(Although the essay below is old (2012) and the argument familiar, referring to and updating the ICAN and Frank/Paul studies-see the bold text below-might provide a path to reductions in military spending. In addition the 2020 polling data, see the link below, suggests that Americans prefer “moving the money” from military to domestic needs and Barbara Lee has introduced useful legislation to do just that).
Harry Targ
“From Forrestal’s day to the present, semi-warriors have viewed democratic politics as problematic. Debate means delay. To engage in give-and-take or compromise is to forfeit clarity and suggests a lack of conviction. The effective management of national security requires specialized knowledge, a capacity for clear-eyed analysis and above all an unflinching willingness to make decisions, whatever the cost. With the advent of the semi-war, therefore, national security policy became the preserve of experts, few in number, almost always unelected, habitually operating in secret, persuading themselves that to exclude the public from such matters was to serve the public interest. After all, the people had no demonstrable “need to know.” In a time of perpetual crisis, the anointed role of the citizen was to be pliant, deferential and afraid.” (from a review of a biography of James Forrestal, the first Secretary of Defense by historian Andrew Bacevich in The Nation).
Andrew Bacevich reminds us that a permanent war economy has been part of the political and economic landscape of the United States at least since the end of World War II. The War Resisters League pie chart of total government spending for fiscal year 2013 indicates that 47 percent of all government spending deals with current and past military costs. Despite lower government estimates that mask true military spending, by adding the Social Security Trust Fund to total spending and regarding past military spending-- particularly veteran’s benefits-- as non-military, it is clear that roughly fifty cents of every dollar goes to war, war preparation, covert operations, and military contractors.
In addition “war support” contractors, such as KBR, have made billions of dollars in the twenty-first century from military spending. Top producers of military hardware, Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, and Boeing earned 11, 8, and 5 billion dollars in contracts in 2010 alone. Ostensibly non-military corporations such as BP, FedEx, Dell, Kraft, and Pepsi received hundreds of millions of dollars in defense contracts in 2010. Virtually every big corporation is to some degree on the Department of Defense payroll.
A recent data-based report, “Don’t Bank on the Bomb,” prepared by the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN) identified “…more than 300 banks, insurance companies, pension funds and asset managers from 30 countries that invest significantly in 20 major nuclear weapons producers.” The report examined in detail financial connections to 20 major nuclear weapons companies. These 20 included US producers of nuclear weapons components such as Bechtel, Boeing, GenCorp, General Dynamics, Honeywell, and Northrop Grumman. US financial institutions investing in the nuclear weapons producers included Abrams Bison Investments, AIG, American National Insurance Company, Fidelity, Franklin Templeton, JP Morgan Chase, New York Life, and Prudential Financial.
Because of the economic crisis which began in 2007, debate about military spending has increased. In 2010 Congressmen Barney Frank and Ron Paul initiated a study addressing needed cuts. The report prepared for them in 2010, “Debt, Deficits, and Defense,” called for across the board reductions in spending-procurement, research and development, personnel, operations and maintenance, and infrastructure--of $960 billion over the next decade. The report noted that over the last decade 65 percent of federal discretionary spending went to the military. (For a July, 2021 legislative proposal for cutting military spending see Congresswoman Barbara Lee’s press release below.*)
President Obama last January proposed more modest
spending cuts of $480 billion over the next decade (reductions in projected
increases not existing funding). He coupled announcement about future spending
with a firm statement that the world must realize that the United States
remains committed to maintaining its military superiority. The President
indicated that spending reductions in the future will be tied to greater use of
“special operations,” drones, and shifting existent forces from Europe to Asia.
The magnitude of military spending represents what Bacevich referred to as the
permanent war economy articulated and defended by the “semi-warriors”
dominating U.S. foreign policy in each administration since World War II. These
semi-warriors gained influence after the Truman Administration accepted
recommendations in National Security Document Number 68 (1950), which
recommended that defense spending should always have priority over all other
government spending. NSC 5412, approved by President Eisenhower, gave
legitimacy to covert operations around the world allowing any president to
“plausibly deny” any connections with such operations. Subsequently virtually
each president proclaimed a doctrine--Eisenhower for the Middle East, Carter
for the Persian Gulf, Reagan to rollback “the evil empire,” Clinton for
“humanitarian interventions” and Bush for “preemptory attacks”-- justifying
more and more military spending.
The Obama administration, through speeches and actions has constructed what
might be called “the Obama Doctrine.” First, as the last remaining superpower
and the beacon of hope for the world, the United States once again reserves the
right and responsibility to intervene militarily to enhance human rights around
the world. Second, U.S. humanitarian military interventions will be carried out
from time to time with our friends. Third, new technologies such as drones will
allow these interventions to occur without “boots on the ground.” They will be
cheaper in financial and human cost (mostly for American troops). Finally,
assassinations and covert killings have made it clear that the Obama Doctrine
overrides recognized judicial proceedings and the sanctity of human life.
Since the establishment of the permanent war economy in the 1940s millions of
proclaimed “enemies” have been killed and seriously injured, mostly in the
Global South. Permanent physical and psychological damage has been done to U.S
soldiers, predominantly poor and minorities as they too are victims of war. In
addition, military spending has distorted national priorities and invested U.S.
financial resources in expenditures that do not create as many jobs as
investments in construction, education, or healthcare. And the permanent war
economy has created a culture that celebrates violence, objectifies killing,
dehumanizes enemies, and exalts super-patriotism through television, music,
video games, and educational institutions.
These issues need to be more vigorously related to those raised by the
grassroots campaigns that have sprung up to defend worker’s and women’s rights,
oppose growing income and wealth inequality, and defense of working people’s
homes from foreclosures. A long time ago in reference to the massive U.S. war
in Southeast Asia and desperate needs of workers at home Dr. Martin Luther King
described the fundamental connections that peace activists and all progressives
must pursue: “I speak of the poor of America who are paying the double price of
smashed hopes at home, and death and corruption in Vietnam.”
**************************************************************************
Polling data from 2020 suggests that a majority of the
American people prefer reallocating military spending for domestic purposes.
https://www.dataforprogress.org/blog/2020/7/20/cut-the-pentagons-budget
*********************************************************************
*CONGRESSWOMAN
BARBARA LEE INTRODUCES LEGISLATION TO CUT $350 BILLION FROM PENTAGON BUDGET
June 16, 2021
Washington, D.C. – Congresswoman
Barbara Lee (CA-13) recently introduced legislation detailing up to $350 billion
in cuts to the Defense budget. Congresswoman Lee released the following
statement:
“As we continue to fight a pandemic and
economic crisis that has pushed millions into poverty, it’s clearer than ever
that a bloated defense budget does not meet our national security
needs. Instead of wasting billions of dollars on forever wars around
the globe, we should be investing in housing, education, food assistance, clean
water for our communities, as well as work to strengthen our diplomatic
ties.
“Over the past two decades, the United
States has designated approximately $6.4
trillion toward military operations. For this year alone, the
Pentagon’s budget totaled $740.5 billion, which proved to be ineffective
in addressing the true national security threats we face today,
including an unprecedented public health crisis and economic
crisis.
“Analysis shows that we can significantly
reduce our defense spending without sacrificing our national security
or reducing the support for our service members. As Co-chair of
the Defense Spending Reduction Caucus, I’m leading this effort to
redefine our nation’s priorities and work toward
a more peaceful and prosperous world.”
This legislation's proposals include:
· Cutting
private service contracting by 15% to save $26 billion
· Eliminating
Space Force to save $15.2 billion
· Cutting
unnecessary, obsolete, and excessive weapons systems to save $57.9
billion
