Support Russia Insider - Go Ad-Free!

Russia Has Unfair Military Advantage Because It’s Not Bombing Seven Countries, Notes US Smartypants

The Pentagon is forced to spend large sums to bomb defenseless brown people in faraway lands. Meanwhile, Russia and China modernize their armies. That's not fair

MORE: Military

This post first appeared on Russia Insider

Russia and China are "making gains" on U.S. military power, bemoans a deliciously obtuse commentary published in The Hill

This is especially worrisome because as the author explains, "the United States still outspends its rivals on the military, with a roughly $600 billion budget that is three times as much as Beijing's and more than six times as much as Moscow's."

<figcaption>Destination: Not Somalia</figcaption>
Destination: Not Somalia

This is the epitome of The American Mentality (we are allowed to make gross generalizations about Americans, because we hold an American passport — at least for now): "If you have a problem, it can be solved with money. If you still have a problem, you didn't throw enough money at it." George Washington once said this in an unsuccessful attempt to rally his demoralized, scurvy-ridden soldiers as they froze to death at Valley Forge. 

Our favorite example of this uniquely American philosophy is when the City of Los Angeles decided that it would fix its failing public education system by spending $1.3 billion to provide each and every pupil with an iPad — because that will make them learn better. (The end of this amazingly foolish saga? The school district asked for a refund, and  "LA’s Unified School System will receive a $6.4 million settlement from education software company Pearson, in addition to $4.2 million from Apple.")

Returning to America's military woes, The Hill writes:

But much of the U.S.'s spending is paying for military operations overseas, such as the fight against the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria.

“U.S. forces … go halfway around the world to fight. And they fight in the other guy’s backyard, at times in places of the other guy’s choosing. And that’s the problem,” said David Ochmanek, senior defense researcher at the RAND Corporation. 

China and Russia, meanwhile, are spending heavily on “modernization” to improve their militaries' quality, efficiency and overall performance. The strategy is paying huge dividends, especially for China.

Yes, of course. It's so simple, and so unfair: The Pentagon is forced to spend money on bombing defenseless brown people all over the world. Meanwhile, the devious Russians and Chinese can modernize their military forces. 

It's also annoying that the United States is burdened with the maintenance of  800 military bases in 70 different countries. How many overseas military bases do the Russians have? Four? That's not fair.

In terms of not wasting money on bombing random people, Russia and China have a huge and completely outrageous advantage over Washington, which has to FedEx its soldiers "halfway around the world" to "fight":

In President Obama’s last year in office, the United States dropped 26,171 bombs in seven countries. This estimate is undoubtedly low, considering reliable data is only available for airstrikes in Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, and Libya, and a single “strike,” according to the Pentagon’s definition, can involve multiple bombs or munitions.

Are we beginning to see the problem here, people? 

Yes, we need to sanction Russia until it agrees to waste its "defense" budget on bombing Africa. 


Support Russia Insider - Go Ad-Free!

This post first appeared on Russia Insider

Anyone is free to republish, copy, and redistribute the text in this content (but not the images or videos) in any medium or format, with the right to remix, transform, and build upon it, even commercially, as long as they provide a backlink and credit to Russia Insider. It is not necessary to notify Russia Insider. Licensed Creative Commons

MORE: Military

Our commenting rules: You can say pretty much anything except the F word. If you are abusive, obscene, or a paid troll, we will ban you. Full statement from the Editor, Charles Bausman.