The Occupy movement seemed to shift the national conversation away from destroying the social safety net, sorry, I meant ‘reforming’ the social safety net, to a national conversation regarding economic fairness. It seemed that America was finally going to discuss the problems caused by economic inequality, and attempt to find solutions. Tax fairness and corporate welfare were, albeit reluctantly, actually being mentioned by the pundit class. With the selection of Paul Ryan as his Vice Presidential nominee, Willard Romney has single handedly shifted the conversation back to the cost of America’s social safety net, specifically, Medicare and Medicaid. Not surprisingly, what neither party, nor any high profile pundit wants to discuss, is reforming America’s military budget.
How is it in that in the midst of the greatest economic crisis since the Great Depression the U.S. military is allowed to maintain more than 1000 installations outside of the 50 states(1)? Yes, that figure is the number of military installations located outside of the 50 states. These bases include everything from post WWII bases in Germany to new drone bases in Ethiopia. The cost of maintaining the Pentagon’s empire is approximately 250 billion dollars. That amounts to about one third the cost of the entire Medicare program. Eliminating the Medicare program is the goal of the Romney Ryan ticket. Preserving the Pentagon’s overseas empire is the goal of virtually everyone in Washington.
Closing down foreign bases and relocating U.S. military personnel (and contractor support personnel) would not only save money, it would provide a much needed economic stimulus to the domestic areas in which those personnel are relocated. When U.S. military personnel spend their money in Germany it represents an indirect US government subsidy to the German economy. The U.S. government should not be using the military to assist the economies of other countries. Closing down our overseas bases is not only the right thing to do, it makes financial sense.
Do you have any idea how much America spends on our domestic infrastructure needs? The federal infrastructure budget allocates approximately 2.5% of the total Gross Domestic Budget to infrastructure spending (2). Among the industrialized nations this is one of the lowest rates. While there is a great deal of dispute regarding the actual multiplier effect of infrastructure spending, there is no dispute that the American infrastructure, from water delivery systems to bridges, needs more money than is currently being allocated.
Finally, consider the amount of secrecy involved in military expenditures. For 2011 the amount of money the Pentagon spent on classified projects was more than 56 billion dollars (3). This is money spent with minimal, if any, oversight. Are these projects working? Are they worth the continued funding of the American taxpayers? It is impossible to answer these questions as long as these projects remain shrouded in mystery. On August 15, 2012 the X-51, an aircraft which cost more than 250 million dollars and designed to fly more than 6 times the speed of sound, crashed after 31 seconds of flight (4). The Pentagon has been obsessed with this sort of technology since the 1960s. How long should the taxpayer be expected to indulge the Pentagon’s wish list?
It is time to rein in the Pentagon. Over 50 years ago in his farewell address to the nation, Eisenhower warned us to beware of the Military Industrial Complex. Neither the Democratic nor the Republican Party is willing to take on the Pentagon. It is time for the taxpayer to demand accountability from the Pentagon. It is time for America to demand reality from the Military Industrial Complex.
Sources cited:
1. http://www.tomdispatch.com/blog/175338/ (Nick Turse, The Pentagon’s Planet of Bases).
2. http://www.economist.com/node/18620944 (The Economist Magazine, April 28, 2011 – America’s Transport Infrastructure).
3. http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/02/pentagons-black-budget/ (Wired Magazine, February 15, 2012).
4. http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/08/15/us-usa-hypersonic-flight-idUSB... Reuters, August 16, 2012.
Comments
Perfectly sensible
Not to say essential. Chalmers Johnson has been telling us for some time that we will have to choose between democracy and empire. It appears that choice has been made. The diarist goes easy on the degree of obscenity of U.S. military spending. For those interested in both the quantification of our insane militarism and in the devastating effects of this at home and abroad, there is no treatment more thorough than Johnson's sobering trilogy--Blowback, The Sorrows of Empire, and Nemesis.
Chalmers Johnson should be required reading
He is quite eye opening. I think that now that he is deceased, other writers such as Nick Turse are continuing on with his warnings.
we have become the authoritarian police state...
i don't think i believe anymore that we are on our way there - we are there - we just haven't hit the lowest points yet... but it is coming...
the PTB will not truly consider any meaningful cuts to the military. they may pay it lip service, but that's about it...
the system - the entirety of it - needs to be scrapped at this point and rebuilt from scratch... unfortunately, i'm not sure this will happen in my lifetime... sigh...
It's past time but unless the public demands it,
vehemently, it simply will not happen. The agenda of the U.S. being the world's sole superpower, able to dictate to every other country, is absolutely set. The Bush administration put it into place officially and the Obama admin has carried it on and further. Then there's the MIC and the economic and political might it has, and combined with the Pentagon, propaganda capability of the highest order. The only thing that they will do, and can be done, is parring back the growth, which is what the proposals last year entailed, not reductions in current real spending. That's a big part of the reasons for the changes in tactics to a greater emphasis on drones, special ops, etc. And with the budget deficit still over 1 trillion and the debt ceiling having to be raised nearly every year now, if they aren't going to substantially cut defense, intelligence, national security spending, then they will abolutely go after medicare/medicaid and social security. Those are the choices, the people against the imperialists. The people will lose.
