William D. Hartung surveys U.S. military spending, which in 2019 was higher than at the peak of either the Korean or Vietnam conflicts.
By William D. Hartung
I’ve been writing critiques of the Pentagon, the national security state, and America’s never-ending military overreach since at least 1979 — in other words, virtually my entire working life. In those decades, there were moments when positive changes did occur. They ranged from ending the apartheid regime in South Africa in 1994 and halting U.S. military support for the murderous regimes, death squads, and outlaws who ruled Central America in the 1970s and 1980s to sharp reductions in the U.S. and Russian nuclear arsenals as the Cold War wound down. Each of those victories, however complex, seemed like a signal that sustained resistance and global solidarity mattered and could make a difference when it came to peace and security.
Here’s a striking exception, though, one thing that decidedly hasn’t changed for the better in all these years: the staggering number of tax dollars that persistently go into what passes for national security in this country. In our case, of course, the definition of “national security” is subsidizing the U.S. military-industrial complex, year in, year out, at levels that should be (but aren’t) beyond belief. In 2019, Pentagon spending is actually higher than it was at the peak of either the Korean or Vietnam conflicts and may soon be — adjusted for inflation — twice the Cold War average.
Yes, in those four decades, there were dips at key inflection points, including the ends of the Vietnam War and the Cold War, but the underlying trend has been ever onward and upward. Just why that’s been the case is a subject that almost never comes up here. So. let me try to explain it in the most personal terms by tracing my own history of working on Pentagon spending and what I’ve learned from it.
Apartheid-Era Arms Embargo
I first began analyzing this country’s weapons-making corporations in the mid-1970s while still a student at Columbia University and deeply involved in the anti-apartheid movement of that moment. As one of my topics of research, I spent a fair amount of time tracing how some of those outfits were circumventing the then-existing arms embargo on (white) South Africa by using shadow companies, shipping weapons through third countries, and similar deceptions.
Please Make Your End-of-Year Donation Today.
One of the outlets I wrote for then was Southern Africa magazine, a collectively produced, independent journal that supported the liberation movements in that part of the world. The anti-apartheid struggle was ultimately successful, thanks to the efforts of the global solidarity movement of which I was a small part, but primarily to the courageous acts of South African individuals and organizations like the African National Congress and the Black Consciousness Movement.
As it happens, there has been no such luck when it comes to reining in the Pentagon.
I started working on Pentagon spending in earnest in 1979 when I landed a job at the New York-based Council on Economic Priorities (CEP), an organization founded on the notion that corporations could be shamed into being more socially responsible. Armed with a BA in Philosophy — much to the chagrin of my father who was convinced I would be unemployable as a result — I was lucky to get the position.
Even then I had my doubts about whether encouraging social responsibility would ever be adequate to tame profit-hungry multinational corporations, but the areas of research pursued by CEP were too important to pass up. One of their most significant studies at the time was a report identifying the manufacturers of anti-personnel weaponry used to grim effect in the war in Vietnam. And Gordon Adams, who went on to be the top defense budget official in the Clinton White House in the 1990s, wrote a seminal study, “The Iron Triangle,” while I was at CEP. That book laid out in a memorable fashion the symbiotic relationships among congressional representatives, the arms industry, and the Pentagon that elevated special interests above the national interest and kept weapons budgets artificially high.
My initial assignment was as a researcher for CEP’s Conversion Information Center — not religious conversion, mind you, but the conversion of the U.S. economy from its deep dependence on Pentagon spending to something better. The concept of conversion dated back at least to the Vietnam War era when it was championed by figures like Walter Reuther, the influential head of the United Auto Workers union, and Seymour Melman, an industrial engineering professor at Columbia University who wrote a classic book on the subject, “The Permanent War Economy of the United States.” (I took an undergraduate course with Melman which sparked what would become my own abiding interest in documenting the costs and consequences of the military-industrial complex.)
