The US military remains more powerful than ever

Consider the larger context of US military spending. How large is the US military budget? Why is it so large? The answers to these questions help to throw some light on why the war in Afghanistan is likely to continue beyond 2014.

First, the size of the US military budget -

The overall gargantuan US military budget will most likely continue to rise in FY 2012. This will be so, even though “defense” spending is, and has been, the largest part of the discretionary federal budget (58% by some measures). And it will be so even though the US economy remains in an economic recession, creating insufficient employment opportunities, leaving millions of families in home foreclosure, amidst rising inequality and poverty and infrastructural, energy, and environmental problems that remain unattended.

Reporting for the New York Times, Nicholas D. Kristof notes the following: “The United States spends nearly as much on military power as every other country in the world combined, according to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute. It says that we spend more than six times as much as the country with the next highest budget, China.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/26/opinion/26kristof.html

The late Chalmers Johnson cited evidence to attest that the US is an empire of military bases. In his last book, Dismantling the Empire (2010), Johnson wrote:

“According to the Defense Department’s Base Structure Report for fiscal year 2009, the Pentagon owned or rented 716 overseas based and another 4,863 in the United States and its territories….Johnson goes on to point out that “the 2009 edition failed to mention any garrisons in the Iraq and Afghan war zones, as well as any bases or facilities used in countries such as Jordan and Qatar. As of the summer of 2009, “there were still nearly three hundred US bases and outposts in Iraq, with the number set to drop to fifty or fewer by August 31, 2010….”

Chalmers Johnson, Dismantling the Empire: America’s Last Best Hope (2010.
At the same time, the number of military bases in Afghanistan has increased. Nick Turse reports that by Feb 2010, there were 400 US and Coalition bases across Afghanistan, with an additional 300 Afghan National Army and Afghan Police bases, “most of them built, maintained, or supported by the U.S. A small number of the coalition sites are mega-bases like Kandahar Airfield, which boasts one of the busiest runways in the world, and Bagram Air Base, a former Soviet facility that received a makeover, complete with Burger King and Popeyes outlets, and now serves more than 20,000 U.S. troops, in addition to thousands of coalition forces and civilian contractors. (See Nick Turse, “Totally Occupied: 700 Military Bases Spread Across Afghanistan,” Alternet.org, Feb 10, 2010.)

http://www.alternet.org/world/145631/totally_occupied:_700_miitary_bases_spread_across_afghanistan?page=entire

Wikipedia provides the following information: “The military of the United States is deployed in more than 150[1] countries around the world, with more than 369,000 of its 1,580,255[2] active-duty personnel serving outside the United States and its territories.” (See Wikipedia, “United States military deployments.”)

There is a continuing debate on whether the defense budget will be marginally cut with the withdrawal of many troops from Iraq, but such a cut, if it should happen, would not significantly reduce the preponderance of overall US military resources. (See Thom Shanker and Christopher Drew’s article, “Gates Sees Crisis in Current Spending, New York Times, Feb 15, 2011).

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/10/opinion/main6193925.shtml

But there is also evidence that the official estimates of the military budget that capture the media’s attention are lower than they actually are. Chris Hellman points this out:

“For 2012, the White House has requested $558 billion for the Pentagon’s annual “base” budget, plus an additional $118 billion to fund military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. At $676 billion, that’s already nothing to sneeze at, but it’s just the barest of beginnings when it comes to what American taxpayers will actually spend on national security. Think of it as the gigantic tip of a humongous iceberg.

“To get closer to a real figure, it’s necessary to start peeking at other parts of the federal budget where so many other pots of security spending are squirreled away.

“Missing from the Pentagon’s budget request, for example, is an additional $19.3 billion for nuclear-weapons-related activities like making sure our current stockpile of warheads will work as expected and cleaning up the waste created by seven decades of developing and producing them. That money, however, officially falls in the province of the Department of Energy. And then, don’t forget an additional $7.8 billion that the Pentagon lumps into a “miscellaneous” category—a kind of department of chump change—that is included in neither its base budget nor those war-fighting funds.”

Hellman then goes on to identify some of the missing pieces from the official and widely discussed Pentagon budget that brings the total from about $700 billion to over $1.2 trillion.

Here are just some of his examples of military-related expenditures in various non-defense categories of the budget: State Department ($8.7 billion); Homeland Security ($53.5 billion); US Intelligence ($59.1 billion); Veterans’ Programs ($129.3 billion); and Interest on the debt related to past government borrowing for military functions ($184 billion). There are other parts of the budget where military-related expenditures are unknown (that is, kept secret). On this, Hellman writes:

“To take one example, how much of NASA’s proposed $18.7 billion budget falls under national security spending? We know that the agency works closely with the Pentagon. NASA satellite launches often occur from the Air Force’s facilities at Vandenberg Air Force Base in California and Cape Canaveral Air Force Station in Florida. The Air Force has its own satellite launch capability, but how much of that comes as a result of NASA technology and support? In dollar terms, we just don’t know.

“Other “known unknowns” would include portions of the State Department budget. One assumes that at least some of its diplomatic initiatives promote our security interests. Similarly, we have no figure for the pensions of non-Pentagon federal retirees who worked on security issues for the Department of Homeland Security, the State Department, or the Departments of Justice and Treasury. Nor do we have figures for the interest on money borrowed to fund veterans’ benefits, among other national security-related matters. The bill for such known unknowns could easily run into the tens of billions of dollars annually, putting the full national security budget over the $1.3 trillion mark or even higher.”

http://original.antiwar.com/engelhardt/2011/03/01/the-real-us-national-security-budget
--------------------

Why is the US military budget so large?

The US leadership, in the both executive and legislative branches, appears determined to preserve the military power of the nation and keep it as a trump card to protect and advance the interests of US corporations, the chief actors in the country’s economy. As long as US dependence on foreign oil continues and increases, this will be the case. There are two other implications. Powerful forces within the US that reap benefits from large military spending want the status quo to continue. This is the military-industrial complex about which President Dwight D. Eisenhower warned the country in his last speech as president, on January 17, 1961. And US leaders seem persuaded that only the US has the military power to keep the world from falling into an intolerable and dangerous disorder.

Just consider one of these points, the forces within the US that serve to drive the military-industrial complex. Here are examples of these forces.

In the United States, there are many powerful groups, communities, and just ordinary citizens that support a militarized foreign policy. Why? Many parts of the US have benefited from the Iraq War financially, ideologically, and/or politically. Consider the following list of relevant items

(1) The military-industrial complex thrives on wars, however reckless, costly in resources and to people, and counterproductive they are.

(2) The President, along with too many elected officials in the U.S. Congress, advance a bipartisan, pro-war budget and agenda and have won money and votes for their campaigns..

(3) Covering up - “In 2005 and 2006 while Republicans held a majority in Congress, Democratic Congress members led by John Conyers (Mich.), Barbara Lee (Calif.), and Dennis Kucinich (Ohio) pushed hard for an investigation into the lies that had launched the aggression against Iraq. But from the time the Democrats took the majority in January 2007 up to the present moment, there has been no further mention of the matter, apart from a Senate committee’s release of its long-delayed report” (David Swanson, War Is a Lie, p. 303).

(4) The large veterans’ organizations typically defend the militarized foreign policy of the US government.

(5) Thousands of communities across the United States and in virtually all congressional districts support the government’s large military budgets, especially when they have military bases in their areas or local business with contracts to produce weapons or military-related supplies. The benefits are in employment, additional taxes, and spurs to the local economy.

(6) Burgeoning private firms/contractors prosper that provide services to the troops, security to embassies and officials, experienced former soldiers for special operations, and intelligence to the military.

(7) Millions of citizens who pride themselves on being patriotic have adopted the idea, perhaps out of fear, confusion, or the lack of information, that military force is the only way to protect America and its interests here and abroad. Here is a sad commentary on the US culture from David Swanson’s new book, War Is a Lie.

