SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
military budget
New Year, Same Old Wars
War is humanity’s cancer. Its seeming inevitability is ensconced in the global military budget. Can we ever stop waging it?
Jan 03, 2025
I welcome in the new year with a sense of abstract helplessness, as the headlines continue to bring us dead children, bombed hospitals, torture, rape and, of course, ever more “self-defense” (sometimes known as genocide).
From my safe, secure office space I absorb the daily news—from Gaza, from all across the planet–with a whiplash of guilt and naivete. What the hell do I know what it feels like to have my house, or my tent, bombed, to see my children die, to have no access to water, let alone healthcare? Is it enough to comfortably empathize with the collateral damage of this world at war?
No, no, no, it’s not.
This is just the way things are. It’s OK to kill—you just have to do so within certain rules.
But I empathize nonetheless, and shake to my depths with an incredulity that never goes away: “As if the relentless bombing and the dire humanitarian situation in Gaza were not enough, the one sanctuary where Palestinians should have felt safe in fact became a death trap.”
The words are those of Volker Türk, the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, quoted in a recent U.N. report about Israel’s ongoing devastation of Palestinian hospitals and its virtually total destruction of the occupied territory’s healthcare system, including the arrest—the abduction—of hundreds of doctors and other medical professionals, who often wind up being tortured and sometimes murdered.
The U.N. report was released “just days after the last functioning major healthcare facility in northern Gaza, Kama Adwan Hospital, was taken out of service after a raid by Israeli military forces, leaving the population of North Gaza with almost no access to adequate health care,” according to U.N. News:
Staff and patients were forced to flee or were taken into custody, with many reports of torture and ill-treatment. The director of the hospital was taken into custody, and his fate and whereabouts are unknown.
During the period covered by the report, there were at least 136 strikes on at least 27 hospitals and 12 other medical facilities, claiming significant casualties among doctors, nurses, medics, and other civilians, and causing significant damage, if not complete destruction of civilian infrastructure.
It’s virtually impossible to absorb news like this without first reducing it to an abstraction. This is something that’s happening “over there” somewhere, to people I don’t know. And soon enough the world itself—the world in which we all live—is mostly an abstraction... an entity separated by borders. I can read about terrible things going on in distant places, but my sense of actual connection to them is missing.
The U.N. News story proceeded to point out, “The protection of hospitals during warfare is paramount and must be respected by all sides, at all times.”
And here’s where my internal alarm went off. I have no disagreement with the point of the above sentence, but there’s something missing. Something crucial. Its basic point is this: When you’re waging war, hey, you still have to obey certain rules, e.g., don’t bomb hospitals without a really, really good reason. If you do, you’ve done something bad. You’ve committed a war crime.
It’s not simply that acts of war are wrapped snugly in legalese, but that war itself—in the context that births the term “war crime”—is not questioned or morally challenged. War simply exists. It’s a transcultural moral certainty. It’s part and parcel of civilization itself. Various social entities across the planet are bound to disagree or get annoyed with one another from time to time, and when they do—what choice do they have?—they go to war. This is just the way things are. It’s OK to kill—you just have to do so within certain rules. And mostly those rules apply to the loser, not the winner. Certainly this is true in retrospect.
And suddenly the sense of abstraction I was feeling begins to shatter. The concept of war instantly turns life itself into an abstraction. No matter that religions (see Genesis 1:27) all seem to acknowledge the preciousness of human life... of life itself. Most religions are also the first to send their troops—or, nowadays, their tanks and bombers—into battle.
A year ago I wrote:
We—by which I mean most of humanity—are still playing with the so-called ‘just war theory,’ the intellectual justification for war dating back to St. Augustine and the early centuries of the Common Era.
You know, violence is morally neutral—and thus, when the cause is just and sacred, go for it! Kill the non-believers... The neutrality of violence can be used by anyone in a position of power.
And, oh yeah, before you open fire, before you start killing, you have to take a spiritual step directly into the process: You have to define, and then dehumanize, the enemy. Once that happens, let her rip! The only thing stopping you now are the so-called rules of war, which allegedly protect innocent civilians and keep the whole thing reasonable. What a joke. Violence is poisonously addictive and easily expands—anywhere and everywhere.
War, as I have noted, is humanity’s cancer. Its seeming inevitability is ensconced in the global military budget. We have a few thousand nukes ready to go (“if necessary”) and thus the power to destroy all life on Planet Earth, aka, ourselves. Isn’t it time to start rethinking this potential Armageddon?
We are capable of creating peace! Most of us want it, at least for ourselves, our loved ones, our community, and country. We just don’t know what it is—and no, it’s not some cliché of perfect harmony. But it begins with the only rule of war that is necessary: It must never be waged again.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump Should 100% Take Jimmy Carter's Advice
Trump’s first term was four years of Christmas Days for billionaires and corporate interests, starting with the military-industrial complex. A repeat of that must not be tolerated.