My work at CEP mostly involved researching subjects like how dependent local and state economies were — and, of course, still are — on Pentagon spending. But I also got to write newsletters and reports on the top 100 U.S. defense contractors, the top 25 U.S. arms-exporting corporations, and the companies advocating for and, of course, benefiting from President Ronald Reagan’s Star Wars missile defense initiative. (That vast program was meant to turn space into a new “frontier” of war, a subject that has recently lit the mind of one Donald Trump.) In each case, CEP’s goal was to push public interest and indignation to levels that might someday bring an end to the most costly and destructive aspects of the military-industrial complex. So many years later, the results have at best been mixed and, at worst, well… you already know, given the sky-high 2020 Pentagon budget.
During my years at CEP and after, work on economic conversion was pursued at the national level by groups like the National Commission on Economic Conversion and Disarmament and, when it came to projects in defense-dependent states, by local outfits from Connecticut to California. Yet all of that work has been stymied for decades by a seemingly never-ending pattern of rising Pentagon budgets. The post-Vietnam dip in such spending briefly made the notion of conversion planning more appealing to politicians, unions, and even some corporations, but the military build-up in the early 1980s under President Ronald Reagan promptly reduced interest again. With that gravy train back on track, why even plan for a downturn?
Nuclear Freeze to 1991 Gulf War
There was, however, one anti-militarist surge that did make progress during the Reagan years: the Nuclear Freeze Campaign. I worked closely with that movement, authoring a report, for instance, on the potentially positive economic impacts of an initiative to reduce U.S. and Soviet nuclear forces. Although President Reagan never agreed to a freeze of any sort, that national grassroots movement helped transform him from the president who labeled the Soviet Union “the Evil Empire” and joked that “the bombing will start in five minutes” to the one who negotiated the elimination of medium-range nuclear missiles in Europe and declared that “a nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought.” As Frances Fitzgerald documented in “Way Out There in the Blue,” her history of Reagan’s missile defense initiative, by 1984 key presidential advisers were concerned that the increasingly mainstream anti-nuclear movement could damage him politically if he didn’t make some kind of arms-control gesture.
Still, the resulting progress in reducing those nuclear arsenals brought only a temporary lull in the relentless growth of the Pentagon budget. It peaked in 1987, in fact, before dipping significantly at the end of the Cold War when Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Colin Powell famously claimed to be “running out of demons.” Unfortunately, the Pentagon soon fixed that, constructing a costly new strategy aimed at fighting “major regional contingencies” against regimes like Saddam Hussein’s Iraq and North Korea (as Michael Klare so vividly explained in his 1996 book “Rogue States and Nuclear Outlaws”).
President George H.W. Bush’s 1991 intervention in Kuwait to drive out Iraqi forces would provide the template for that new strategy, while seeming to presage a veritable new way of war. After all, that conflict lasted almost no time at all, seemed like a techno-wonder, and succeeded in its primary objective. As an added bonus, most of it was funded by Washington’s allies, not American taxpayers.
But those successes couldn’t have proved more illusory. After all, the 1991 Gulf War set the stage for nearly four decades of never-ending war (and operations just short of it) by U.S. forces across the greater Middle East and parts of Africa. That short-term victory against Saddam Hussein’s Iraq, in fact, prompted a resurgence of imperial hubris that would have disastrous consequences for the greater Middle East and global security more broadly. Militarists cheered the end of what they had called the “Vietnam Syndrome” — a perfectly sensible public aversion to bloody, ill-advised wars in distant lands. Had that “syndrome” persisted, the world would undoubtedly be a safer, more prosperous place today.
Merger Boom, Iraq War II & Global War on Terror
The end of the Cold War resulted, however, in that rarest of all things: real cuts in the Pentagon budget. They were, however, not faintly as deep as might have been expected, given the implosion of the other superpower on the planet, the Soviet Union. Still, those reductions hit hard enough that the weapons industry was forced to reorganize via a series of mega-mergers encouraged by the administration of President Bill Clinton. Lockheed and Martin Marietta formed Lockheed Martin; Northrop and Grumman became Northrop Grumman; Boeing bought McDonnell Douglas; and dozens of other firms, large and small, were scooped up by the giant defense contractors until only five major firms were left standing: Lockheed Martin, Northrup Grumman, Boeing, Raytheon, and General Dynamics. Where dozens of firms had once stood, only the big five now split roughly $100 billion in Pentagon contracts annually.