“We are more saturated with militarism than ever before. The military and its support industries eat up an increasingly larger share of the economy, providing jobs intentionally spread across all congressional districts. Military recruiters and recruitment advertising are ubiquitous. Sporting events on television welcome ‘members of the United States armed forces viewing in 177 nations around the world’ and nobody blinks. When wars begin, the government does whatever it has to do to persuade enough of the public to support the wars. Once the public turns against wars, the government just as effectively resists pressure to bring them to a swift end. Some years into the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, a majority of Americans told pollsters it had been a mistake to begin either of those wars. But easily manipulated majorities had supported those mistakes when they were made” (p. 10).

(8) The terror-complex. A widely held view in the United States is that the Iraq and Afghanistan wars were necessary to forestall and ultimately defeat international Islamic terrorism. These misbegotten goals generate fear and submissiveness in the population but also opportunities for the creation and expansion of yet more profitable and career-enhancing opportunities. Chris Hedges provides a glimpse of this in his article, “The Terror-Industrial Complex,” truthdig.com, February 8, 2010.

“It is difficult to get a fair trial in this country if the government wants to accuse you of terrorism,” said Foster. “It is difficult to get a fair trial on any types of charges. The government is allowed to tell the jury you are a terrorist before you have to put on any evidence. The fear factor that has emerged since 9/11 has permeated into the U.S. court system in a profoundly disturbing way. It embraces the idea that we can compromise core principles, for example the presumption of innocence, based on perceived threats that may or may not come to light. We, as a society, have chosen to cave on fear.”

“I spent more than a year covering al-Qaida for The New York Times in Europe and the Middle East. The threat posed by Islamic extremists, while real, is also wildly overblown, used to foster a climate of fear and political passivity, as well as pump billions of dollars into the hands of the military, private contractors, intelligence agencies and repressive client governments including that of Pakistan. The leader of one FBI counterterrorism squad told The New York Times that of the 5,500 terrorism-related leads its 21 agents had pursued over the past five years, just 5 percent were credible and not one had foiled an actual terrorist plot. These statistics strike me as emblematic of the entire war on terror.

“Terrorism, however, is a very good business. The number of extremists who are planning to carry out terrorist attacks is minuscule, but there are vast departments and legions of ambitious intelligence and military officers who desperately need to strike a tangible blow against terrorism, real or imagined, to promote their careers as well as justify obscene expenditures and a flagrant abuse of power. All this will not make us safer. It will not protect us from terrorist strikes. The more we dispatch brutal forms of power to the Islamic world the more enraged Muslims and terrorists we propel into the ranks of those who oppose us.

(9) The media are too often an echo chamber of the official war narratives – Check out these two books, for example: Anthony Dimaggio, When Media Goes to War, and Norman Solomon’s War Made Easy

In his book War is a Lie, David Swanson comments on the role of the media: “The approach of the US corporate media to war coverage is to feature lots of ‘experts’ on war. By ‘experts’ they clearly mean high-ranking military officials, current or retired. But if the question is whether or not to go to war, or whether or not to continue war, or whether or not to escalate war, then why aren’t experts at peace making as relevant as experts at war making? In fact, why aren’t they more relevant, given our supposed preference for peace, its legality, and the ongoing pretense of civilian control over our military? The military can offer expertise on how to start and fight a way, but should it be considered to have any authority on whether to start a war?” (p. 252).

(10) Think tanks (some) provide rationales for war. Derek Leebaert provides the following examples in his book Magic and Mayhem: The Delusions of American Foreign Policy.

“Think tankers who double as advisers to the military – including Frederick Kagan and his spouse, Kimberly Kagan, who runs a new organization, ‘the Institute for the Study of War’ – wrote an op-ed…stating, ‘There is no doubt that we can succeed against the much weaker foes,’ comparing the Afghan insurgents dismissively to those in Iraq. Brookings expert Michael O’Hanlon and participated from the CSIS, Brookings, and the AEI to urge ‘significant escalation’ as they unanimously insisted ‘there is no alternative to victory’” (p. 243).
--------------------

What’s the point?

