Remarkably, there's a resolution now in the House of Representatives to move 350 of the apples out of the grasp of the lunatics a very reasonable proposal. And there are amendments to the big annual military bill in both houses, with votes expected soon, to move just 10% of the Pentagon's money to human and environmental needs. Surely, if we can recognize that states and localities dumping 10% of their budgets into police and prisons is a disaster, we can recognize that the federal government dumping over half of its money into war is too. And I know that $6.4 trillion sounds like a lot of money, but don't believe any of these studies that tell you that some fraction of military spending (plus other resulting costs) is the price of 20 years of wars. Military spending is for nothing but wars and preparations for more wars, and it's well over $1 trillion a year in the United States, over $700 billion of that in the Pentagon.
If you were to take 10% away from the Pentagon, what would you take it from exactly? Well, simply ending the war on Afghanistan that candidate Donald Trump promised to end four years ago would save most of that $74 billion. Or you could save almost $69 billion by eliminating the off-the-books slush fund known as the Overseas Contingency Operations account (because the word "wars" didn't test as well in focus groups).
There's $150 billion per year in overseas bases why not cut that in half? Why not eliminate all the bases that no Congress Member can name, just for a start?
Where could the money go? It could have a major impact on the United States or the world. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, as of 2016, it would take $69.4 billion per year to lift all U.S. families with children up to the poverty line. According to the United Nations, $30 billion per year could end starvation on earth, and about $11 billion could provide the world, including the United States, with clean drinking water.
Does knowing those figures, even if they're slightly or wildly off, throw any doubt on the idea that spending $1 trillion on weapons and troops is a security measure? Some 95% of suicide terrorist attacks are directed against foreign military occupations, while 0% are motivated by anger over the provision of food or clean water. Are there perhaps things a country can do to protect itself that don't involve weapons?
Let me suggest visiting two places. One is RootsAction.org where Norman Solomon and I work, and where you can send an email to your Senators and Misrepresentative with one easy click.
The other is WorldBeyondWar.org where you can study the case for abolishing the entire institution of war, a campaign critical and central to the movement against racism, that for the environment, that for democracy, and all campaigns for useful spending of resources.
I hate to say this, I'd love to be more polite, but when we're dealing with survival that takes precedence: it's time to start treating war funders as of questionable sanity and morality. It's time to recreate shame in war profiteering. It's time to divest from military contractors, convert military industries, and gently escort anyone who votes against cutting the U.S. military budget by 10 percent out of the halls of Congress and into the nearest padded cell.
Thanks for including me in Peacestock.
I hope to see you in person soon.
Peace!
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
