Feeding the Gravy Train One Big Pipeline at a Time
If you have a chance be sure to read the latest TomDispatch piece from the Highlights section.
Researcher Frida Berrigan copiously details the geometric rise of the Pentagon’s budget and omnipotence through the concerted efforts of the current administration. As Tom notes, it is perhaps the most powerful and concise overview on the breadth and scope of the evergrowing military complex.
And while frequent readers of AWC will not be surprised with the revelations, perhaps most troubling is just how meddlesome the Defense department has become in diplomatic affairs, superseding the relatively dovish State department in all negotiations. For instance, why bother talking through civilian channels when the real decision making ultimately takes place through viceroys operating at a Unified Combatant Command?
As the title suggests, the Pentagon really has taken charge and as Berrigan unfortunately notes, no matter who is elected president it is a trend that shows no sign of abating.
See also:
War Immemorial Day – No Peace for Militarized U.S.
A History of Folly
Military Handouts and Financial Aid in Africa
Anti-neocon
May 28th, 2008 at 9:39 am
What horrible news above. The U.S. military rules us.
andy
May 28th, 2008 at 2:41 pm
The militarization of American politics continues unabated.
richard vajs
May 29th, 2008 at 5:21 am
For years, I have owned a small electronics company which builds spare parts (circuit cards, cable harnesses, etc) for the US Navy. These spare parts are needed to maintain much larger systems like radars and mine sweepers. One thing that I have noticed over the years is that as the defense budget went up, the stockpile of spares has gone down. The Navy used to try to keep a three year supply of spares on the shelf to sustain a long effort. I would guess that that inventory is more like 6 months to one year now. So where is the money going? A lot of defense spending is no longer for “beans and bullets” – it goes for personal services. Virtually every military base is now surrounded by strip mall offices for companys with “alphabet soup” names – e.g. SAIC, GRC, L3, etc. The only thing these companys provide is people; people who maintain stuff, count stuff, order stuff with the “stuff” usually being other personal services. These personal service people do what the military and civilian employees of the military used to do. Blackwater, a good example, does exactly what you would expect the Army to do – provide armed guard services. Contractors even review contract proposals for other contracting services, exactly what civil service employees used to do. What it all adds up to is the military is bloated beyond belief with redundant personel. Buck privates no longer do mess duty, that is some contractor’s job; civil service personel no longer oversee contractors, that is some other contractor’s job. There are many people earning their living providing these services, but the only product is at best, a paper product, at worst, redundant effort. Our military has become a provider of mostly “jobs”. The best thing that America could do is slash the military budget – it would not hurt “defense” and might free up intelligent people to work on more useful things like developing alternate energy. Might prevent a lot of idle hands from getting involved in our civilian government.
Robert Dixon
September 17th, 2008 at 4:02 am
While your comments on this matter are somewhat entertaining and play to a conspiratorial tone, you’re absolutely wrong in both cases. The percentage of GDP spent on defense has significantly dropped since a high mark during the 1980s and Defense is State’s biggest proponent for increasing size and capacity. The facts are present for the synthesis required in making intelligent comments vice off-the-cuff heresy.
As noted above the high mark of % of GDP spending on defense refers to the 1980s. For our purpose that’s as far back as we need to cover. See chart below for % of GDP spent “Defense†since 1980. I don’t see your point and the statistics counter your argument. Even those “anti-warâ€, Dove Democrats spent more on defense in relation to GDP than currently spent.
1980 5.1
1982 5.7
1983 6.1
1984 5.9
1985 6.1
1986 6.2
1987 6.1
1988 5.8
1989 5.6
1990 5.2
1991 4.6
1992 4.8
1993 4.4
1994 4.0
1995 3.7
1996 3.5
1997 3.3
1998 3.1
1999 3.0
2000 3.0
2001 3.0
2002 3.4
2003 3.7
Secondly the Pentagon has not taken a lead in diplomacy as you suggest. The Pentagon (with States’ blessing and help) established Provincial Reconstruction Teams in Iraq that resides exclusively in Defense’s jurisdiction. Enhanced PRTs assist directly maneuver forces on the ground when working with local and district level governments. This is only in Iraq and there are only 15 ePRTs. An additional 15 PRTs manned and equipped by State also operate in Iraq side-by-side the ePRTs, as well as, those in Afghanistan. The issue is capacity and capability. State’s budget (1.4 billion) is infinitesimal in comparison with that of Defense’s (400 billion). ¼ of State’s budget goes towards security and building maintenance further reducing its effectiveness (people). State’s capacity is roughly 4500 people. That’s the size of one Army brigade combat team. (The Army has over 40 brigades and growing). Secretary Gates constantly stumps for an increase in both funding and manning for State. He is Secretary of Defense. “Defense Secretary Robert Gates has called for increased funding to restore the State Department’s leadership in rebuilding war-torn nations — a move that would allow the armed forces to take a supporting roleâ€, as quoted from Watertown Daily Times (online 17 July 2008).
In both cases your arguments are nothing less than complaints and heresy designed to fuel a conspiratorial notion between you and like-minded people. The facts present something entirely different. I ask you to at least take an educated assessment and not rely on one person’s editorial.