The US military establishment and its extensions have distorted our economy, politics, and cultural. A majority of Americans who have been recently polled indicate that they would like to see an end to the Afghanistan war. But this is not an issue that was high on the list of priorities indicated in other polls or why they voted as they did in 2010.

Perhaps the economic troubles of many Americans will in time be reflected in elections and in the White House and US Congress. However, the 2010 elections moved in the opposite direction, toward the right-wing of the Republican Party. This is a political reality so that now the Congress has become even more inclined toward a strong military. (It remains to be seen whether the Tea Party changes this reality.) One big part of the problem politically is that corporations and the rich are now legally able to pour more money into elections and lobbying than ever in memory.

In the meantime, the peace and anti-war groups remain relatively small. This is certainly true, when one compares the size of such groups before the Iraq War with what we have today. But even then the anti-war movement was unable to stop the US invasion of Iraq. Compare today with a letter I wrote back in February of 2003.

An Anti-War Movement With Many Voices
Bob Sheak
February 12, 2003

The peace/anti-war movement in the U.S. and across the world is large and diversified in the types of people and organizations involved and the religious and ideological views held by activists. Whatever differences there are, they are united by their opposition to a needless and costly war on Iraq and their support for the continuation of the inspections process.

An estimated 100,000 turned out for an anti-war rally and march in Washington last October, and at least twice as many showed up in January, with estimates ranging up to 500,000. Regardless of the exact number, the January rally was the largest anti-war demonstration in D.C. since the Vietnam era. At the same time, tens of thousands marched in San Francisco and towns of all sizes across the country and in some 37 other countries. On February 9th in Jakarta, Indonesia, the world’s most populous Muslim country, up to a hundred thousand Indonesians staged a peaceful protest against a possible attack on Iraq. As of Friday, February 7th, 72 cities in the U.S. has passed resolutions or signed letters in opposition to an invasion of Iraq and 85 others (including Athens) had campaigns to do so.

The peace/anti-war movement includes traditional peace groups; student, global justice and antiracist activists; mainstream labor, environmental, civil rights and women's organizations. Over a hundred celebrities announced their opposition to the war on December 10 through the new Win Without War coalition. More than 750,000 people have joined online activist group MoveOn.org, which supports continued inspections and is airing television ads to that effect. Thirty-five hundred anti-war poems have been submitted to http://www.poetsagainstwar.org/. Z Magazine printed the e-mail addresses of 221 “peace” groups in its February issue. Even several prominent Republican businessmen took out a full-page ad in the Wall Street Journal that told Bush: "The world wants Saddam Hussein disarmed, but you must find a better way to do it."

Almost all of the major faiths have spoken out against war. The National Council of Churches, which represents 36 denominations and 140,000 local congregations, has taken a strong stand against an invasion of Iraq and has organized “A Season for Peacemaking.” And on February 9th, Pope John Paul II, the head of the Catholic Church with hundreds of millions of members in the U.S. and across the globe, addressed pilgrims and tourists in St Peter's Square in Rome and prayed for "an act from on high" to prevent a war against Iraq. Writing from Rome for online World News, Richard Owen writes: “The ageing pontiff rebuffed attempts by the Bush Administration to persuade him that impending military action against Baghdad amounted to a Christian ‘just war’… [and] also gave his backing to the new Franco-German plan to resolve the Iraq crisis through beefed-up weapons inspections and the deployment of UN troops.”

One implication of this growing peace/anti-war movement is that there is a large and growing number of Americans, leaders from many institutional sectors here and abroad, and others around the world who have not been convinced by the enormous and relentless efforts of the Bush Administration to rally them to support a preemptive “war” against Iraq that will have catastrophic human consequences.

Last word: The challenge appears unceasing....