Dec 30, 2024
With President Jimmy Carter’s passing and Donald Trump about to return to the White House, it’s a good time to recall a phone conversation that Carter had with Trump during his first term. Carter’s advice would serve Trump well if he really wants to fulfill his campaign promise to Put America First–something he failed to do in his first term.
In April 2019, Jimmy Carter told his church congregation in Georgia that President Trump had called him for advice about China. Carter said he told Trump that China was economically overtaking the United States as the world’s largest and most dynamic economy because the United States had spent decades wasting trillions of dollars to fight endless wars, while China had instead focused on economic development and lifted hundreds of millions of its people out of extreme poverty. “China has not wasted a single penny on war,” Carter said, “and that’s why they’re ahead of us, in almost every way.”
The next day, the White House confirmed that the two presidents “had a very good telephone conversation about President Trump’s stance on trade with China and numerous other topics.”
Some of Trump’s statements during the election campaign suggest that he hasn’t forgotten Carter’s advice. At the very least, he got the message that peace would be good for America, and that a lot of Americans understand that. Majorities of Americans have long supported a ceasefire in Gaza, and a plurality now support a negotiated peace in Ukraine, too. Trump promised to deliver on both. He even said that he would end the war in Ukraine in 24 hours, based on his good relations with leaders in Russia and Ukraine.
Maybe now Trump can understand that normalizing war crimes only leads to more war crimes, not to peace or stability.
Americans may be more worried about problems closer to home than the Middle East or Ukraine, but President Carter connected the dots between U.S. war-making and our quality of life in America.
“And I think the difference is, if you take $3 trillion and put it in American infrastructure, you’d probably have $2 trillion leftover,” Carter explained to his congregation. “We’d have high-speed railroad. We’d have bridges that aren’t collapsing, we’d have roads that are maintained properly. Our education system would be as good as that of say South Korea or Hong Kong.”
What Carter described to Trump is the classic choice between “guns and butter” that faces every society. In the late 19th and early 20th century, the United States was a rising economic power, like China today. Europe’s imperial powers destroyed each other in the First World War, leaving even the victors, Britain and France, with multibillion dollar debts to J.P. Morgan and the U.S. Treasury. The United States’ economic success made it the world’s banker and industrial leader and gave it a decisive role in the history of the 20th century.
Today, it is the United States that has an unprecedented national debt of $36 trillion, and our military budget consumes 56% of federal discretionary spending, putting the squeeze on all our other needs. But we can still enjoy shared prosperity and a brighter future if Trump can do as Carter advised him and wean our government off its addiction to war.
So why are we not reassured by Trump’s promises to make peace and put America first? There are three things that worry us: his first-term track record; his second-term cabinet picks; and his aggressive rhetoric since the election (as opposed to what he said on the campaign trail).
Let’s start with his track record. Despite loud promises to tackle the entrenched interests of the “Deep State” and to “Drain the Swamp,” Trump’s first term was four years of Christmas Days for billionaires and corporate interests, starting with the military-industrial complex. In FY2025 inflation-adjusted dollars, Trump spent an average of $292 billion per year on Pentagon “investment” accounts, or payments to weapons makers and other military suppliers. That was a 24% increase over Obama’s second term.
Trump’s record tax giveaway to his billionaire buddies was not balanced by any cuts in military spending, which was as much of a sacred cow to him as to Bush, Obama, and Biden. This toxic combination blew up the national debt, leaving nothing in the kitty for improving education, healthcare, public transportation or any of our society’s other critical needs. That tax cut will expire in a year’s time, but Trump has made it clear that he intends to give even greater tax breaks to his billionaire buddies.
Trump deserves credit for not starting any new wars during his first term, but his escalations of Bush’s and Obama’s wars made his first year in office in 2017 the heaviest year of U.S. and allied bombing since the First Gulf War in 1991, dropping more than 60,000 bombs and missiles on Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, Yemen, Libya, Pakistan and Somalia.
As Jimmy Carter told Trump, by making peace and renouncing war and militarism he can actually put America First, save trillions of dollars and invest in America.
Many Americans remember Trump’s shocking statement that “When you get these terrorists, you have to take out their families.” What the U.S. corporate media swept under the rug was that the Iraqi forces who captured the bombed out ruins of Islamic State’s stronghold in Mosul’s Old City took Trump at his word and killed all the survivors, including women and children, just as Israel is doing in parts of Gaza today. Maybe now Trump can understand that normalizing war crimes only leads to more war crimes, not to peace or stability.
When it comes to Trump’s new cabinet picks, he might have jettisoned some of the worst hawks in his last coterie, such as John Bolton, but some of his nominees for top foreign policy jobs are awful, including Secretary of State nominee Marco Rubio, National Security Advisor nominee Mike Waltz and Secretary of Defense nominee Pete Hegseth.