Does that translate into ...
... unless an organized movement demands it, it cannot happen?
One thing required is a robust source of employment that is independent of the Military Industrial Complex. Even admitting that our Military Base Network Empire does us more national security damage in terms of our real national security than any conceivable benefit it offers requires the willingness to contemplate dropping our defense spending from $1,000's per person to $100's per person, which is a head on threat to starve the beast.
The financing and support of the movement to starve the beast has to come in part from sectors of the economy which benefit more from the resources freed by starving the beast than they do from eating the slops at the government trough.
One necessary aspect of such a movement
and an extremely doable one, in theory, would be a dramatic cutback in consumption, making a quantum leap toward simpler, smaller, less stimulation, more local and present. If we cut our average housing size, to take one of many examples, to the average living space in the 1950's, this would mark a dramatic decrease in consumption. Of course, it doesn't count if you do it after the bank repossesses the house. To have an impact, one must make the choice while they have an option. I know prospects are beyond dismal on the energy and climate front, but a dramatic decrease in fossil fuel consumption, which is theoretically possible, could stretch fuel out while taking power away from big oil. One reason I mention "less stimulation" and "presence" is that doing these things, individually, will require less compulsive behavior. I like your 10 to 1 ratio as a rule of thumb of the changes needed.
no, I wasn't specifically talking about an organized movement
I have very little hope that anyone or any organization will bring any sense of reason to the American MIC. We went through the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression and the Pentagon saw their budgets grow during that period. I was hoping that the Occupy movement would have some sort of staying power, and that eventually, the conversation would turn towards paring down the MIC. My greatest hope now is that if Obama is re-elected, he will pull us out of Iraq in total, and get us out of Afghanistan if not totally, as least substantially. He shows no inclination to closing our overseas empire. My honest assessment is that barring an alien invasion, or the 2nd Coming, nothing will change. (and yeah that was a little sarcasm - but I don't see any changes coming anytime soon)
I share your pessimism
It's based on the justifiable assumption that the past is a decent predictor of the future and the human nature changes little at all over the short term. But just to be clear about terms, any movement I refer to, and I don't think of it quite as a movement, involves not political or group activities but rather individual behaviors which one can control. I do find it inspiring to think about potential on the individual level. Somehow, I can hold these two at the same time.
Welcome, Ms./Mr. Moderator ;)
I tease ;)
Who? Who's that?
What? Where?
Time for me to waste time on pre-season football.
Hee and a hee ;)
Good job ;)
When I asked the question, I was referring to ...
Absent an organized movement pushing it, the public demanding it vehemently simply will not happen.
Should any political leader or dynamic social icon
attempt to actually organize and seriously bring about such a national movement it would be one hell of a struggle.
We could expect them to be demonized, ridiculed and marginalized by the establishment media, the elite policy makers, think tanks, financial institutions, politicians and government appointees and hounded by the security state.
For example see what has happened to the "unmentionable one", a politician who has dared to merely speak out in opposition to militarization of US foreign policy for many years.
I'm not making a political statement here but only provide an example of what his foreign policy views are and how they are met with sneers across the political spectrum. (note McCain seated beside the unmentionable one in one of the debates).
A more current example would be that of Julian Assange. Barring some major unforeseen paradigm shift he will likely be hounded for the remainder of his life for exposing the truth and embarrassing the powers that be.
Another example is Dennis Kucinich, marginalized for his foreign policy views. The Occupy Movement as an example of how official demonization and repression works.
Chalmers Johnson warned us back in 2003.
Perhaps that is how it will finally end.
Quite.
Consider what would have happened to people espousing some of the views that are now mainstream Republican views a mere twenty years ago. The radical reactionary movement that has stolen the name "conservative" have moved the boundaries of the conversation.
When we look at things that need one or more decade to accomplish, and then ask what can be done about it before the next election, we'll always find that its futile. That's the thing about playing the long game ~ played successfully, it changes the boundaries of the possible.
Yes to both these comments
And now there is a legitimate question how long a game we have before some very challenging shifts that are out of human control.
Just to underline the point about the shift, there are two quotes: Eisenhower saying that those marginal oil men in Texas with crazy ideas would never gain power and Goldwater speaking with vitriol about the crazy religious right and how they don't belong in politics. It's a toss up which party either man would choose today, not that it would matter.
Things that can't go on indefinitely don't--I forgot the exact quote.
Things that can't go on forever don't ...
... but whether they are replaced by something sustainable or by something else that can't go on forever depends on the ground that has been laid before the unsustainable falls over in a heap.