The theory behind this surge in mergers was that the new firms would eliminate excess capacity and pass on the savings in lower prices for weapons systems sold to the U.S. government. That, of course, would prove a fantasy of the first order, as Lawrence Korb, then at the Brookings Institution, made clear. As I’ve also pointed out, the Clinton administration ended up essentially subsidizing those mergers, providing billions of taxpayer dollars to cover the costs of closing factories and moving equipment, while actually picking up part of the tab for the golden parachutes given to executives and board members displaced by them.
Meanwhile, the companies laid off tens of thousands of workers. Congressman Bernie Sanders (I-VT) dubbed this process of subsidizing mergers while abandoning workers to their fate “payoffs for layoffs” and pushed through legislation that prevented some, but not all, of the merger subsidies from being paid out.
Meanwhile, those defense mega-firms began looking to foreign arms sales to bolster their bottom lines. An obliging Clinton administration promptly stepped up arms sales to the Middle East, making deals at a rate of roughly $1 billion a month in 1993 and 1994. Meanwhile, despite promises made at the time of the Soviet Union’s collapse, Washington oversaw the expansion of NATO to the Russian border, including the addition of Hungary, Poland, and the Czech Republic to the alliance. As Tom Collina of the Ploughshares Fund has written, that helped scuttle the prospects for the kind of U.S.-Russian rapprochement that could have delivered a true “peace dividend” (the phrase of that moment) and accelerated reductions in global nuclear arsenals.
For companies like Lockheed Martin, however, such new NATO memberships looked like manna from heaven in the form of more markets for U.S. arms. Norman Augustine, that company’s CEO at the time, even took a marketing tour of nascent NATO members, while company Vice President Bruce Jackson found time in his busy schedule to head up an advocacy group with a self-explanatory name: the U.S. Committee to Expand NATO.
The 1990s also saw the beginnings of movement towards a second war with Iraq, pushed in those years by the Project for the New American Century (PNAC), an advocacy group whose luminaries, including Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and Paul Wolfowitz, would all too soon become part of the administration of President George W. Bush and the architects of his 2003 invasion of Iraq.
You won’t be surprised to learn that they were joined at PNAC by Lockheed Martin’s ubiquitous Bruce Jackson. Nor, at this late date, will you be shocked that those merger subsidies, NATO expansion, and the return to a more interventionist policy helped get military spending back on a steady growth path until the 9/11 attacks opened the spigots, launched the Global War on Terror, and sent a flood of new money pouring into the Pentagon and the national security state. The budget of the Department of Defense would only increase for the first 10 years of this century, a record not previously matched in U.S. history.
Prospects for Shrinking the Pentagon Budget
Why has it been so hard to reduce the Pentagon budget, regardless of the global security environment? The power of the arms lobby, strengthened by the merger boom of the 1990s, was certainly one factor. Fear of terrorism generated by the 9/11 attacks, which set the stage for 18 years of ill-advised military adventures, including the never-ending (and disastrous) war in Afghanistan, is certainly another. The political fear of losing elections by being seen as either “soft” on defense or unconcerned about the fate of military-industrial jobs in one’s home state or district made many Democrats view taking on the Pentagon as the true “third rail” of American politics. And the military itself has blindly adhered to a strategy of global dominance that’s essentially been on autopilot, no matter the damaging consequences of near-endless war and preparations for more of it.
Still, even decades later, hope is not entirely lost. It remains possible that all of this might change in the years to come as a war-weary public — from progressives to large parts of Donald Trump’s base — has tired of the country’s forever wars, which have minimally cost something like $6.4 trillion, while resulting in hundreds of thousands of deaths, according to the latest analyses by Brown University’s Costs of War project.
