Re: [Salon] Powerful GOP senator eyes ships, jets, nukes in defense spending surge



This should scare the hell out of anyone who’s not a Republican, and/or, Goldwater Democrat, both of whom are too far gone into militarism, to consider consequences. Such as the risks of nuclear annihilation brought on by the very US aggression they always support. Or their own complicity in the US War Against Russia, conducted as a US, so-called, Low-Intensity Conflict, with active US military/intell involvement, since the 1990s, as what DOD calls “real war”: economic, diplomatic, and Information War. In all its forms, to include kinetic, with using military force to “affect” perception,” such as bombing the Chinese Embassy in the former Yugoslavia, the Iraq War, Libya, support of al Qaeda in Syria, etc. Wicker’s proposal was, and is, a continuation of that famous “Conservative Foreign Policy of Restraint” as invented by right-wing historical revisionists of think tanks, and media platforms, funded by MIC connected Oligarchs, whose names are not secret, for anyone who can read. But Wicker reveals how that so-called “restraint” has actually has been waged against the American people, and middle class, to motivate them for US wars around the world, since 1898, under McKinley, and carried on under all Republican Presidents since. Which is not to exclude Democrats from complicity, especially “Southern Democrats,” in their “pre-Republican” form, like Strom Thurmond, Jesse Helms, and his “Traditional Conservative” side-kick, Sen. John P. East.

BLUF: ""Military action could mean that we stand off with our ships in the Black Sea and we rain destruction on Russian military capability. It could mean that," Wicker said. "It could mean we participate. It could mean American troops on the ground."

"Wicker went as far to suggest Biden leave all military options on the table.

"We don't rule out first use nuclear action," he said. "We don't think it'll happen, but there are certain things in negotiation, if you're going to be tough, you don't take off the table."

"Despite his strong rhetoric against a possible Russian invasion, Wicker was clear to emphasize, both with Fox News and in a separate CNN Interview, that he preferred a diplomatic solution rather than use of force.”

So did Hitler!

On May 30, 2024, at 11:22 AM, Todd Pierce <todd.e.pierce@icloud.com> wrote:

"Powerful GOP senator eyes ships, jets, nukes in defense spending surge

More on my “stand” against “Modern American Fascism,” in honor of the victims of fascism every Memorial Day, and against our fascist collaborators, of the “Conservative Movement” beginning as McCarthyism in the 1950s. And today, as the “New Right,” of the “Third Way Traditional Conservative War Party Front,” in open and full collaboration with today’s most notable fascists, Israel’s, whom US Conservatives are totally aligned with ideologically with, and strategically and tactically in carrying out “hasbara” missions. This is my pitifully small attempt to reveal how this operation is being carried our, the “cognitive theory” behind it, and the names of the people and groups involved!

BLUF: "Roy said his priorities in the next Congress are to cut spending to stop funding left-wing policies such as tighter emissions requirements for cars, securing the border and restoring a “peace through strength model” for the military. He said he wants a “strong, focused military, sparingly used.”

Calling it a “third way,’ Roy said: “It’s not isolationist and it’s not endless wars.”

So define that Chip? Here it is, in the attached file of Heritage Foundation’s "Third Way Fascism (TWF),” as described here at the link from a previous example: https://brill.com/view/journals/fasc/11/2/article-p187_3.xml?language=en

BLUF: "Within the field of fascism studies the trope of the ‘third way’ has served as an invaluable asset in terms of granting fascism ideological autonomy and originality; and this is why it is now widely recognised as one of the core ideological components of generic fascism. . . . They also continued to drive fresh ideological/political mobilities within and across seemingly bounded categories throughout the 1920s and 1930s, with diverse third-way propositions appearing as native solutions but then circulating across national boundaries and constantly interacting with context-specific ingredients to produce a constant stream of new thirding revisions and syntheses.7 Therefore, rather than approaching fascism as the outcome of particular genealogies of left-right dissident intermediation, rather than seeing it as the product of either dissident synthesis or total rejection of existing ideological binaries, I see instead ‘thirding’ processes as one of the key drivers of fascism’s continuous ideological and political reinvention, reproduction, mobility, and protean adaptability.8Studying these complex processes, rather than simply their assumed outcomes, can shed invaluable light on fascism’s continuous interactions with a host of contemporary ideological and political projects stretching from the authoritarian and the conservative right to the liberal centre, within and across different local contexts.

For further examples of that, see these: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jySSVc71Muc;     https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O83iLS91JzI&t=3701s;    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MsX3A3Ax4y8&t=87s

So here’s Heritage’s Third Way: https://www.heritage.org/global-politics/commentary/defense-foreign-policy-third-way:                                                                             BLUF: "Since before Putin’s first incursions against Ukraine in 2014, Heritage has unequivocally condemned his aggression and affirmed support for an independent Ukraine that can defend itself as a clear American interest. The war this year is a test—the first of what will be many—of our resolve against Russian and Chinese maneuvers to weaken Europe and marginalize the United States. Frustrating evil empires remains as good an idea in the 21st century as it was in the 20th.

"That’s why Heritage has supported and continues to support responsible military aid to Ukraine.                                                                                                                                  . . . Heritage believes support for Ukraine is important enough to prioritize over lesser budget line-items, like trillions of dollars in domestic payoffs to liberal special-interest groups.” (TP-with libertarian “buy-in” if it includes tax cuts for the Oligarchs who fund these “Third Way Conservative” think tanks and media platforms!) 

And here is how the “Third Way” is “sold”: https://responsiblestatecraft.org/2023/02/28/how-kevin-roberts-flipped-the-script-at-hawkish-heritage-foundation/ BLUF: "Senator [Josh] Hawley (R-Mo.) gave an excellent speech at Heritage yesterday. He was supportive of at least one of the military packages to Ukraine, if my memory serves, and he, I thought, put it really well. We want the Ukrainians to win, we want Putin to lose, and we want to make sure that we're not wrecking our budget and paying attention to the much more present threat, which is Chinese aggression all around the world.                                                                                  Interviewer: "Thank you. So you seem to be speaking the restrainers’ language on Ukraine, and so have other conservatives…."

Roberts: I'm speaking Heritage language.

Interviewer: "Well, I'll say you're speaking our language — restrainers, people all over the spectrum — about Ukraine. So have other conservatives, like Josh Hawley and Elbridge Colby, for example.” 

(Colby: https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2023/04/11/tucker-carlson-eldridge-colby-00090211, Quote: "Colby, who worked for Trump as a Defense Department official, is now looking to make that shift permanent. Especially since Russian President Vladimir Putin’s brutal invasion of Ukraine has drawn fresh eyes and resources toward confronting Russia, more in the GOP are coming around to Colby’s point of view. . . . It’s part of the mounting revival of the Asia First doctrine that the party championed in the aftermath of World War II, when the Nationalist forces of Chiang Kai-shek, a hero to American conservatives, fled to Taiwan in December 1949 as Mao’s communist forces won the civil war. The result was the rise of a vocal and highly influential “China Lobby” on the political right that demanded that Harry S. Truman withhold recognition of Red China and support Taiwan. Indeed, in 1951, Sen. Robert A. Taft, who was known as “Mr. Republican,” published a book called A Foreign Policy For Americans decrying Western Europeans for failing to pay for their own defense and warning that China was enemy number one.:

One sees all the makings of the cognitive campaign underway as historical revisionism to “reinvent” Conservatives, as “Restrainers, when they were the exact opposite!

So here is how Kevin Roberts "flipped the script,” always calling for a massive US military buildup, and “forward-leaning” military forces, like Trump and USMC Commandant Berger began in the Indo-Pacific, and Trump and Poland’s President Duda accelerated and escalated in Ukraine


Attachment: Heritage Foundation Total-War Militarization of America Plan.pdf
Description: Adobe PDF document



Where does Roy stand on Israeli genocide? Predictably, with J.D. Vance, Vivek Ramaswamy, and others of QI’s and TAC’s recent Trump campaign event, “A Foreign Policy for the Oligarchs,” in that he demands no “restraints” be placed upon Israel’s fascists to “Finish Them Off.” 

ICYMI: “Israel isn’t going away because America won’t permit it to be destroyed.”

April 16, 2024 

WASHINGTON, DC — On Tuesday, Representative Chip Roy (TX-21) and Heritage Foundation VP for Foreign Policy and National Defense Victoria Coates penned an op-ed calling on the Biden administration and Congress to support Israel.


https://www.heritage.org/press/china-policy-experts-examine-ccp-threat-heritages-leadership-summit-april.                                                                                                   "An all-star panel featuring Rep. Chip Roy, R-Texas, and China policy experts Michael Pillsbury, Peter Schweizer, and Ambassador Robert Lighthizer will explore the myriad of issues related to China and how the United States should go about combating the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). Conservative commentator Liz Wheeler will moderate the conversation.                                                                         . . .                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                This week, Heritage published a groundbreaking report, “Winning the New Cold War: A Plan for Countering China,” detailing a comprehensive set of policy recommendations for how America should respond to the threat from the CCP.  

“It is time to acknowledge reality: The United States is in a new Cold War with the People’s Republic of China,” Heritage President Kevin Roberts said. “It is past time for a plan that serves American interests and protects the American people and economy from malicious actions by the CCP. We’re bringing together the best and brightest at our Leadership Summit for this very purpose—to make sure our fellow citizens understand the threat we face and how to respond.” 

And the “Third Way” of so-called “Realism and Restraint” begins here, the first stage of Project 2025 that the “Third Way Conservatives” of QI and TAC, et al., demand. 


https://www.defensenews.com/congress/budget/2024/05/29/powerful-gop-senator-eyes-ships-jets-nukes-in-defense-spending-surge/?utm_campaign=dfn-ebb&utm_medium=email&utm_source=sailthru#

Powerful GOP senator eyes ships, jets, nukes in defense spending surge

The top Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee has released a detailed plan calling for an additional $55 billion above the fiscal 2025 defense spending caps imposed under last year’s debt ceiling deal.

The plan, unveiled Wednesday by Sen. Roger Wicker, R-Miss., would ultimately raise U.S. defense spending from 3% to 5% of gross domestic product in the years ahead, a massive surge likely to come in well above $1 trillion per year.

Much of the proposed long-term spending in Wicker’s plan would go toward revitalizing the struggling defense-industrial base, which the senator argues is necessary to successfully counter an “axis of aggressors” comprised of China, Russia, Iran and North Korea.

He hopes additional industrial base funding will enable the U.S. to drastically bolster the size of its Navy and Air Force fleets as well as munitions production and the nuclear arsenal.

“This will enable the United States to fix our failing defense infrastructure, field a new generation of equipment and maintain American technological leadership,” Wicker wrote in the proposal. “This [3%] of GDP spent on defense is nearing historic lows not seen since the peace dividend of the 1990s.”

The document lays out many of Wicker’s short- and long-term priorities as the Senate Armed Services Committee prepares to mark up its FY25 defense policy bill next month. The House Armed Services Committee advanced its defense policy legislation last week, an $883.7 billion bill in line with the FY25 defense spending caps lawmakers agreed to last year.

Some of the additional $55 billion Wicker seeks to add above the FY25 spending caps mirrors the unfunded priorities lists each military service and combatant command submitted to Congress earlier this year.

For instance, Wicker wants an additional $2 billion to “disperse and harden [U.S. Indo-Pacific Command] infrastructure,” another $2.25 billion for “Guam disaster recovery and resilient rebuild,” and $500 million for a Guam defense system.

Additionally, Wicker is seeking $500 million to create “regional contingency stockpiles” to help Indo-Pacific Command overcome logistical challenges in the event of a conflict in the area.

“Prepositioned stocks generally must be expanded in the western Pacific,” the document notes. “In particular, the Army Prepositioned Stocks program has been perennially underfunded — by almost $1 billion this year.”

Wicker’s proposal also calls on the Pentagon to create a weapons stockpile in Taiwan, which Congress authorized in the FY23 defense bill, mirroring the U.S. war reserve stockpile in Israel.

It also seeks to allocate $1.5 billion in replenishment funds to allow the Defense Department to send Taiwan weapons from U.S. stockpiles. The foreign aid bill Congress passed in April included $1.9 billion in FY24 funding for the department to do this, but the House defense policy bill did not include an additional $500 million in FY25 Taiwan aid that the Pentagon asked for as part of its proposed Indo-Pacific Security Initiative.

Sens. Jon Tester, D-Mont., and Susan Collins, R-Maine, lead the defense appropriations panel and have also said they want to increase FY25 defense spending above the debt ceiling deal’s FY25 spending caps.

But Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., who chairs the Senate Appropriations Committee, said earlier this month that if defense spending rises, she will insist that nondefense spending also grow, which Republicans have historically opposed.

Total defense spending for FY24 came in at $953 billion following passage of the foreign aid bill, well above the $886 billion national security caps Congress laid out in the base budget for that fiscal year.

The 5% target

Over the longer term, Wicker’s proposal to increase defense spending to 5% of GDP places particular emphasis on growing the defense-industrial base.

“The defense industrial base itself is a weapon,” the proposal states. “The Department of Defense needs a much larger and more capable workforce for defense industrial base issues.”

For surface ships, the Navy needs to embark immediately upon a comprehensive industrial base investment strategy, just as it has done for the submarine industrial base,” it continues. “As with the submarine industrial base, this investment strategy will require around $20 billion over a period of five years.”

These funds would go toward “extensive funding for workforce development, supply chain resiliency, long-lead item production, development and insertion of additive manufacturing techniques, supplier base diversification and shipyard modernization and expansion.”

Wicker also calls on the Navy to “begin work on a fifth nuclear shipyard, which will likely cost over $20 billion.”

The document faults the Navy for failing “to provide a consistent demand signal to industry” but argues that with the right funding it can meet and even exceed the 355-ship goal by 2035.

Similarly, it notes “the Air Force plans to retire almost 1,000 aircraft over the next five years, including nearly 400 fighters.”

“It has not replaced its aircraft fast enough to keep the fleet from shrinking precipitously, even as the mission demands remain steady or increase,” it reads.

Accordingly, Wicker’s proposal calls on the Air Force to purchase “at least 340″ aircraft above its current plan over the next five years while accelerating production of B-21 bombers and doubling its planned quantity from 100 to 200.

“The Air Force should aim to arrest its shrinking fighter force structure by reversing its plans to retire capable F-15E and F-22 fighters over the next five years and by purchasing at least 340 aircraft above its current plans over the next five years,” the proposal notes.

Additionally, the document cites “a well-known shortage of munitions that will require both additional funding and additional creativity to remedy.” It calls for an additional $7 billion to $10 billion annually for the munitions-industrial base over the next decade.

The document also details a series of industrial base recommendations to grow the U.S. nuclear arsenal. These include extended production of the Columbia-class ballistic missile submarine; setting up NATO-style nuclear burden-sharing agreements with Australia, Japan and South Korea; and restoring nuclear capability on B-52 bombers.

Wicker has also co-sponsored a bill to expand the U.S. nuclear arsenal. The legislation’s other sponsor, Sen. Deb Fischer, R-Neb., hopes to include it in the Senate’s FY25 defense policy bill.

Bryant Harris is the Congress reporter for Defense News. He has covered U.S. foreign policy, national security, international affairs and politics in Washington since 2014. He has also written for Foreign Policy, Al-Monitor, Al Jazeera English and IPS News.


Share:




This archive was generated by a fusion of Pipermail (Mailman edition) and MHonArc.