its long-term finances under control. Groups representing soldiers and their families argued the Pentagon should not balance its budget on the backs of those who have fought wars for the country for more than a decade.
Senior aides said the changes will only apply for a year, and that they did not want to make any future changes ahead of the results of a commission appointed to review military benefits and compensation in February.
"This will take us into next year when we get the commission on compensation and benefits to inform us on how to take the longer view on how to [get the necessary reforms]," a senior House aide said.
But, he added, "We had to do something now, so that was the compromise."
Lawmakers had proposed a $30 increase in co-pays over 10 years and a 5 percent reduction in housing allowances' rate of growth over three years, but the current proposal opts for a $3 co-pay hike for 2015 and a 1 percent housing rate cut.
Military raises would increase by 1 percent, instead of 1.8 percent, staffers added.
"This is the second Christmas in a row that national leaders have tried to cut military pay benefits," said Lori Falkner Volkman, a former prosecutor and spokesperson for the Keep Your Promise Alliance, an online coalition of military families and organizations.
"The president and Congress promised not to balance the budget on the backs of service members and this is a knee-jerk reaction to the lie that we're in a ‘bullets or benefits’ scenario," she said.
"Earned benefits shouldn't even be on the table while entitlement budgets soar and appropriation budgets are billions over budget."
The bill would allocate $521 billion for 2015. $17.9 billion of that will go to defense programs at the Department of Energy, and $63.7 billion for overseas contingency operations funds.
The issue is not that America doesn't need a strong military but how America builds a strong military that is not a money making machine for the few at the expense of the many.