In 1954, Armistice Day became Veterans Day. The former commemorated the end of a great war, and thereby honored peace. The latter recognizes ex-warriors, and thereby honors war. The change seems to reflect our national preference.
The creation of the American armed forces predates the establishment of our nation. During its two and a half centuries, the U.S. military has become an institution that most citizens accept without question. But just because something has existed for a long time, doesn’t necessarily mean it’s beyond challenge. The world is constantly changing. What was once useful, necessary, and effective may no longer be so. Institutions and their methods and practices should be reviewed from time to time, and changed or abandoned as needed.
The problem is that the American military has long been held sacrosanct, even glorified. To raise questions about it makes a citizen’s patriotism suspect and an office-holder’s reelection all but impossible. And militarism permeates the American way of life, infecting all aspects of our culture. It is manifest in entertainment, toys, military-style clothing, and rampant gun violence with military-style assault weapons.
Let us stop and rethink the American obsession with war and militarism. The military was created by humans, not divinely inspired, so we would greatly benefit from a performance review. And given the topics in the news recently, now is a very good time to raise questions about the American military institution.
The recent end to the U.S. involvement is Afghanistan begs questions. Was this a good use of American blood (more than 2,400 dead; more than 20,000 wounded) and treasure (more than two trillion dollars — that’s $2,000,000,000,000)? Was the project effective, that is, are Americans now safer, or have we created more enemies given that the extended families of the 50 thousand to 100 thousand dead civilians might not be so pro-American? How about a cost-benefits analysis for the war in Iraq? Vietnam? Our military is trained, prepared, and equipped with the best technology to fight a conventional war. But we don’t engage with adversaries that fight conventional wars. Should we change tactics, choose other adversaries, or rethink the whole idea of engagement?
Ostensibly, the mission of the Department of Defense is national security. (It was more honestly called the Department of War until 1949.) Since its inception, our country has invaded 70 other countries and had only 17 years without any military action. But does invading (and destabilizing) other countries make anyone more secure? Before we rush to war, shouldn’t we trust the Department of State to seek diplomatic solutions to international differences?
Other questions arise when we consider government spending. The current Pentagon budget is more than $700 billion. (Note that the Pentagon has never passed an audit, that its annual spending exceeds that of the next ten countries combined, and that the Department of State gets less than $60 billion.) At that rate over ten years, the military will get more than $7 trillion, which is more than twice the original cost of Biden’s Build Back Better plan for the same time period.
But opposition, obstruction, and objections have reduced Biden’s plan by more than half. Meanwhile the Pentagon’s initial 2022 budget request of $715 billion was increased by $25 billion! We bicker about spending on real problems and mindlessly throw money at the war machine. The military exists basically to kill people and blow things up; Biden’s plan is to help people improve their lives, rebuild infrastructure, and address the climate crisis. Are our priorities askew?
Speaking of the climate crisis, with the Glasgow COP 26 in the news, let’s consider fossil fuel emissions of the armed forces. The U.S. military has the largest carbon footprint of any individual organization in the world — larger than most countries. Ironically, the Pentagon has identified climate change as a national security issue. So, what will make us more secure — a habitable planet or more needless wars?
While it’s easy to raise questions, we’re unlikely to see changes. President Eisenhower warned us of the “total influence — economic, political, even spiritual” of “an immense military establishment and a large arms industry.” This vast military industrial complex, the makers of bullets and bombers, use their wealth to control the media and the politicians who perpetuate the problem.
Is it hopeless? Perhaps not. Other long-established institutions, such as slavery and feudalism, have been abandoned or revised. But Eisenhower said that “only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry” can force the needed changes. And, given the current political environment, it seems we are neither alert nor knowledgeable. Still, might we begin to rethink America’s obsession with militarism?
Multiple times over the last hundred years, bills have been introduced, without success, to create a Department of Peace. Try, try again? Or at least could we begin by reclaiming November 11 as a day to honor peace?
—
KCfromChi (U.S. Army 1966-69) is a member of Veterans For Peace.