Great work. This also has climate impact
The Pentagon uses the most energy out there. The days of Rosie the Riveter are over so normal people don't benefit and military Keynesianism, although creating some portion of jobs, is not worth it at all anymore. None of our car companies are making planes and tanks anymore like GM used to, when FDR mandated that they do so. There is no dosmetic benfit anymore when it comes down to ti in the long run.
But the president says we must keep our military strong even though our country is not strong because of the military sucking much needed stimulus out of it. It's partly a blight on us though. We always needed an enemy for us to invest in our country in order for the public to accept it as a whole and move forward. WE needed the Soviet Union and Sputnik to get off our asses and to the moon. Now we need a new enemy to get a handle on climate change for a new Apollo project, if that can happen anymore, I don't know. We always need a war and a war like mentality to get things done.
Sadly i think we need the right propagandist to fool the American public that aliens are attacking as Paul Krugman says to stop these military adventures and invest in the homeland infrastructure and spend, spend, spend to get us "ready foe the attack" as in improving the economy/infrastructure. That's the only way the public will accept it as a whole, sadly.
criticism has been equated with a lack of patriotism or realism
The most effective way the MIC has shut down any threats to their money supply is by painting all criticism of the military budget as being Un American, or, as being simplistically naive. I'm not sure that the people understand that fully 20% of the military budget is classified. Some analysts say the actual amount (when including the different military intelligence organizations - the DIA has 16 sub organizations under it's command) of the budget that is classified is closer to 40%. Lets stay with the 20% number, though, because it is the easiest to verify. That means that 160 billion dollars a year is spent without any real oversight. The military has grown into another branch of the government, and it is separate, not equal, and not accountable.
Indeed.
Luckily, at least the public agrees by polling that the military budget should be cut, but they need to be in the loop to the 40% to 20% of the budget that is classified. the MIC is indeed a monster of its won out of control and out of sight in many ways.
Great piece.
thanks, Priceman!
Last week when I was working on this piece I spent considerable time reading the 2011 DOD budget and came across several interesting items. The budget is here: http://comptroller.defense.gov/defbudget/fy2012/fy2012_r1.pdf
Do a search for the word Kwajalein. That's an atoll in the Marshall Islands that is basically owned by the US Army. Last year we spent nearly 200 million there. On what? Well, that is were we keep working on the freaking Star Wars technology that Reagan wanted. Conservative estimates are that we have spent over 100 Billion on this highly unreliable technology. The 200 million that is shown in the budget is just the amount of the UNCLASSIFIED expenditure. That's just the tip of the iceberg.
Great references, resources, and research
Star Wars is as fictional as the movie, but I enjoy the movie and its' not wasting money like the program.
It's how they got NASA and Interstates
Speaking of military fuel consumption:
http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/63407-400gallon-gas-another-c...
http://engagingpeace.com/?p=2644
http://kennysideshow.blogspot.com/2008/03/oil-for-war.html
https://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/06/14-1
I can't find the great information sheet I have read before giving all the details. Fortunately for my research, it's obscene enough that a billion barrels here or there doesn't make much difference. Of course, there is a deep, bitter irony in burning all this fuel up in order to secure the supply of fuel. So much smarter than building solar and windmills and so many other choices. Of course, the middle man is making out, the one between oil in the ground in peaceful Iraq and oil being burned like blazes wreaking havoc in death-filled Iraq--that middle man. It's fucking depressing.
Very true and why we are on the Internet now
Excellent disturbing data points to the points in my comment, geomoo.
the military is a lot like a casino
Whenever a casino wants to open in a community they always make outlandish economic promises. Of course, those promises never come true, but the casino operators don't care because they get their money, and one community is pretty much replacable with another. A casino is like a giant vacuum that just sucks all of the disposable income out of a community. The American MIC is doing that to the country. We spend 800 billion on the MIC. Cut that in half and we would still be spending more than the next 5 countries combined. Now, if you put that money to infrastructure needs, or shoring up Medicare, or into building a non fossil fuel energy grid, then the entire country would benefit, not just the little mafia family that runs the freaking casino that is killing the community.
Unfortunately, the dynamic is understandable
Sure, some of it is high level psychosis--impossible to say how much, but a lot of it is just blind human nature chugging along. Only a fool kills the golden goose. Who can walk away from a cash cow? Easy money. And if you have a conscience, it's not hard to think of yourself as a patriot. Like cutting off a junkie from his heroine, we have to understand that this will not be given up readily just be being convinced that it would better for the country in a general sense. Someone's going to have to cut them off. Now who the hell is going to do that?
And btw,
the fact that every candidate insists on being as militaristic as possible could be an example of creating a reality. They create the illusion that the country will brook no exception by acting as though they are compelled to talk tough. Howard Dean's stand against Iraq was quite instructive concerning what happens if someone stands up and speaks plain. He did it against all advice during a time of extended national hysteria. It wasn't two months before politicians were scrambling to be on the correct side of Iraq.
Quite, its a reality that the establishment ...
... has been creating since the late 1940's.