Preparing for war

“At what point shall we expect the approach of danger? By what means shall we fortify against it? Shall we expect some transatlantic military giant, to step the Ocean, and crush us at a blow? Never! All the armies of Europe, Asia and Africa combined, with all the treasure of the earth (our own excepted) in their military chest; with a Bonaparte for a commander, could not by force, take a drink from the Ohio, or make a track on the Blue Ridge, in a trial of a thousand years. At what point then is the approach of danger to be expected? I answer, if it ever reach us, it must spring up amongst us. It cannot come from abroad. If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher.” —Abraham Lincoln
In the 21st century, we seem to have forgotten that.
The militarism of the Bush years seemed less about being strong and macho and decisive than being consumed with fear. Like Cheney’s 1 percent doctrine—even a 1 percent chance of a nuclear attack justified our going into Iraq. Regardless of the cost. Or the declared White House policy that we could not and would not allow any nation in the world to develop a military capability that would threaten us, and that we were justified in a pre-emptive attack on any nation that might become a threat.
Perversely, I think they prove that Lincoln was right, because no other nation in the world could afford to make statements like that.
For most of Europe’s history, any nation that wanted to pre-emptively eliminate any potential threat would have had to wage war on all its neighbors.
Russia and China would have been at each other’s throats long before this.
We’d have had to go nuclear against the USSR in a first strike to carry out the Cheney doctrine (and there were people who favored the idea).
Now, we’re the mightiest nation on Earth. We spend as much on our military than the rest of the world put together (literally) and can’t even account for it all (the Pentagon admits it can’t provide records for about 80 percent of the billions its spent in Iraq but insists it’s all been spent responsibly). Both our neighbors are allies, there’s no nation that poses an imminent military challenge (let alone the threat of invasion) and yet we still spend on the military like it was the middle of World War II.
If our weapons are years ahead of the rest of the world, we can’t stop spending because someday they’ll catch up. If our greatest adversary of the past 50 years, the USSR, has gone belly up, well, there’s lots of other nations and potential threats so we can’t afford to cut a dime. If we have to decide what kind of threat should be the top priority—counter-insurgency or conventional warfare?—we usually spend on both, just so we cover all the bases.
Which would be fine if we had infinite money. We don’t. Even if we wiped out all our non-military, non-law enforcement programs, we wouldn’t. Yet the slightest suggestion we cut back will be met with outrage (I’ve been informed that cutting military spending during the war on terror is a form of treason); the same people who scream that Social Security will ruin our grandchildren’s economy don’t bat an eye at billions of red ink spent to finance our wars in Iraq. And Afghanistan. And Iran, if the warhawks have their way, and Yemen.
There’s umpty-zillion reasons for this. War is big business for big companies and a big economic boost for lots of communities with defense contracting businesses. Cut the spigot and people will howl.
Defense contractors have lobbyists, just like everyone else.
Every branch of the military wants its share of the money and the cool toys.
Quite aside from corporate influence on politics, any attempt to cut defense spending will be portrayed as proof the politician is an anti-American monster who wants the communists/nazis/Islamofascists to win.
And for a lot of people, particularly (but not exclusively) on the right, war is a good thing. After WW II and the Cold War, they can’t imagine America as anything but the world’s policeman; they take it as a given that when we say “Attack!” the rest of the world should say “What megatonnage?” Advocating for war proves their own manhood (pro-Iraq war pundits frequently painted themselves as strong and brave for demanding someone else go off and fight); some of them act as if there’s a direct connection between our military prowess and the size of their penis.
Just consider that while running wars in Afghanistan, Iraq and parts of Pakistan, Obama has been portrayed as a weakling who has no stomach to wage war on our enemies.
Eisenhower warned us about the military-industrial complex. He was right. But we didn’t listen.
And on that note, I’ll leave you with another of his observations: “There is no way in which a country can satisfy the craving for absolute security, but it can bankrupt itself morally and economically in attempting to reach that illusory goal through arms alone.”