As even Trump has acknowledged, those trillions could have gone far in repairing America’s infrastructure and doing so much else in this country. In truth, as Lindsay Koshgarian of the National Priorities Project has pointed out, that sort of money could have underwritten significant parts of major initiatives like the Green New Deal or Medicare for All that would change the nature of this society rather than destroying other ones.
But that money’s gone. The question is: What will the nation’s budget priorities be going forward? Both Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders have called for reductions in Pentagon spending, with Warren singling out the Pentagon’s war budget, the so-called Overseas Contingency Operations account, or OCO, in particular for elimination. OCO has been used as a slush fund not only to pay for those wars, but also to fund tens of billions of dollars in Pentagon pet projects that have nothing to do with our current conflicts. Eliminating it alone could save up to $800 billion over the next decade for other uses.
There has recently been a surge of proposals aimed at cutting the soaring Pentagon budget in significant ways. My own organization, the Center for International Policy, for example, has created a Sustainable Defense Task Force made up of ex-White House and congressional budget experts, former Pentagon officials and military officers, and analysts from think tanks across the political spectrum. Our group has already outlined a plan that would save $1.25 trillion from current Pentagon projections over the next decade.
Meanwhile, a group of more than 20 progressive organizations called #PeopleOverPentagon has proposed $2 trillion in cuts over that decade and the Poor People’s Campaign, working from an analysis done by the Institute for Policy Studies, would up that to $3.5 trillion, while investing the savings in urgent domestic needs.
Whether any of this succeeds in breaking the pattern of ever-rising budgets remains an open question. The most urgent threats to the safety of the planet today are climate change, nuclear weapons, epidemics, the rise of extreme right-wing nationalism, poverty, and grotesque levels of inequality. As a recent report from the organization Win Without War noted, none of these challenges can be addressed through military means. The rationale for spending more than $700 billion a year on the Pentagon — and well over $1.2 trillion for national security writ large — simply does not exist.
There are, of course, no guarantees that the Pentagon budget will finally be downsized, but 40 years after beginning my own work on this issue, I’m not giving up and neither is the growing network of organizations and individuals working to demilitarize foreign policy and impose budget discipline on the Pentagon. Unfortunately, neither are the giant defense contractors and those who run the national security state.
William D. Hartung, a TomDispatch regular, is the director of the Arms and Security Project at the Center for International Policy and the author of “Prophets of War: Lockheed Martin and the Making of the Military-Industrial Complex.”
This article is from TomDispatch.com.
The views expressed are solely those of the author and may or may not reflect those of Consortium News.
Please Make Your End-of-Year Donation Today.
Before commenting please read Robert Parry’s Comment Policy. Allegations unsupported by facts, gross or misleading factual errors and ad hominem attacks, and abusive or rude language toward other commenters or our writers will not be published. If your comment does not immediately appear, please be patient as it is manually reviewed. For security reasons, please refrain from inserting links in your comments, which should not be longer than 300 words.
Sep 17, 2019 Catherine Austin Fitts Explains the Financial Coup D’état
Catherine Austin Fitts has been following the story of the black budget, the missing trillions, and the back door in the US Treasury for decades.
The Pentagon and Capitol Hill ensure that the U.S. govt is run like a criminal enterprise no matter who occupies the Whiite House.
In my country, the govt of the present day is run like a mafia organisation,.
After winning recent general election, the criminal nature of the govt in my country rises quickly to the surface (goes into action).
The govt has decided to enforce learning of Islamic calligraphy on non-Muslim students. When non-Muslim groups protested, they
were threatened with police action, called names and mafioso-type religo-racial groups immediately wanted to visit violence on them.
This is really criminal. Almost all govt are run like criminal enterprises.
Once upon a time, in a quiet nook of Virginia, a teacher of social studies gave copying an example of calligraphy as a homework. How is it criminal?
“You won’t be surprised to learn that they were joined at PNAC by Lockheed Martin’s ubiquitous Bruce Jackson.”
Not surprised nevertheless impressed by the blatant disregard of the national interest and lust for greater profits it expresses.
