Even before Covid-19 hit, the economic fragility of so many Americans should have made that kind of recommendation irresponsible. In the midst of a pandemic, it's beyond dangerous. Still, it betrays a crucial truth about the military-industrial complex: its key figures see the U.S. economy as something that should serve their needs, not the other way around.
Of course, the giants of the weapons industry have long had a direct seat at the table in Washington. Despite being the first Black secretary of defense, for instance, Lloyd Austin III remains typical of the Pentagon establishment in the sense that he comes to the job directly from a seat on the board of directors of weapons giant Raytheon. And he's in good company. After all, many of the administration's recent appointees are drawn from key Washington think tanks supported by the weapons industry.
For instance, more than a dozen former staffers from, or people affiliated with, the Center for a New American Security (CNAS) have joined the Biden administration. A recent report by the Revolving Door Project found that CNAS had repeatedly accepted the sort of funding that went comfortably with recommendations it was making that "would directly benefit some of the think tank's donors, including military contractors and foreign governments." When it came to confronting China, for instance, CNAS figures urged the Department of Defense to "sustain and enhance" defense contractors so that they would become ever more "robust, flexible, and resilient" in a faceoff with that country.
Sadly, even as the Pentagon's budget remains largely unchallenged, there's been a sudden reawakening especially in Republican ranks to the version of fiscal conservatism that looks askance at providing relief to communities and businesses suffering around the country. Recent debates in Washington about the latest pandemic relief bill suggest once again that the much-ballyhooed principles of "responsibility" and "fiscal conservatism" apply to everyone except, of course, the Pentagon.
Putting Covid-19 Relief Spending in Perspective
The price tag for the relief bill presently being debated in Congress, $1.9 trillion, is certainly significant, but it's not far from the kind of taxpayer support national security agencies normally receive every year. In 2020, for instance, the real national security budget request surpassed $1.2 trillion. That request included not only the Pentagon, but other costs of war, including care for veterans and military retirement benefits.
Over the years, such costs have proven monumental. The Department of Defense alone, for example, has received more than $10.6 trillion over the past 20 years. That included $2 trillion for its overseas contingency operations account, a war-fighting fund used by both the Pentagon and lawmakers to circumvent congressionally imposed spending caps. Reliance on that account, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office assured Congress, only made it likelier that taxpayers would fund more expensive and less optimal solutions to America's forever wars.
In the past, the justification for such excessive national-security spending rested on the idea that the Defense Department was the key to keeping Americans safe. As a result, the Pentagon's ever-escalating requests for money were approved by Congress year after year without real opposition. Disproportionate funding for that institution has, however, come at a significant cost.
Caps on non-defense spending under the Budget Control Act of 2011 meant that civilian agencies were already underfunded when the pandemic hit. As the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities pointed out, "Overall funding for programs outside veterans' medical care remains below its level a decade ago." The consequences of that underspending can also be seen in our crumbling roads and infrastructure, to which, in its last report in 2017, the American Society of Civil Engineers gave a D+ and the situation has only grown worse since then.
Job protection is the other common refrain for those defending high funding levels for the Pentagon and, during a pandemic with such devastating employment consequences, such a concern can hardly be dismissed. But studies have consistently shown that military spending is a remarkably poor job creator compared to almost any other kind of spending. Some of us may still remember World War II's Rosie the Riveter and mid-twentieth-century union support for defense budgets as engines for job creation. Those assumptions are, however, sorely out of date. Investing in healthcare, combating climate change, or rebuilding infrastructure are all significantly more effective job creators than yet more military spending.
Of course, non-military stimulus spending has been far from perfect. Even measuring the effects of the first relief package passed by Congress has proven difficult, especially since the Trump administration ignored the law when it came to reporting on just how many jobs that spending either preserved or created. Still, there's no question that non-military stimulus efforts are more effective, by orders of magnitude, than defense spending when it comes to job creation.
Needed: A New Funding Strategy to Weather Future Storms
The uncomfortable truth (even for those who would like to see a trillion dollars in annual Pentagon spending) is that such funding won't make us safer, possibly far less so. Recent studies of preventable military aviation crashes indicate that, disturbingly enough, given the way the Pentagon spends taxpayer funds, more money can actually make us less safe.
Somewhere along the line in this pandemic moment, Washington needs to redefine the meaning of both "national security" and "national interest." In a world in which California burns and Texas freezes, in which more than half-a-million Americans have already been felled by Covid-19, it's time to recognize how damaging the over-funding of the Pentagon and a myopic focus on an ever more militarized cold war with China are likely to be to this country. As the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft's Stephen Wertheim has argued, it's increasingly clear that an American strategy focused on chasing global military supremacy into the distant future no longer serves any real definition of national interest.
Vanderbilt law professor Ganesh Sitaraman recently pointed out at Foreign Affairs that "the coming era will be one of health crises, climate shocks, cyberattacks, and geoeconomic competition among great powers. What unites those seemingly disparate threats is that each is not so much a battle to be won as a challenge to be weathered." While traditional defense threats still loom large in what passes for national debate in Washington, the most likely (and potentially most devastating) threats to public health and safety aren't actually in the Pentagon's wheelhouse.
Weathering those future crises will continue to require innovation and creativity, which means ensuring that we are investing adequately not in the hypersonic weaponry of some future imagined war but in education and public health now. Particularly in the near term, as we try to rebuild jobs and businesses lost to this pandemic, even the Pentagon must be forced to make better use of the staggering resources it already receives from increasingly embattled American taxpayers. Rushing to produce yet more useless (and sometimes poorly produced) weapons systems and technology will only increase the fragility of both the military and the civilian society it's supposed to protect.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
