

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
"People can't afford childcare," said Sen. Bernie Sanders. "And this guy, in addition to giving tax breaks to billionaires, now wants to spend another $200 billion on a war that should never have been fought."
US Sen. Bernie Sanders said Thursday that it is absurd for the Trump administration to demand another $200 billion from Congress for an illegal war on Iran after lawmakers already approved $1 trillion in military spending for the year—and while millions of people across the nation are struggling to afford basic necessities.
"You got people all over this country, 20% of households, spending 50% of their income on housing," Sanders (I-Vt.) said in an appearance on MS NOW. "People can't afford healthcare. People can't afford childcare. And this guy, in addition to giving tax breaks to billionaires, now wants to spend another $200 billion on a war that should never have been fought."
The senator's remarks came as President Donald Trump, who has not yet formally requested the funds from Congress, suggested another $200 billion would be a "small price to pay" as the US-Israeli war on Iran heads toward its fourth week with no end in sight.
"I think the Trump people are in a bit of panic," Sanders said Thursday. "They're losing ground. Gas prices are soaring. There is massive discontent against this war. It's got to end, and we've got to make sure that Trump is neutered in 2026."
With the Trump administration considering a plan to deploy thousands of additional troops to the Middle East amid widespread fears of a ground invasion of Iran—which would explode the price tag of an already costly war—the National Priorities Project (NPP) released an analysis highlighting where the $200 billion requested by the Pentagon could be better spent.
The group estimated that $200 billion would be enough for all of the following this year:
"Pete Hegseth would rather the US bomb Iranian families than feed American families," wrote NPP's Lindsay Koshgarian, referring to the Pentagon secretary. "We should remember the lies that led us into war in Iraq a generation ago. That war ultimately cost nearly $3 trillion. We must not go down that path again. Our tax dollars should be helping struggling Americans, not feeding new forever wars."
"We are seeing the Iran war become a quagmire in real time," said one analyst.
The Pentagon reportedly wants Congress to approve more than $200 billion in supplemental funding for US President Donald Trump's unauthorized and deeply unpopular war on Iran as the administration weighs deploying thousands of additional troops to the Middle East, signaling a drawn-out conflict and a possible ground invasion.
The Washington Post reported late Wednesday that the Pentagon has asked the White House to sign off on the supplemental funding request as the financial and human costs of the Iran war balloon. The $200 billion figure, which drew immediate backlash and vows of opposition from several Democratic lawmakers, is quadruple the number widely floated in recent days as the department's likely supplemental request.
"This should be an absolute nonstarter," said Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) in response to the Post's reporting. "The best way to end this war, protect our troops, save civilian lives, and rein in a lawless administration is to cut off funding. I’m a hell no."
Sen. Ruben Gallego (D-Ariz.) wrote on social media that "at the height of combat the Iraq War cost around $140 billion per year."
"If the Pentagon is asking for $200 billion they are asking for a long war," Gallego added. "The answer is a simple no."
Any funding package would need 60 votes to get through the US Senate, requiring some Democratic support. As of this writing, neither Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) nor House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) has responded to reports of the Pentagon's request.
The Post reported Wednesday that "it remains unclear how much the White House will ultimately ask congressional lawmakers to approve," and that "some White House officials do not think the Pentagon’s request has a realistic shot of being approved in Congress."
Prior to the start of the Iran assault, Trump called for a $1.5 trillion US military budget for the coming fiscal year even after the Pentagon failed its eighth consecutive audit.
The Pentagon's push for $200 billion in Iran war funding comes after US investigators reportedly determined that American forces were responsible for the bombing—on the first day of the war—of an Iranian elementary school that killed around 175 people, mostly young children.
News of the Pentagon's funding request came as Reuters reported that the Trump administration is "considering deploying thousands of US troops to reinforce its operation in the Middle East, as the US military prepares for possible next steps in its campaign against Iran."
"The deployments could help provide Trump with additional options as he weighs expanding US operations, with the Iran war well into its third week," Reuters reported. "Those options include securing safe passage for oil tankers through the Strait of Hormuz, a mission that would be accomplished primarily through air and naval forces, the sources said. But securing the Strait could also mean deploying U.S. troops to Iran's shoreline, said four sources, including two U.S. officials."
"The Trump administration has also discussed options to send ground forces to Iran's Kharg Island, the hub for 90% of Iran's oil exports," Reuters added. "One of the officials said such an operation would be very risky. Iran has the ability to reach the island with missiles and drones."
Dylan Williams, vice president for government affairs at the Center for International Policy, said Wednesday that "we are seeing the Iran war become a quagmire in real time."
"Asking US taxpayers to spend $50 billion on a war Trump claims we have already won was outrageous enough," said Williams. "Quadrupling that within a week shows a total lack of understanding or control over what he has gotten us into."
