Get News & Views Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
The Pentagon Riding High
China just launched a refitted Ukrainian aircraft carrier from the 1990s on its first test run -- and that’s what the only projected "great power" enemy of the U.S. has to offer for the foreseeable future. In the meantime, the U.S. Navy has 11 aircraft carrier task forces to cruise the seven seas and plans to keep that many through 2045. Like so much else, when it comes to the American military, all comparisons are ludicrous. In any normal sense, the United States stands alone in military terms. Its expenditures make up almost 50% of global military spending; it dominates the global arms market; and it has countless more bases, pilotless drones, military bands, and almost anything else military you’d care to mention than does any other power.
In other words, comparisons can’t be made. The minute you try, you’re off the charts. And yet, in purely practical terms, when you take a shot at measuring what the overwhelming investment of American treasure in the military, the U.S. intelligence community, the Department of Homeland Security, and the rest of our national security establishment has actually bought us, you come up with a series of wars and conflicts headed nowhere and a series of post-9/11 terror attacks generally so inept it hardly mattered whether they were foiled or not.
Still, when it comes to cutting the U.S. national security budget, none of this seems to matter. The Pentagon “cuts” presently being discussed in Washington are largely in projected future growth, not in real funds (which continue to rise) -- and even then, the Pentagon and its many boosters in Washington are already crying bloody murder. Give some credit for all this to the giant weapons makers and to the military itself: both have so carefully tied military-related jobs into so many state economies that few congressional representatives could afford to vote for the sorts of real cutbacks that would bring perhaps the most profligate institution on the planet to heel and yet still leave the country as the globe’s military giant. You want, for instance, to cut back on that absolutely crucial Navy acrobatic flying team, the Blue Angels. (What would we all do without dramatic military flyovers at our major and minor sporting events?) Count on it, hotel keepers in Florida will be on the phone immediately! Add in the veneration of American soldiers and you have a fatal brew when it comes to serious budget cutting.
Absurdity, logic. Neither seems to matter. Still, the financial basics remain eye-opening, as Chris Hellman of the National Priorities Project makes clear, crunching the numbers in his latest piece, “How Safe Are You?” and coming up with a minimum of almost $8 trillion in national security spending since September 11, 2001.
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...




9 Comments so far
Show AllAll that military power, and they still can't win a war.
Win a war, what a concept.
Of course they can, but they choose not to, and for two reasons. First, winning a war means dealing with such noisome consequences as "pacifying" a hostile conquered population and finding a new place for the next war. Second, there's still a certain fear of negative publicity. This manifests itself in two ways. Winning a war is possible only by either risking the lives of more of our troops than we're willing to do (and we don't want body bags on the teevee) pr by committing war crimes on an even vaster scale than we do already -- say, by nuking entire urban centers. I'm still mildly surprised we don't go there; apparently the current level of war crimes and crimes against humanity is regarded as sufficient.
Two different things really. The US did win the war in Iraq, it's the occupation of the defeated nation that you've fucked up. Winning a war is the easy part, winning a peace is far more difficult; especially when you have no real desire to make peace with others.
Saying that the American military "won" the war against Iraq sounds like General William Westmoreland saying that he "won" the Vietnamese Tet Offensive in 1968 -- only he needed an extra 200,000 troops after his "victory" on top of the half-million he already had in country. Talk about your victorious "progress" and/or "fragile but reversible gains" (in the Orwellian Newspeak of Iraq/Afghanistan victor, General David Petraeus). As a young Taiwanese relative said to me years ago: "It's easy to rush into a trap. But getting out is much more difficult." Americans tend to call their own traps "wars" and then insist that they must remain in the trap permanently because to learn from experience and get out of the trap would dismay our friends and embolden our enemies.
When does the war end? How do you determine when a victory is achieved? Is the victory a Pyrrhic one?
Westmoreland was right, he did win the Tet campaign. So what? In winning that battle he can also be said to have lost that war (which really was lost long before the first battle was engaged). It wasn't a classical Pyrrhic victory, as the US army could still fight, but it was a form of that sort of victory.
The Iraq war is certainly a classical Pyrrhic victory. A victory that is achieved at such a high cost that another such victory would result in defeat.
We're not disagreeing, we're trying to find the right words to describe a clusterfuck of epic proportions.
It has nothing whatsoever to do with "winning" any "war." The U.S.'s gargantuan military - always expanding, always costing more every year - has one purpose and one purpose alone: increased profit for the MIC. Period. Our 900+ global military bases do not exist to "protect us" from our "enemies." We have none. Since the Soviet Union fell nearly 30 years ago, there have been no nations that even remotely threaten us in terms of weaponry or military might. China is our biggest creditor and our biggest trading partner, and almost every U.S. corporation has offshored its manufacturing there. No threat there. Yet, we have a larger nuclear stockpile, larger military, and larger military budget than we did at the height of the cold war.
The only thing the U.S. exports now is our military, death, destruction, and weapons. Every "war" we launch, every country we occupy, every base we build, every operation we start generates obscene profits and "no bid contracts" for hundreds of U.S. corporations, funnelling taxpayer dollars directly into those corporations' coffers, further enriching them and their executives and their shareholders. THAT is the purpose of the U.S. and its bloated military. Period. If this isn't ridiculously obvious by now to everyone with a brain, it never will be.
A good article except for this statement:
"[A] series of post-9/11 terror attacks generally so inept it hardly mattered whether they were foiled or not."
Absent clear evidence that it was a sham concocted by Western governments (as some claim), the attempt made in 2006 to blow several transatlantic flights out of the air in one day can't be dismissed so easily.
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1225453,00.html
A better argument might be that more military spending wouldn't have prevented it.
The comment about the Blue Angels, bands could also include the wated amounts of fuel from jets, tanks ect. All the ammo. I live by an air force base and the jets fly all day everydsy. Multiply thst be all our bases over the world.
Then there are the practice excersises the ships do all over the world.
I can only imagine how great this world would be if we lived in peace. Anyone seein Zeitergiest on utube? I think that is the name. It does imagine.
Sad.
And we can't "win" wars. The defense,security, spying companies would lose out on their tax raping businesses. Plus, who would defens the oil companies that are stealing other countries oil?
Nice article Tom - appreciate it very much.
I was over on the Bill McKibben article about the upcoming protest in Washington DC over the proposed pipeline from the Alberta Tarsands, but I couldn't bring myself to comment - it's all so depressing in the face of what you have so succinctly outlined here.
The US is not one thing of course - common sense will tell you that much.
But we're not talking common sense are we?
Not in terms of the US military machine, nor in terms of the science of global warming.
The illusion that has been created over a couple of hundred years of what the US is reminds me of Disneyland - very impressive but in the final analysis very disturbing.
From my perspective there appears little chance of any meaningful change in the way America thinks or works - the mind-set is too deeply entrenched.
That leaves other countries and the United Nations. I don't see much hope there, despite the good intentions.
Finally, the natural world will respond, and clean this mess up.
I wish I could be more optimistic - perhaps another day.
Manysummits
=====