Budget Cuts

Seeing as how there is a Democrat in the White House, the GOoPers have of course embarked on one of their periodic pious jihads against the federal budget deficit. The nation is awash in a sea of red ink, so ululate the GOoPers, and we will all drown like shrieking rats unless a great meat ax is taken at once to nearly every government program extant.

It is extremely telling that the GOoPers’ most consistent cry is that federal spending be rolled back to 2008 levels; the bone-ignorant racist Sean Klannity has been daily pounding that drum for months. Why 2008? Because that is the year before The Negro moved into the White House. The GOoPers explicitly want to roll back time, return to that Golden Age before the slouching coming of The Negro. That there dwells The Negro in the White House—this, these people cannot, cannot countenance. All and everything the GOoPers have said and done since the election returns came in on the evening of November 4, 2008, has sprung from the fact that they simply cannot stomach the reality of The Negro as president. And when the histories come to be written, that is what they will say.

However, in the spirit of bipartisanship, comity, and the new “civil tone,” I am now willing to assist the GOoPers in their crusade to cut federal spending. I have previously explained here why the United States does not need a military, why the Army, Air Force, Navy, and Marines can and should be abolished. I recognize that this may be too much for the GOoPers to swallow, all at once, and so my more modest proposal, for the purposes of this piece, is that they begin by wholly jettisoning the Marine Corps. The photo offered above, of Marines serving in Iraq, offers all the evidence that is required to prove that we simply do not need these people. That they are, in truth, and at root, Wrong, Embarrassing, and a Menace.

I am not the first person to suggest that the United States Marine Corps be swept into the dustbin of history. In the spring of 1987, upon hearing that Marines had been responsible for the most humiliating foul-up in the entire Clouseau-like history of American intelligence, Dr. Hunter S. Thompson, a more or less decorated veteran of the United States armed forces, proposed that the plug be pulled, forever and at once, on the Marines.

Frances FitzGerald, in Way Out There In The Blue, her masterful account of the American SDI program (born of a movie-induced hallucination suffered by Ronald Reagan), offers many fascinating asides, and one concerns the FUBAR that so exercised Mr. Thompson.

On March 24 [Secretary of State George] Shultz learned there had been a catastrophic security breach at the US Embassy in Moscow. Back in December, Sergeant Clayton Lonetree, a US Marine guard at the embassy, had confessed to passing classified information to a Russian woman with whom he had been having an affair. Subsequently a second Marine guard was said to have confessed to conspiring with Lonetree to allow KGB agents to roam freely through the embassy at night. Since the Marines had combinations to all the safes in the embassy, the KGB would have had access to every secret the embassy possessed.

The news threw the State Department and US intelligence agencies into turmoil. The entire Marine security detachment guarding the embassy was replaced, and, on the assumption that the KGB had installed bugs everywhere inside the embassy, officials communicated in whispers and wrote their dispatches in longhand to be sent to Washington in the diplomatic pouch. Counter-intelligence experts told Shultz that this was the worst intelligence defeat since World War II. Lieutenant General William Odom, head of the National Security Agency, wanted the embassy closed altogether.

In a classic display of displacement behavior, seventy US senators roared a resolution through Congress foaming that Shultz should cancel plans to travel to Moscow to negotiate an arms-control agreement with the Soviets. As by this late date in the wild and wacky Reagan presidency, Sane People had assumed control of the administration’s arms-control policies, those senators were told to go back to bed, and Shultz proceeded on his way.

Thompson covers some of the same ground as FitzGerald, albeit in more colorful language:

The new US Embassy in Moscow was revealed as a snakes’ nest of sex, violence, and disastrous treachery—mainly on the part of trusted USMC security guards, who ran utterly wild at all times on booze and marijuana with women of any persuasion they could get their hands on, including female KGB agents who gained access to everything in the building, from the ambassador’s safe to the CIA code room and the station chief’s top-secret list of every Russian in Moscow on the payroll of US intelligence. All were doomed instantly.

“Our people kept disappearing and our codes were constantly being broken,” said one diplomat, “but nobody could figure out why.” Every time one of the red-alert, fail-safe burglar alarms in the embassy was set off by KGB agents getting into Top Secret files, the sex-crazed Marine guards on duty explained it away as just another routine glitch in the brand-new, high-tech, maze of incredibly complex wiring systems.

It was the state-of-the-art electronics, which the hapless Republican ambassador couldn’t quite understand. He was just another one of Reagan’s rich pencil-necks who didn’t want trouble.