Tulsi Gabbard is a more encouraging choice as National Intelligence Director, but as a House member, she voted for two thirds of Obama’s and Trump’s military spending bills, and was always a pushover for expensive new weapon systems. As we asked when she ran for president in 2020, which Tulsi Gabbard will we see in her new job? The one who opposes regime change wars and the new Cold War with Russia, or the one who couldn’t say no to nuclear-armed cruise missiles in 2014, 2015 or 2016? And who will Trump listen to? Tulsi Gabbard and JD Vance, who is more non-interventionist, or warmongers Rubio and Waltz?
We don’t want to place too much stock in Trump’s often contradictory public statements, but he has sounded very hawkish lately. If you believe everything Trump says, he wants to buy Greenland, invade Mexico to fight immigrants and drug gangs, annex Canada as the 51st state, put 25% tariffs on Canada and Mexico, and seize the Panama Canal and close it to China. In Trump’s last term he badgered NATO countries to increase their military spending to 2 percent of GDP, but now he is calling on them to spend a staggering 5 percent, far more than the 3.1 percent of GDP that the U.S. spent in 2024.
This is a test for the American people. Do we want a showman, tough guy president, playing ringmaster of the corporate media circus? Do we want a leader who threatens to invade Canada, Mexico, Panama (again) and Greenland, like an American Netanyahu dreaming of a Western Greater Israel? Or should we demand a president who really puts America First? A president who makes peace in Ukraine and the Middle East? A president who finally starts bringing our troops home from those 800 foreign military bases all over the world? A president who can look at a map and see that Guantanamo is in Cuba and the Golan Heights are in Syria?
As Jimmy Carter told Trump, by making peace and renouncing war and militarism he can actually put America First, save trillions of dollars and invest in America. The Democrats have had their chances to do right by the American people and they’ve blown it so many times we’ve lost count. So the ball’s in Trump’s court. Will he follow Carter’s sage advice?
Keep ReadingShow Less
Sanders Explains Why He's Voting Against the New $850 Billion Pentagon Budget
"We do not need to spend almost a trillion dollars on the military, while half a million Americans are homeless and children go hungry," Sen. Bernie Sanders writes in a new op-ed.
Dec 08, 2024
U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders on Sunday announced his opposition to an annual military policy bill that would authorize a Pentagon budget of nearly $850 billion, a sum that the progressive senator from Vermont characterized as outrageous—particularly as so many Americans face economic hardship.
"We do not need to spend almost a trillion dollars on the military, while half a million Americans are homeless and children go hungry," Sanders (I-Vt.) wrote in an op-ed for The Guardian after the House and Senate released legislative text for the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2025.
Sanders continued:
In this moment in history, it would be wise for us to remember what Dwight D. Eisenhower, a former five-star general, said in his farewell address in 1961: "In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist." What Eisenhower said was true in 1961. It is even more true today.
I will be voting against the military budget.
The senator's op-ed came hours after lawmakers from both chambers of Congress unveiled the sprawling, 1,813-page NDAA for the coming fiscal year. The legislation's topline is just over $895 billion as lawmakers from both parties push annual U.S. military spending inexorably toward $1 trillion, even as the Pentagon fails to pass an audit.
The U.S. currently spends more on its military than the next nine countries combined, and military spending accounts for more than half of the nation's yearly discretionary spending, according to the National Priorities Project.
Sanders wrote Sunday that "very few people who have researched the military-industrial complex doubt that there is massive fraud, waste and cost over-runs in the system." One analysis estimates that over 50% of the Pentagon's annual budget, the subject of aggressive industry lobbying, goes to private contractors.
"Defense contractors routinely overcharge the Pentagon by 40%—and sometimes more than 4,000%," Sanders continued. "For example, in October, RTX (formerly Raytheon) was fined $950 million for inflating bills to the DoD, lying about labor and material costs, and paying bribes to secure foreign business. In June, Lockheed Martin was fined $70 million for overcharging the navy for aircraft parts, the latest in a long line of similar abuses. The F-35, the most expensive weapon system in history, has run up hundreds of billions in cost overruns."
The NDAA could have some trouble getting through the divided Congress—but not because of the proposed size of the Pentagon budget.
House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) said in a statement that the legislation includes language that would "permanently ban transgender medical treatment for minors" and other provisions that are expected to draw Democratic opposition.
Kelley Robinson, president of the Human Rights Campaign, said in a statement Saturday that "anti-equality House Republican leaders are hijacking a defense bill to play politics with the healthcare of children of servicemembers."
"This cruel and hateful bill suddenly strips away access to medical care for families that members of our armed forces are counting on, and it could force servicemembers to choose between staying in the military or providing healthcare for their children," said Robinson. "Politicians have no place inserting themselves into decisions that should be between families and their doctors. We call on members of Congress to do what's right and vote against this damaging legislation."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular