This critical thinker takes apart the NY Times' framing of US military cuts to explain what the political operatives of the US ruling class, the largest purveyors of violence on the planet, really mean when they look at military budget cuts, and how they see the future and the use of military force.
Seeking to dominate the entire planet by force is a losing proposition, but it isn't challenged in the New York Times' columns. In fact, the case for even teeny cuts to the military isn't so much made as assumed, as is the case for ending current wars. But the possible need for future wars is simply accepted, and the damage the wars do -- outside of budgetary concerns -- is either avoided entirely or reduced to purely U.S. terms....