By Charles Davis and Medea
Benjamin
In an age when U.S. power can be
projected through private mercenary armies and unmanned Predator
drones, the U.S. military need no longer rely on massive,
conventional ground forces to pursue its imperial agenda, a fact
President Barack Obama is now acknowledging. But make no mistake:
while the tactics may be changing, the U.S. taxpayer – and poor
foreigners abroad – will still be saddled with overblown military
budgets and militaristic policies.
Speaking January 5 alongside his
Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, the president
announced
a shift in strategy for the American military, one that emphasizes
aerial campaigns and proxy wars as opposed to “long-term
nation-building with large military footprints.” This, to some
pundits and politicians, is considered a tectonic shift.
Indeed, the way some on the left
tell it, the strategy marks a radical departure from the imperial
status quo. “Obama just repudiated the past decade of forever war
policy,”
gushed
Rolling Stone reporter
Michael Hastings, calling the new strategy a “[s]lap in the face to
the generals.”
Conservative hawks, meanwhile,
predictably declared that the sky is falling. “This is a lead from
behind strategy for a left-behind America,”
cried
hyperventilating California Republican Buck McKeon, chairman the
House Armed Services Committee. “This strategy ensures American
decline in exchange for more failed domestic programs.” In McKeon’s
world, feeding the war machine is preferable to feeding poor people.
Unfortunately, though, rather
than renouncing empire and endless war, Obama's
stated
strategy
for the military going forward just reaffirms the U.S. commitment to
both. Rather than renouncing the last decade of war, it states that
the bloody and disastrous occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan –
gently termed “extended operations” – were pursued “to bring
stability to those countries.”
And Leon Panetta
assured
the
American
public
that even with the changes, the U.S. would still be able to fight two
major wars at the same time—and win. And Obama assured America's
military contractors and coffin makers that their lifeline – U.S.
taxpayers' money – would still be funneled their way in obscene
bucket loads.
“Over the next 10 years, the
growth in the defense budget will slow,” the president told
reporters, “but the fact of the matter is this: It will still
grow.” In fact, he added with a touch of pride, it “will still be
larger than it was toward the end of the Bush administration,”
totaling more than
$700
billion
a
year
and accounting for about half of the average American's
income
tax.
So much for the Pentagon's budget being slashed – like we
were
promised
– the way lawmakers are trying to cut those “failed domestic
programs.”
The U.S. could cut its military
spending in half tomorrow and still spend more than three times as
much as its next nearest rival, China. That’s because China,
instead of waging wars of choice around the world, prefers projecting
its might by investing in its own country. On the other hand, the
U.S. under the leadership of Obama is beefing up its military
presence in China's backyard, more interested in projecting its
dwindling power than rebuilding its economy.
President Dwight D. Eisenhower
once
noted
that every dollar going to the military is a dollar that can't be
used to provide food and shelter for those in need. Today’s obscene
amount of military spending isn't necessary if the administration
wished to pursue the quaint goal of simply defending the country from
invasion. Maintaining “the best-trained, best-equipped military in
history,” as Obama says is his goal? That's a different story –
for a different purpose. Indeed, as Madeline Albright
observed,
possessing that kind of military might is no fun if you don't get to
use it, as Obama has with gusto in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan,
Yemen, Somalia, Libya and Uganda.
The truth is that the Obama
administration's “new” strategy is more of the same—a
reaffirmation of the U.S. government's commitment to militarism for
the all the usual reasons: to promote American hegemony and, by
extension, the interests of politically connected capital. And U.S.
officials aren't shy about that.
Indeed, throughout the strategy
document the ostensible purpose for having a military -- to provide
national security -- repeatedly takes a backseat to promoting the
economic interests of the U.S. elite that profits from empire.
Repositioning U.S. forces “toward the Asia-Pacific region,” for
instance – including the stationing of American soldiers in that
hotbed of violent extremism,
Australia
– is cast not just as a means of ensuring peace and stability, but
guaranteeing “the free flow of commerce.” Maintaining a global
empire of bases from Europe to Okinawa isn't necessary for
self-defense, but according to Obama, ensuring – with guns – “the
prosperity that flows from an open and free international economic
system.”
Of course, that economic
considerations shape U.S. foreign policy is nothing new. More than 25
years ago, President Jimmy Carter – that Jimmy Carter –
declared
in a State of the Union address that U.S. military force would be
employed in the Persian Gulf, not for the cause of peace, freedom and
apple pie, but to ensure “the free movement of Middle East oil.”
And so it goes.
Far from affecting change, Obama
is ensuring continuity. “U.S. policy will emphasize Gulf security,”
states his new military strategy, in order to “prevent Iran's
development of a nuclear weapon capability and counter its
destabilizing policies” — as if it's Iran that has been
destabilizing the region. And as Obama publicly proclaims his support
for “political and economic reform” in the Middle East, just like
every other U.S. president he not-so-privately backs their oppressors
from Bahrain to Yemen and signs off on the biggest
weapons
deal
in history to that bastion of democracy, Saudi Arabia.
Obama can talk all he wants about
turning the page on a decade of war and occupation, but so long as he
continues to fight wars and military occupy countries on the other
side of the globe, talk is all it is. The facts, sadly, are this:
since taking office Obama doubled the number of troops in
Afghanistan; he fought to extend the U.S. occupation in Iraq– and
partially
succeeded;
he dramatically expanded the use of
killer
drones
from Pakistan to Somalia; and he requested
military
budgets
that would make George W. Bush blush. If you want to see what his
military strategy really is, forget what's said at press conferences
and in turgidly written Pentagon press releases. Just look at the
record.
Charles
Davis
has covered Capitol Hill for public radio and the international news
wire Inter Press Service. More of his work may be found on
his
website.
