Skip to main content

The Progressive - December 10, 2021

Maintaining a war machine makes us less safe, as each new administration inherits the delusion that U.S. military power can, and therefore should, be used to confront any perceived challenge to U.S. interests.

Despite a disagreement over some amendments in the Senate, the U.S. Congress is poised to pass a $778 billion military budget bill for 2022. Elected officials are preparing to hand the lion’s share—more than 65 percent—of federal discretionary spending to the U.S. war machine, all while wringing their hands over spending a mere quarter of that amount on the Build Back Better Act.

The U.S. military’s incredible record of systematic failure—most recently its final trouncing by the Taliban after twenty years of death, destruction, and lies in Afghanistan—cries out for a top-to-bottom review of its dominant role in U.S. foreign policy and a radical reassessment of its proper place in Congress’s budget priorities.

Instead, members of Congress hand over the largest share of our nation’s resources to this corrupt institution, with minimal scrutiny and no apparent fear of accountability when it comes to their own reelection. Members of Congress still see it as a “safe” political call to carelessly whip out their rubber-stamps and vote for the hundreds of billions in funding that Pentagon and arms industry lobbyists have persuaded the Armed Services Committees they should cough up.

The United States faces critical threats to its security, including the climate crisis, systemic racism, the erosion of voting rights, gun violence, grave inequalities, and the corporate hijacking of political power. But one problem we fortunately do not have is the threat of attack or invasion by a rampant global aggressor or, in fact, by any other country at all.

Maintaining a war machine that outspends the twelve or thirteen next largest militaries in the world combined actually makes us less safe, as each new administration inherits the delusion that U.S. military power can, and therefore should, be used to confront any perceived challenge to U.S. interests anywhere in the world. ...
Read full report at The Progressive