This week I listened to part of Obama's acceptance speech for the Nobel peace prize.

I thought it was very strange when he won the award. Listening to his speech, largely defending the use of force, I wondered if any of those judges now regret their vote.

At the time, it was said they they gave him the award as a recognition of change from President Bush/Cheney. As in, "thank God America has a new president". As in, "the biggest accomplishment for world peace is getting rid of Bush/Cheney."

But whatever change Obama has made in military terms has been, shall we say, subtle. I am not very knowledgeable in this area but as a casual observer, like most American's, I dont see much change.

We are still spending a fortune (of borrowed money) on military action in Iraq and Afghanistan.

We still talk about "surges" and armored vehicles, and bombs, and the burden on our troops of being deployed for almost a decade now.

We still describe our desire to meddle in those two countries (as well as Israel, Palestine, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and India) as a national security priority.

We still talk about terrorism as a military problem and not a police problem.

Eight years. It is really rather amazing how long this thing has dragged on and how little we seem to have learned from 9/11.

We have a new president but American policy and thinking about international relations still seems like the same old, same old.

Years ago, I heard the idea that some conservatives believed the only way to end the so-called "welfare state" was to bankrupt the state. Bush/Cheney made a lot of progress on that financial goal and our banking bailouts continue the progress.

Lately I wonder if the same argument can be made about our military spending. The only way to really change our dependence on using military force for all problems is to bankrupt the government. I wonder how long it will take to find out.