The article alludes to the symbiosis between Congress and the Pentagon. I recently read an article by David Stockman in which he suggests that Eisenhower’s famous speech about the military industrial complex initially included, rightly, Congressional in the acronym. MCIC. Of course there are other segments of our society that could be included, making for a very long acronym, indeed. He was persuaded not to include it.
I believe that Dwight David Eisenhower used the term MICC. Military, Industrial Congressional Complex but chickened out and removed the first “C” so it became the Military Industrial Complex.
If we really want to talk about threats to the safety of the planet, there is only one … nuclear weapons. You can leave the others off your list. That is the reason for my loathing of the leadership of the Democratic Party, that decided to foment an entirely fictitious conflict with Russia, for partisan political gain. We can survive a lot, including climate change, inequality, etc. We will not survive a war with Russia.
Good article, and I’m glad there are efforts like this to put downward pressure on the excessive military spending.
This spending has frustrated virtually all of us progressives for all the oft-cited reasons I needn’t repeat.
One thought I had as-to the seeming public acceptance of the long run of this profligate spending is that most people (myself included) don’t find budgets — personal, institutional, or governmental— interesting, and in fact they have a negative aura about them (perhaps it reminds us of times when money was short? Or they’re just a lot of dry numbers?) so media coverage of budgetary debates in government don’t keep most people’s attention. Additionally, as the above author points out, many times budgets can be parsed-out into euphemistically named groups (ie; nuclear weapons in the Dept of Energy) to disguise the expenditure as something mundane or even positive. So even IF a lay-person takes a brief interest in the budget/accounting process, it quickly becomes apparent that it’s hard to get even a semi-accurate picture of ‘what’s-what’, leadings to frustration and abandonment of the subject.
Thank you, Mr Hartung, for this overview of the duopoly Congressional, White House never diminishing obscene and utterly amoral financial support (i.e. warfare welfare) for the MIC. (I would question your statement that the US reduced, if not stopped, during the 1970s-80s its support for – including military [School of the Americas] – brutal, murderous dictatorships across Central and South America: Allende? Nicaragua? To name but two.)
Whatever happened to the once-upon-a-time deeply held belief (in both the US and UK and likely other countries) in there being NO standing army (now it would have to include air-force and navy)? Imperialism, the Anglo-American desire for and effort toward world dominance intent clearly put paid to that sensible, moral perspective, belief.
Calling what the Pentagon is, and does, “defense” /”national security” is, of course, utter lies. It is a War Industry/Institution with its raison d’etre lying in US world domination *and* those five warfare industries’ profiteering. A truly defensive force would exist only within the boundaries of this country; would be very small and low cost. And we, the general population, would benefit tremendously from that; and so too would the peoples across the world.
There is nothing, ever, humanitarian, protective – as all the warmongering politicos, military industrial, MSM propagandists would have us hoi polloi believe – in destroying the lives and lifeways, culture and societies of other peoples in other lands (almost always far, far from these shores). Nor is there anything moral, ethical, upstanding, righteous in making, building, creating working on/for any of those five industries or the military itself.
Were we and our NATO allies to stop trying to plunder, dictate to, devastate other peoples in other countries, stop supporting such as Saudia’s abhorrent, immoral, illegal slaughter of Yemenis and Occupied Palestine’s 70+ year slow moving equally immoral, illegal ethnic cleansing of Palestinians, started minding our business about Iran, Russia, China, ended our occupation of Japan, SK, Germany, Iraq, Syria, Turkey, and numerous African countries our government could do what it its purported, but untrue, purpose is: work for us, the general population, for the betterment of our lives (not just those in the grotesquely rich top 10%).
And we would all, across the world, be a lot safer and the planet’s ecosystems a lot cleaner and safer too.
> The Pentagon Budget Still Rising, 40 Years Later
Forty years as well from John to Julian:
War is over! If you want it.
— John Lennon, Happy Xmas (War is over), 1971
If wars can be started by lies, peace can be started by truth.
