mick silver
1st May 2011, 09:15 AM
http://www.progress.org/2011/warcosts.htm ... Why defense cuts can help America
Outgoing President Dwight D. Eisenhower's a farewell address, delivered on January 17, 1961, a half-century ago, gave a prescient and unheeded warning to the American public. We trim, blend, and append four 2011 articles from: (1) TruthDig, Jan 10, on war profits by Chris Hedges, senior fellow at The Nation Institute; (2) The WasteBasket, Jan 14 (Volume XVI No. 2), on funding the military by Taxpayers for Common Sense; (3) The Independent, Jan 17, on hero worship by Rupert Cornwell; and (4) USA Today, Jan 18, on cutting back by Michael O'Hanlon, senior fellow at Brookings.
by C. Hedges, by TCS, by R. Cornwell, and by M. O Hanlon
Even Lost Wars Make Corporations Rich
Corporations profit from war, even wars we have no chance of winning.
The profits of weapons manufacturers and private contractors have quadrupled since the invasion of Afghanistan.
The latest CNN/Opinion Research Corp poll shows that 63% of the American public opposes US involvement in Afghanistan. And the level of discontent over the war in Iraq is even higher.
JJS: If you want to pressure Congress to bow to the American people rather than to the weapons merchants, note that on March 19, the eighth anniversary of the invasion of Iraq, street demonstrations are scheduled in American cities: click here . Demonstrate is not something many Americans are comfortable with. The problem with that is, if they won’t stand up for themselves, others will take advantage of them, as has the iron triangle that Eisenhower warned his countrymen about.
50 Years of the Ike "Complex"
"We must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex," ex-General and President Dwight (Ike) Eisenhower cautioned. "The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist."
The military budget has ballooned to more than $700 billion, accounting for nearly 60% of discretionary spending. Even if you discount war funds, DOD's "base budget" increased by more than 50% over the past decade alone.
Congress provides the crucial third leg that makes the complex an iron triangle.
JJS: Ike’s complex also includes Congress and fearful masses.
Ike was Right
A treasure trove of old documents, covered with dirt and pine needles and discovered last year at a cabin in Minnesota once owned by Eisenhower's chief speechwriter Malcolm Moos, reveals that the 34th president had been working on his famous speech since mid-1959. It went through at least 21 drafts; in a later one, a reference to congress as a third leg was struck out because, it is supposed, Ike did not want to upset old friends on Capitol Hill. But the "military" part was there from the outset.
On WTOP, the Washington region's all-news radio station, weaponeers Boeing, Lockheed Martin, and General Dynamics air ads aimed at the US Congress.
Adjusted for inflation, US military spending has more than doubled since Eisenhower left office.
The US by itself accounts for roughly half of military spending worldwide, protecting America from threats that geography alone renders illusory.
A Washington Post investigation last summer found that 33 facilities for intelligence work, equal to three new Pentagons, have gone up around Washington alone since 9/11.
Maybe triangle is an inadequate description. A fourth element underpins the military-industrial complex -- Americans’ veneration of their armed forces.
From the earliest days of the Republic, political leaders have warned of the military. "Overgrown military establishments," George Washington said in his own farewell address of 1796, "are under any form of government inauspicious to liberty."
JJS: Another fondly remember quote of Ike goes: "I hate war as only a soldier who has lived it can, only as one who has seen its brutality, its futility, its stupidity." His view is not shared by many members of Congress who likewise lack his courage. They debate feverishly a mere trim while a super downsizing is needed.
Why defense cuts can help America
Without even counting war costs from Iraq and Afghanistan, our real-dollar defense budget rivals the Cold War peak and is about a third greater than a decade ago. This level might not be necessary.
Ten percent cutbacks could be made, for example, by reducing our standing Army and Marine Corps back to 1990s levels once the Afghanistan operation begins to wind down, and by curbing weapons acquisition programs in areas such as fighter aircraft modernization, in which multiple programs overlap.
If deficit reduction efforts founder, the country's long-term well-being will follow. Public debt levels will exceed our annual GDP. With health care costs rapidly escalating, there would be no natural end to this fiscal spiral.
Federal interest costs alone would be projected to approach $1 trillion a year within a decade. A country with trillion dollar interest payments and growing debt cannot afford a strong military over the long term. Nor can it make the scientific, educational and infrastructural investments needed for long-term economic vitality.
To dismiss careful defense budget cutbacks categorically fails to address the economic challenge posed to the long-term foundations of US national power.
JJS: Companies who do business with the US war machine reap enormous profits. Soldiers, on the other hand, the ones actually killing and dying, get paid far, far less. Yet their lives are worthy. What if we limited the profit to be made by dealing with the Pentagon to no more than minimum wage, or maybe double that, and let so-called patriotic fervor make up the rest? If generals, politicians, lobbyists, and weaponeers could not profit so outrageously from war, would they still want to wage them? It’d be worth our while to find out.
We could save a lot of public money and either cut taxes or fund social programs. Another popular Eisenhower quote goes: "Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed.”
