POL S MWF 11:00

Thomas Schjodt

Oct. 29, 2009

Addicted to War: Why the U.S. Cant Kick Militarism

Over 50% of United States discretionary spending (p. 1) and a total of $399 billion annually go to the military plus the additional billions spent on wars in Iraq and Afghanistan (p. 43). These numbers are extraordinary, and no other country in the world is even close to reach the same amounts. But as the biggest economy in the world, U.S. is capable of having these expenditures. But why do we then see a country in recession, where Americans face cutbacks on all the public services provided, where the state colleges for instance, experiences more furlough days, and fewer working hours for the professors? And how come do we still spend millions of dollars on outdated defense programs (Spinneys Statement), securing us from threats that no longer exists? United States have a long history of war, and the idea of spreading American thoughts and culture. All the way back from the wars against Mexico in the mid 1800s, Anglo-Saxon democracy was what legitimized the American expansion, and it still is. Fighting dictators and communism around the world have kept the U.S. military busy for the last 100 years, in order to disarm the threats against the good values like Democracy, Freedom, Justice and Peace - at least that is what the American people are being told. But in reality the wars have provided the corporate executives government contracts, new markets, natural resources and world power. In fact corporations do not only make money on what they produce for the military, they also make money on what the war leaves behind; new markets to expand their production in and opportunities to claim natural resources that the specific country has to offer. General Smedley Butler goes as far as comparing the U.S. military to the Wall Street capitalists private army (p. 8). This sort of highly corrupt looking political governing can be explained in the Iron Triangle where a military-industrial-congressional complex is suppressing democracy. In this theory, taking the defense spending as a specific example, the Pentagon, Congress and the weapon industry (and similar warlords), a state of interdependence exists. Politicians in both the

POL S MWF 11:00

Thomas Schjodt

Oct. 29, 2009

executive branch and the legislative branch are dependent on campaign donations which they receive from corporations, in order to get reelected. At the same time, the corporations (representing the interest groups in the Iron Triangle) have interests or are even dependent on certain legislations that will provide contracts and thereby money in their pockets. This state of interdependence results in politicians doing favors for the bribe of campaign donations, both an illegal and corrupt action. Direct favors given by one politician to one specific corporation are probably not that common, but imagine a presidential candidate who promises severe cutbacks on the military budget; how much money will he/she receive in donations from the weapon industry? And in the same scenario, the opposing candidate would probably receive even more money donations from these corporations, just to make sure that these cutbacks wont happen. Research has shown that there is an overt connection between political donators and military contractors (Promise, Promise1). This could for instance be the reason why America still spend money on outdated defense programs. Democracy is additionally impeded by the structure of the media, who is supposed to deliver critical and objective information and analysis of the political life in Washington. Not only do the media fail to deliver the deep analysis and real issues, it also helps politicians and corporate rich to cover the realities, using spin control to shape the meaning of a certain story. Many corporate rich holds stocks from different corporations allowing them to sit on the boards of several corporations, including news corporations. In cases where a stockholder sits on the board of both a weapon manufacturer, who will have great interest in warfare, and a TV-network, he would most likely assure that the TV-network promotes warfare, quoting politicians repeating words like democracy and freedom. This is why Richard Hass, National Security Council in 1991, called television the chief tool in selling our policy (p. 57).

Expose/PBS documentary: Promise, Promise

POL S MWF 11:00

Thomas Schjodt

Oct. 29, 2009

Spin control is a widely spread concept and basically just another word for manipulation. Although America claims to spread the idea of democracy and freedom, U.S. Government have in various cases taken away democratically elected leaders, and replaced them with special Americafriendly dictators, more or less controlled by CIA, like it happened in the Dominican Republic in 1965. The same kind of paradoxical politics is also seen in Iraq where the Iraqi people demanded a democratic election, but fearing that the rejectionists of the American invasion most likely would win the election, the U.S. didnt allow such election. And to prevent further Iraqi demonstrations that would promote a popular election, the U.S. government took Iraqi activists to prisons and censored most of the newspapers and radios that criticized the U.S. military authority in the country. This isnt much different from the censorship the Russian communist regime experienced in the 20th century. It is also thought-provoking how the general American consider the 9/11 attacks for unnecessary and cruel terrorism, but the bombings of Nagasaki and Hiroshima in 1945, where over 60 times as many civilians died, more as necessary for the demonstration of American military strength and its status as the worlds leading superpower. Of course some people will agree that these bombings were in fact similar to terrorism, but how many people would agree that the counter bombings of Afghanistan, the invasion of Iraq, the wars in Korea, Dominican Republic, Vietnam etc., where tens of thousands civilian people died, is terrorism too? We dont consider it as terrorism, because these killings have a purpose of spreading well known western values like democracy, freedom, justice and peace (if its spread at all?). But who decides that these particular values are the correct values to have? Osama Bin Laden has his own values which he tries to spread, but his beliefs and values are just not the right beliefs and values. This is basically what makes him a terrorist and the American president a Nobel Peace Prize winner.