Military Spending: The Problem

Two essential functions of government are protecting citizens and providing national security. By definition these functions are defensive; they do not include aggression and domination.

However, needing a reason for aggression and recognizing that citizens usually do not support it, ambitious, mistaken or misguided leaders sometimes justify their actions in the name of defense. This list includes Adolph Hitler's invasion of Poland to start World War II, which he asserted countered the threat of the alliance between Poland and France; John F. Kennedy's escalation of the Vietnam conflict, which he asserted countered threats to our containment policy; George W. Bush's invasion of Iraq, which he asserted countered the threat of weapons of mass destruction; and the ongoing mess in Afghanistan.

(At http://www.alternet.org/world/142521, on the AlterNet Web site, there is an excellent analysis of the Afghanistan quagmire.)

The atomic bomb at the end of World War II put an end to the necessity for large standing armies. The United States and Soviet Union emerged as Cold War superpowers but a land-based conflict between infantrymen of the two rivals was not likely. Airplanes and missiles became the preeminent weapons and the mutually assured destruction policy followed. Although horrifying, this policy was in fact defensive because the objective by each country was to contain, not subdue, its enemy.

A huge American force continues to exist, however, and its presence at home and use abroad has become less a matter of defense and more a statement of U.S. power. This power is then used to further our own world objectives: specific objectives such as countering the perceived domino effect of communism in Korea and Vietnam or general objectives used to justify almost anything such as "advancing the struggle between good and evil."

Much more follows--Berkley Bedell and Jim Frost.