Suddenly, Jonah Goldberg is worried that the United States has become too enamored of militarism:
He said of the military: "At a time when too many of our institutions have let us down, they exceed all expectations. They're not consumed with personal ambition. They don't obsess over their differences. They focus on the mission at hand. They work together. Imagine what we could accomplish if we followed their example. Think about the America within our reach."
That is disgusting.
What Obama is saying, quite plainly, is that America would be better off if it wasn't America any longer. He's making the case not for American exceptionalism, but Spartan exceptionalism.
It's far worse than anything George W. Bush, the supposed warmonger, ever said. Bush, the alleged fascist, didn't want to militarize our free country; he tried to use our military to make militarized countries free.
Goldberg is trying to split hairs here. It doesn’t matter what Bush’s rationale for increased militarization was. It doesn’t matter what Obama’s rationale for increased militarization is. Why? Simply put, intentions just do not matter. Outcomes and processes are not affected by the intentions behind them.
Neo-Cons are very fond of pointing this out to liberals on matters like welfare: reality doesn’t care what lawmakers wanted to be the case. Yet, when it comes to increased militarization of the United States, suddenly intentions are relevant.
At any rate, the simple fact of the matter is that Bushitler and Obamao are both cut from the same cloth. Both want(ed) to expand the size and scope of the military, both want(ed) to use the military to intervene in other countries. If one is going to be consistent, there is no point in trying to rationalize support for Bush increasing martial power while condemning Obama for doing the same. Their intentions may be different, but the consequences are the same.