Except charity does not solve poverty any more than does war solve conflict. What’s needed for a basic solution is affordable land and a share of Earth’s worth and the rest of the geonomic program. Perhaps people living in a just economy would also not be so warlike and become more tolerant and find nonviolent methods to resolve disputes satisfactorily. Then at the end of the next fifty years we’d have something to really celebrate
Outgoing President Dwight D. Eisenhower's a farewell address, delivered on January 17, 1961, a half-century ago, gave a prescient and unheeded warning to the American public. We trim, blend, and append four 2011 articles from: (1) TruthDig, Jan 10, on war profits by Chris Hedges, senior fellow at The Nation Institute; (2) The WasteBasket, Jan 14 (Volume XVI No. 2), on funding the military by Taxpayers for Common Sense; (3) The Independent, Jan 17, on hero worship by Rupert Cornwell; and (4) USA Today, Jan 18, on cutting back by Michael O'Hanlon, senior fellow at Brookings.
by C. Hedges, by TCS, by R. Cornwell, and by M. O Hanlon
Even Lost Wars Make Corporations Rich
Corporations profit from war, even wars we have no chance of winning.
The profits of weapons manufacturers and private contractors have quadrupled since the invasion of Afghanistan.
The latest CNN/Opinion Research Corp poll shows that 63% of the American public opposes US involvement in Afghanistan. And the level of discontent over the war in Iraq is even higher.
JJS: If you want to pressure Congress to bow to the American people rather than to the weapons merchants, note that on March 19, the eighth anniversary of the invasion of Iraq, street demonstrations are scheduled in American cities: click here . Demonstrate is not something many Americans are comfortable with. The problem with that is, if they won’t stand up for themselves, others will take advantage of them, as has the iron triangle that Eisenhower warned his countrymen about.
50 Years of the Ike "Complex"
"We must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex," ex-General and President Dwight (Ike) Eisenhower cautioned. "The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist."
The military budget has ballooned to more than $700 billion, accounting for nearly 60% of discretionary spending. Even if you discount war funds, DOD's "base budget" increased by more than 50% over the past decade alone.
Congress provides the crucial third leg that makes the complex an iron triangle.
JJS: Ike’s complex also includes Congress and fearful masses.
Ike was Right
A treasure trove of old documents, covered with dirt and pine needles and discovered last year at a cabin in Minnesota once owned by Eisenhower's chief speechwriter Malcolm Moos, reveals that the 34th president had been working on his famous speech since mid-1959. It went through at least 21 drafts; in a later one, a reference to congress as a third leg was struck out because, it is supposed, Ike did not want to upset old friends on Capitol Hill. But the "military" part was there from the outset.
On WTOP, the Washington region's all-news radio station, weaponeers Boeing, Lockheed Martin, and General Dynamics air ads aimed at the US Congress.
Adjusted for inflation, US military spending has more than doubled since Eisenhower left office.
The US by itself accounts for roughly half of military spending worldwide, protecting America from threats that geography alone renders illusory.
A Washington Post investigation last summer found that 33 facilities for intelligence work, equal to three new Pentagons, have gone up around Washington alone since 9/11.
Maybe triangle is an inadequate description. A fourth element underpins the military-industrial complex -- Americans’ veneration of their armed forces.
From the earliest days of the Republic, political leaders have warned of the military. "Overgrown military establishments," George Washington said in his own farewell address of 1796, "are under any form of government inauspicious to liberty."
JJS: Another fondly remember quote of Ike goes: "I hate war as only a soldier who has lived it can, only as one who has seen its brutality, its futility, its stupidity." His view is not shared by many members of Congress who likewise lack his courage. They debate feverishly a mere trim while a super downsizing is needed.
Why defense cuts can help America
Without even counting war costs from Iraq and Afghanistan, our real-dollar defense budget rivals the Cold War peak and is about a third greater than a decade ago. This level might not be necessary.
Ten percent cutbacks could be made, for example, by reducing our standing Army and Marine Corps back to 1990s levels once the Afghanistan operation begins to wind down, and by curbing weapons acquisition programs in areas such as fighter aircraft modernization, in which multiple programs overlap.
If deficit reduction efforts founder, the country's long-term well-being will follow. Public debt levels will exceed our annual GDP. With health care costs rapidly escalating, there would be no natural end to this fiscal spiral.
Federal interest costs alone would be projected to approach $1 trillion a year within a decade. A country with trillion dollar interest payments and growing debt cannot afford a strong military over the long term. Nor can it make the scientific, educational and infrastructural investments needed for long-term economic vitality.
To dismiss careful defense budget cutbacks categorically fails to address the economic challenge posed to the long-term foundations of US national power.
JJS: Companies who do business with the US war machine reap enormous profits. Soldiers, on the other hand, the ones actually killing and dying, get paid far, far less. Yet their lives are worthy. What if we limited the profit to be made by dealing with the Pentagon to no more than minimum wage, or maybe double that, and let so-called patriotic fervor make up the rest? If generals, politicians, lobbyists, and weaponeers could not profit so outrageously from war, would they still want to wage them? It’d be worth our while to find out.
We could save a lot of public money and either cut taxes or fund social programs. Another popular Eisenhower quote goes: "Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed.”
Except charity does not solve poverty any more than does war solve conflict. What’s needed for a basic solution is affordable land and a share of Earth’s worth and the rest of the geonomic program. Perhaps people living in a just economy would also not be so warlike and become more tolerant and find nonviolent methods to resolve disputes satisfactorily. Then at the end of the next fifty years we’d have something to really celebrate