Foreign policy journalist Laura Rozen, author of the Diplomatic newsletter, wrote Wednesday that "Trump blundered into what he thought would be a few day 'excursion' as he calls it, maybe Venezuela 2.0."
"That is not what Israel had in mind, the military has hit all of its targets," Rozen added. "He has no idea what he is doing, his intelligence and other aides were appointed not to tell him anything he does not want to hear; not a single one of them can explain what the goal is. Congressional Republicans have their heads deep in the sand, and now talk of a $200 billion Pentagon supplemental and sending more potential ground troops."
Iran's foreign minister, Abbas Araghchi, highlighted the Post's reporting on social media and called $200 billion "the tip of the iceberg."
"Ordinary Americans can thank Benjamin Netanyahu and his lackeys in Congress for the trillion-dollar 'Israel First tax' that's about to hit the US economy," he wrote.
Mandatory conscription makes war easier, not harder.
Recently, commentators from various places on the US political spectrum have discussed and even called for the reinstitution of mandatory conscription. Meanwhile, plans are underway to automatically register all 18-year-olds via the computer database where their names are stored. In Germany, tens of thousands of young people marched against parliamentary moves towards reinstating mandatory conscription there. Some of those who support conscription do so because they believe that people (including politicians) will oppose wars their government starts if they face the possibility they or their child will be forced into the military to fight those wars. Others demand a return to mandatory conscription because citizens of the nation they live in need to be reminded that living in that nation means they must be an active part of its defense. Of course, both of these arguments require an acceptance that this nation for which the conscripts might give their lives holds the lives of the conscripts in the same regard as it does those making and profiting from its wars. From where I sit, that’s a mighty hard sell.
An aspect of the argument that a draft would make politicians think twice before allowing a war to take place because politicians’ children might get drafted into the war is not really much of an argument when considered historically. Looking at the last war where US citizens were drafted—the war in Vietnam, it is more than apparent that those draftees who did most of the killing and dying in that war were working class men. If those men were Black, they were even more likely to end up as nothing but cannon fodder. According to the Oxford Companion of Military History, “During the height of the US involvement, 1965-69, Blacks, who formed 11% of the American population, made up 12.6% of the soldiers in Vietnam. The majority of these were in the infantry, and although authorities differ on the figures, the percentage of Black combat fatalities in that period was a staggering 14.9%.” In addition, they accounted for almost 20% of all combat-related deaths in Vietnam from 1961-1965 and in 1968, they frequently contributed half of the men in frontline combat units. Meanwhile, men like Donald Trump evaded the draft, just like many other wealthy young men during the Vietnam War and every US war back to the Civil War.
If anything is going to stop their wars, it will be a determined and massive movement against their war; a movement that rejects both parties as war parties and organizes with that understanding.
Another part of this same argument is that the US people would be more likely to oppose US involvement in a war if their children were involved. Once again, history tells us something different. To put it as succinctly as possible, this just isn’t true. A military draft existed during the US war in Korea, and opposition to that conflict was essentially nonexistent. Same can be said for the 1965 US invasion of the Dominican Republic.
Likewise, the same can be said about the US war in Vietnam. While it’s reasonable to argue that the existence of military conscription convinced many young men to oppose the draft and the war, a greater truth is that it was the growing reach of the anti-war movement that made it okay for those resisters to resist, not the other way around. In other words, the existence of the draft didn’t create the anti-war movement; the anti-war movement created the draft resistance movement.
In later years, massive movements against the US wars in Iraq were organized and there was no draft, although various politicians did float the possibility of restarting it. Like the movement against the war in Southeast Asia, those movements existed because of determined organizing by numerous groups opposed to the slaughter. Any blame for the failure of those movements to stop the Iraq wars earlier than they did is most likely due to manipulation of the anti-war movement by the Democratic Party and vacillation among elements in the movement’s leadership.
Those who believe that an apparent lack of concern among US residents about the murder and havoc being wrought in their name in Iran can be reversed by reviving mandatory conscription of young people seem to think that the war machine will do the organizing against the war it is waging.This just isn’t going to happen. In fact, a revival of mandatory conscription is most likely to do the exact opposite.
With a considerably greater pool of potential cannon fodder biding their time in barracks and on ships, there is even less to restrain those in the Pentagon, war industry boardrooms, Congress, and the White House from expanding their slaughter. If anything is going to stop their wars, it will be a determined and massive movement against their war; a movement that rejects both parties as war parties and organizes with that understanding. A movement that is willing to use means that not only reject the status quo but is willing to overturn it when the moment arrives. Reinstating mandatory conscription does not meet that requirement.