On his radio show broadcast today, Mark Levin shifted right from complaining about troops being removed from Afghanistan to saying that the reason things were so bad at home was that the government was "involved in everything." According to Levin, the government being "involved" overseas is desirable but involvement at home is anathema.
In Levin's mind, something magic must happen when government crosses a US border. It is very interesting that many Republicans such as Levin seem to be pro-small government at home but raging statists abroad.
After all, the US military is a government institution that relies not on profit for its funding but income redistribution. Its structure is susceptible to the same inefficiencies and wastefulness typical of any long-standing government bureaucracy.
It would seem like a logical conclusion that the military is a socialist organization because, after all, taxes are collected and redistributed to soldiers, personnel, and profiteers. Although most would say that necessary military funding is a necessary socialism, the overseas military activity Levin spoke of is not necessary--the non-defensive, recreational wars raging in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya.
Although the odds of dying from a terrorist attack are far less than those of dying from a snake bite, snakes for some reason do not warrant equivalently overarching military action in Levin's mind. Is he soft on snakes or overestimative of terrorist threats?
Moreover, nearly all great nations in the modern era have fallen due to financial reasons. It is ironic that the very institution meant to protect us may be leading to our demise as it digs us further into debt.
To expect Levin to arrive at this thought may be expecting too much.