Permanent war footing harms present and future security
| George Bush unveiled his $2.9 trillion proposed FY 2008 federal budget last week, and since then something of a cottage industry has sprung up of analysts poring through the line items and discovering all of the myriad ways in which it is wretched. But the worst offense of Bush's budget is also the most obvious: by slashing investment in infrastructure and social services and yet again increasing military spending, the White House proposes further worsening our country's deeply unhealthy economic and political addiction to militarism. Just look at the numbers. Of the $2.4 trillion in discretionary funds (i.e., the non-trust monies that Congress can decide how to spend), Bush wants to devote over half -- some $1.23 trillion -- to spending on present and past military costs. That's before any of the inevitable "supplemental" requests for more moneys for Iraq and Afghanistan (budgeted for 2008 at a mere $141 billion, but likely to at least double). And, of course, it contains nothing towards Cheney and Bush's dreamed-for war against Iran. Bush wants some $707 billion for current military costs, spread out among not only the Dept. of Defense, but the nuclear part of the Dept. of Energy, the military-in-space parts of NASA, the military chunk of the Dept. of Homeland Security, and so on. The $461 in past military costs are even more thoroughly hidden: veterans' benefits and disability, and especially the biggest chunk of the interest on Bush's gigantic national debt. And the so-called "black budget," money spent on the CIA, NSA, and dozens of other intelligence agencies, figures not released to the public, is the most hidden and unaccountable of all. In other words, the Pentagon figure normally reported as what the U.S. spends on its military vastly underestimates the cost to taxpayers of all the wars we fight. That money is generously allocated throughout the federal budget, with money spent in every congressional district in the country so as to ensure congressional support. And it's gotten far worse since Bush took office, as his administration's budgets have generally shortchanged human solutions to our country's problems in favor of ones that involve ever-more-elaborate (and often laughably impractical) ways to kill enemies. The upshot is that our schools are chronically and badly underfunded at every level, many Americans can't afford adequate health care, jobs continue to get exported to countries with better-educated workers and no employer-based health costs, our kids face a future with fewer decent jobs and an environment that may roast them alive, and for the mavens that run our national spending priorities, none of this particularly matters. Why? Because a lot of powerful people make out just fine from our military addiction. (Or, as Billy Bragg once memorably sang, "War! What is it good for? It's good for business!") Ask Halliburton, or Bechtel, or any of the numerous companies that have sprung up overnight to exploit George Bush's newly privatized military, what they think of the FY 2008 budget. Or ask any of the beneficiaries of the $12 billion in cash -- 363 tons of shrink-wrapped $100 bills, according to House testimony last week –- that magically disappeared without a trace during America's 2003-04 "administration" of Iraq. You can no doubt find many of the beneficiaries on a Caribbean beach, or Fortune 500 board, near you. And then remember that the costs of Iraq and Afghanistan, as recorded in Bush's budget, are only about one-eighth of what we taxpayers are spending on the military. All of this money may or not make us safer from rogue states or terror cells; in the last five years, it's probably hurt more than it's helped. But it steals from our nation's present and future security in a number of ways. All the military spending in the world cannot protect a country's democratic traditions from being subverted from within by an autocratic government; in fact, just the opposite. A government that treats the citizens of the rest of the world as expendable pawns tends to treat its own people that way, too. (Unless they're on those aforementioned boards.) A country where 80 percent of the population is being left behind economically is a country without security. A country whose kids cannot read, write, or think critically not only has no economic future, but can't produce the minds needed to run and maintain all those fancy kill toys, either. So how are our kids (or their kids supposed to pay off all that money we're now spending? It is true that military spending sometimes has unforeseen benefits for the civilian economy. In the 1950s and '60s, construction of the Interstate Highway System was originally intended as a civil defense resource in case of nuclear attack; instead, it has proven to be an enormous transportation asset to the economy of a far-flung country. More recently, the Internet was originally a military concoction that, loosed upon the world, is revolutionizing our 21st Century economy. But our highways are now crumbling, and kids that use computers for social networking, video games, and porn but that don't have any skill in synthesizing information will be left behind in the new economy. There are plenty of opportunities today for spending on civilian benefits that could also address pressing security issues. The country's two most dire national security threats, each far more serious than Islamic fundamentalists with boxcutters, are global warming and our economic indebtedness (in terms of our record trade deficits and ownership of our national debt) to China and other foreign trading partners. Both can be best addressed only through massive federal spending: a sweeping R&D plan for greenhouse gas reductions and energy independence, and an investment in our educational and economic infrastructure, respectively. But that's not how the Bush administration thinks, and frankly, Beltway Democrats aren't a whole lot better. The problem on both sides of the aisle is that, as the old saying goes, if your only tool is a hammer, all your problems will look like nails. We're drowning in hammers. Since the establishment of a permanent military in the wake of World War II, the United States over the past 60 years has intervened militarily in literally dozens of countries. It's to the point where we are today mired in an indefinite, apparently endless "global war" (on terror) with no clue as to what "victory" would look like. This is like saying we're making war against anyone in the world who might have a gun. It's permanent war footing. And the basic premise, decided by George Bush within hours of 9-11, is even today entirely unquestioned by both major parties. Meanwhile, for over a quarter-century, we have steadily whittled away at our willingness to invest in our non-military resources – such as, for example, our own people. How do we combat this addiction? First, we must recognize it, and help others recognize it. Next, we need political decision-making based on what is best for our country, not who brings the biggest number of shrink-wrapped bundles of cash into a politician's office. But ultimately, this must be framed as both a pragmatic and a moral issue. Our national security, in every sense of the phrase, is poorly served by continually investing only in ever-pricier hammers. But we also need to recognize that in (literally and figuratively) short-changing ourselves and our children, we are also killing large numbers of people, Americans and foreigners alike, through sins of both omission and commission. Investing in people produces life. Continuing to invest so heavily in America's military produces only death. We are the wealthiest country in the history of the world. It's our choice. * * * Closed circuit to Working Assets readers: This marks the last column I'll be writing for WorkingforChange.com. After nearly six years, both I and the web site are moving on to new and exciting focuses. Thanks to Working Assets for the platform, and thanks especially to you, the readers, for your correspondence, your support, your caring about our country and world. You've made this column a joy to write. It is not entirely clear yet whether I will continue to produce regular national columns, but big things are in the offing. If you'd like to know what I'll be up to, sign up below for the Geov Parrish e-mail list, and in the next month or so I'll give you a heads up. Regardless, thanks, and keep Working for Change. -- G.P. See more in the Geov Parrish archives.
|
| (c) 2007, WorkingForChange.com Opinions expressed on this site are not necessarily those of Working Assets, nor is Working Assets responsible for objectionable material accessed via links from this site. | |
No comments:
Post a Comment