Not even the White House could handle it. The whole squadron was recalled at once and locked up in brigs from Camp Pendleton to Quantico, the main Marine base outside Washington. Two were charged with “espionage,” a death-penalty offense, and the others were busted down to latrine scrubbers.

Thompson then passes his Final Judgement on the Marines, with words that will hopefully be read soon on the floor of the House by Speaker John Boehner, Orangeman and Nazi-hugger, as he zealously pursues his party’s pruning of the federal budget:

The whole Marine Corps should be disbanded, finished off with other useless relics like the Sea-Bees, Hitler Youth and the Lafayette Esquadrille. The USMC has been useless as tits on a boar hog since 1951, when they led the famous “Inchon Landing” for Gen. Douglas MacArthur and saved America from total disgrace in Korea.

That was [60] years ago, and since then they have done little more than hang around foreign embassies like drunken peacocks and get the nation into trouble. The US Army’s 1st Airborne Division could eat the whole Marine Corps for breakfast and take the rest of the day off for beer and volleyball. The only solution to the “Marine problem” now is to croak the whole corps.

Abolishing the Marines would have no real effect on national military preparedness, and it would cut [a minimum of $29 billion] off the bloated national defense budget—which now must include the billions it will cost to raze the entire new US Embassy compound in Moscow and build another one—a huge concrete igloo with no windows, or maybe a deep underground bunker like the ones Albert Speer used to build. All we really need over there is a roomy place with no bugs or spies or sex-crazed whiskey-wild women from the KGB, or even the ghost of a US Marine. Res ipsa loquitur.


11 Responses to “Budget Cuts”

  1. 1 possum January 24, 2011 at 9:07 am

    Once upon a lifetime long ago I was a young man taught to be patriotic and to support the functions of our military. Then came the time to be part of the military and see from the inside just how very dysfunctional the system can be. The top heavy administration separated from the ground troops is among the worst of such entities. The ground troops (like so many Marines today) are mostly young and today uneducated (since the military continues to lower their standards).

    What can be expected from a bunch of wannabee frat boys on the rampage? Give them weapons and you have a mess of John Wayne wannabees, too. That our national security is not improved by this sort of “military” is beyond any reasonable doubt. Yet the inertia remains. The military-industrial complex rules the national politic these days. Much as we may hope for change there is little on the horizon to suggest real change is in the wind.

    • 2 bluenred January 24, 2011 at 9:18 am

      I found that photo to be extremely depressing. Remember back in the early, heady days of 1960s-’70s feminism, when we were all assured that full equality for women would bring us a kinder, gentler nation? Not. ; (

      Since your time the US military has become extremely and even diabolically proficient in breaking down the hearts and minds of new recruits so that they emerge from camp having been successfully inculcated with the bone-deep belief that anyone identified by their superiors as “enemy” is literally not human. Which makes anything that is done to them possible, and justified. This is the culmination of a 50-year program that began when studies showed that in WWII only 10% of American combat soldiers ever fired at other human beings. Because human beings, at root, really don’t want to kill other human beings. They have to be goosed into doing it.

      Thompson’s words are over the top, but then that’s his gig. And I did get a kick out of the fantasy of Orangeman reading the “tits on a boar hog” bit on the floor of Congress.

      • 3 possum January 24, 2011 at 9:38 am

        During my time in the military the entire process was aimed at making us into human killing machines. We were taught to dehumanize our “enemy.” We were forced into abject submission to orders. Every bit from the first haircut through advanced training was set up to counterract all those normal human responses which are genetic to most of us. That the military has only gotten better over time is a reflection of both their experience and the application of psychological advances. The situation is sad beyond words.

  2. 4 Julia Rain Wellman November 23, 2012 at 6:45 pm

    We should start with the marines. They are supposedly the toughest and all that nonsense.

    That picture is distressing for so many reasons. The hope, as you mentioned in your comment, that feminism would lead to a gentler world is a precarious one. On the one hand, slowly it is happening, I see it in the graduating classes that came after mine – the boys are less macho, more emotional – it is a wonderful thing. But at the same time, women feel that in order to be taken seriously, they need to become more like men. Even before adulthood, a woman who behaves like a man is considered “cool”, whereas a man who behaves like a woman is called “gay” “sissy”, etc. This trend is not changing fast enough, and it leads to sad sights like that picture, where women erroneously believe that being strong means being a warrior.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

When I Worked

January 2011
« Dec   Feb »

%d bloggers like this: