I once had the opportunity to spend some time with the president of the West Sahara people. We met in the Sahara desert at a time when his nation was at war to regain the land they were driven from years earlier.
One of the memories I have of that conversation which I’ve never forgotten was hearing that he would not accept the presidency until the laws were changed to allow the president to take part in combat (he had already been wounded several times before being elected), and that the law would also demand that every elected official must serve one month a year in direct operations.
I cannot help thinking that such enlightened thinking might slow down our own elected officials’ casual attitude and easy acceptance of the real bottom line of war.
The bottom line is the bottom line. There is no moral justification for this obscene amount of money being wasted by the United States on military spending.
Our country puts more money into military spending and defense than the next five countries combined. The $30 billion annually needed to end hunger could be taken out of this bloated military spending budget, and would achieve more global security than another bomber or two.
Not only would reducing our military spending and ending hunger make the world a far safer place. It might even make us all a little more human. And in the end, that’s a far better bottom line.