— Julian Assange, speech at Trafalgar Square, 2011
As long as the rest of the world accepts the USD as an international reserve currency, the USA can afford any military and national defense budget it wants.
By the way since we are the good guys, we only make smart bombs in order to eliminate bad guys all over the world….
Merry Christmas and a happy New year.
Speaking as a USian citizen, the US dollar is pretty much a broken currency even at home.
* Pennies are made of copper-plated zinc, which is toxic when swallowed and leaves a nasty odor on your fingers.
* Little effort is made to replace the 1-dollar bill with a coin. What once cost a dollar decades ago nowadays costs 4 to 5 today.
* Because dollar bills are printed in the same color and size regardless of denomination, even if you had perfect vision, it becomes a real pain in the arse to dig into your pocket/wallet for a specific denomination.
* Coin denominations are written in English instead of Arabic numerals, so you’re forced to speak English just to know that a ‘dime’ is ten cents, or a tenth of a dollar.
This says a lot about how the US dollar is forced into the throats of other countries’ foreign trade. I’m pretty sure that if they had a choice, they’d accept a more modern currency that’s more accessible to people who are sight-impaired and/or speak no word of English.
See: windowstorussia(dot)com/russias-largest-oil-company-rosneft-is-a-euro-e-first.html Rosneft is one such company that has recently switched to euros.
Worldwide problems can be solved with 10% of the Pentagon budget per year.
How about $70 billion per year into clean energy research and deployment? The Pentagon says climate change is the greatest threat to national security. Coastal defense walls could generate tidal power for cities.
There are more than enough jobs rebuilding homes, growing agroforestry & native species reforestation while using the education system to research new technology.
“and halting U.S. military support for the murderous regimes, death squads, and outlaws who ruled Central America in the 1970s and 1980s”… the link is behind a paywall for me, so I cannot see the evidence. The Iran Contra scandal was exposed. Max Blumenthal has noted here in CN https://consortiumnews.com/2019/07/31/how-joe-biden-fueled-the-latin-american-migration-crisis/ that the support for “murderous regimes, death squads, and outlaws” has continued throughout Latin America, including Columbia and Honduras (with the coup that Hillary said was “not a coup” because using that c-word would by law cut off funding.) Additionally there are the ongoing National Emergencies with sanctions (essentially siege war) in Venezuela (2015) and Nicaragua (2018), and of course the recent coup in Bolivia, which shows CIA fingerprints. There may not be as many ongoing insurrections in Latin America as in the 1970s and 1980s, but that is because those fighting the drug cartels lost. Honduras is presently a narco-state, and drug cartels still rule much of Columbia and Mexico, and likely other Latin American countries, probably with CIA assistance, as in the 1970s and 1980s. Nothing making huge amounts of money magically goes away.
“Whether any of this succeeds in breaking the pattern of ever-rising budgets remains an open question.”
I must commend Mr Hartung for his optimism, but it is fundamentally ill-founded. Logic does not play any role in Congress, and every President since Nov.22,1963 has been subservient to the MIC. The cuts he cites are minuscule compared to what should have been done. The only priority for the vast majority of congress critters is reelection and the lining of their own pockets. Robert Parry’s “Mighty Wurlitzer” is completely under the control of the MIC and the so-called “intelligence” agencies. The masses are sheep-dipped in propaganda called “news”, and Hollywood cranks out silly movie after silly movie glorifying the “macho” soldier for our children’s consumption. Reality presents itself much too late on the battlefields scattered around the globe. Moral injury and PTSD plagues them for their remaining days; and they’re lucky compared to the millions of foreigners maimed and killed, and the millions more forced to flee and become refugees in countries whose citizens resent their presence.
It is a pattern that will only be broken with the end of the “Evil Empire”.
The militarization of the United States economy has had a malign influence on the entire globe. Not only does it fritter away resources that could otherwise be used for desperately needed domestic priorities, but it obviously enables the Washington empire to attack, encircle, destabilize or overthrow independent sovereign nation-states.