|
WSWS : News
& Analysis : North
America
US Congress passes $368 billion for Pentagon war machine
By Bill Vann
26 September 2003
Use
this version to print
| Send this
link by email | Email the
author
With only seven minutes of debate and a lopsided vote of 407
to 15, the US House of Representatives Wednesday approved a new
Pentagon budget that continues an eight-year escalation of Washingtons
spending on war.
The military budget, which covers the fiscal year beginning
October 1, totals $368 billiona level the previous administration
had projected would not be reached until 2009. Another $19.3 billion
is to go to pay for new nuclear weapons, an arms program directed
by the US Department of Energy.
The Pentagon budget approved by the House includes $100 billion
for pay and personnel, $133 billion for operations and maintenance,
$75 billion for new weapons systems and $61 billion for research
and development.
None of these vast sums are going to pay for the ongoing US
wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Bush administration is seeking
a separate $87 billion appropriation for that purpose, on top
of the $79 billion already passed by Congress in April to fund
the Iraq war.
The spending approved for new arms is about $2 billion more
than what was appropriated for fiscal 2003. Appropriations for
weapons have increased continuously since 1996, the longest period
of escalating arms spending since the Second World War. The administration
has advocated increasing these expenditures to $100 billion by
2008.
The big-ticket items in the new arms spending include over
$9 billion for a national missile defense system that the Bush
administration is rushing to make operational by late next year,
timed to coincide with the presidential election.
A report issued this week by the US General Accounting Office
charged that in rushing to deploy the system, the Pentagon is
incorporating radar and other technologies that are largely untested,
a procedure that is almost certain to result in the projected
$50 billion to be spent over the next five years spiraling far
higher.
Making a decision to begin system integration of a capability
before the maturity of all critical technologies have been demonstrated
increases the programs cost, schedule and performance risks,
the GAO said.
The bill also funds the construction of 22 F-22 Raptor stealth
fighters, a combat plane whose main purpose is to shoot down other
planes. Given the overwhelming air superiority of the US compared
to any potential enemy, the need for these planeswhich wont
be ready for three yearshas been questioned by independent
military analysts. Such criticism has been brushed aside by lobbyists
for Lockheed Martin and Congressional delegations from Texas and
Georgia, where the planes are assembled.
Also included in the Pentagon budget is $11.5 billion for building
new ships for the Navy, a 25 percent increase over the previous
year. Most of the increase will be used to launch five new attack
submarines, joining an existing fleet of 54. A report from the
House-Senate conference committee on military spending noted that
the cost of the subs had increased by 31 percent in one year.
The budget provides funding for the Terrorism Awareness Program,
a controversial and massive electronic surveillance program that
was designed to coordinate the Pentagons collection of financial,
medical, travel and credit information for millions of Americans.
Funding for the program, which has been denounced by civil
liberties groups as a police-state domestic spying operation,
has been continued, but it was removed from supervision of the
Pentagons Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency. That
agency, known as DARPA, was widely criticized both for the surveillance
program and for a scheme that came to light earlier this year
to set up a futures market on international terrorist attacks,
allowing investors to bet on future assassinations, terrorist
bombings and other acts of violence.
The Congress also slipped into the budget a last-minute face-saving
item aimed at concealing the way Americas ruling elite really
feels about the troops whom it incessantly demands that rest of
the population unconditionally support. The item would end a practice
that came to light as growing numbers of maimed and wounded soldiers
were sent back from Iraq. After their release from military hospitals
in the US, they and their families were shocked to receive bills
from the government demanding they pay for the food they were
served while hospitalized at the rate of $8.10 a day. In some
cases, the bills added up to several hundreds of dollars.
Even as the House passed the $368 billion Pentagon bill, hearings
continued on the administrations request for another $87
billion to fund the Iraq and Afghan operations.
Testifying before the Senate Appropriations Committee this
week, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld dismissed concerns about
these interventions sending the military budget spinning out of
control: Is $87 billion a great deal of money? Yes. Can
our country afford it? The answer is also yes.
The Bush administration has refused to spell out how it will
afford this expenditure. It has ruled out any reduction in the
additional $878 billion in tax cuts it intends to push through
for the wealthy this year, leaving only two possibilities: either
military expenditures will be met through a further reduction
in social spending, or it will simply be added on to a ballooning
federal deficit that will go well over a record half a trillion
next year. None of the Democrats on the appropriations panel challenged
this assessment by Rumsfeld and the proposed funding is expected
to easily pass both houses of Congress.
In one revealing exchange during the administrations
Capitol Hill push for Iraq occupation funding, Washingtons
proconsul in Iraq, Paul Bremer, was queried on specific budget
items in the $20.3 billion portion of the occupation fund supposedly
earmarked for reconstruction.
The item was a request for $400 million for the construction
of two new 4,000-bed maximum-security prisons, presumably intended
to hold Iraqis suspected of fighting in the resistance to the
US military occupation.
Congressman David Obey, the senior Democrat on the House appropriations
committee, pointed out that the cost amounted to $50,000 per bed.
How could it possibly cost us that much to build that kind
of prison in Iraq? he asked. I mean, you could build
a prison in the United States for that amount and have money left
over.
Bremer stumbled through an answer that cited estimates of prison
costs in the US a decade ago and a claim that shortages
of cement in Iraq had driven up costs.
This episode offers only a glimpse of the wholesale fraud and
theft that is being prepared in Iraq under the cover of the reconstruction
effort. Undoubtedly, the costs of prison construction were worked
out in conjunction with politically connected contractors in the
US who are preparing to make a killing.
That the US is spending well over $1 billion a day on its military
under conditions in which it faces no credible military adversary
is scarcely even noted by the media and passed over in silence
by the Democratic Party leadership.
US arms spending is roughly the equivalent of the next 19 biggest-spending
military powers combinedmost of which are formally allied
with Washington. It is triple the combined amount spent by Russia
and China, the next two largest military powers.
When the additional sums for the Afghanistan and Iraq wars
are added to the regular Pentagon budget, the US government is
spending well over half a trillion dollars a year on arms. This
is roughly the same amount as it appropriates for the entire human
resources and social service sectors combined, including Social
Security, Medicare and Medicaid, education, housing, employment,
welfare and food aid as well as the government agencies that run
them. The vast diversion of social wealth to pay for weapons and
war finds direct expression in the mounting health care and education
crises, the bankruptcies of state governments and the accelerating
deterioration of the US infrastructure.
While the Bush administration has promoted its massive military
budgets in the name of the global war against terrorism,
the bulk of the Pentagon spending has little conceivable connection
to preventing terrorist attacks. Rather, it is geared to the building
of armed forces capable of carrying out imperialist interventions
and intimidating potential economic and geopolitical rivals with
overwhelming military force.
The Pentagon has incorporated this offensive strategy in its
core doctrines, particularly in the wake of Bushs announcement
in 2002 of a new National Security Strategy based on preemptive
wars of aggression. As an article published in the latest
issue of Parameters, the magazine of the US Army War College,
noted, while previously the US military engaged in threat-based
planning, geared to countering and deterring potential attacks
from the former Soviet bloc, now, in the seeming absence
of any real threat at all, it has adopted a capabilities-based
strategy.
A threat-based force was reactive and defensive
in nature: the United States awaited the thrust, the article
states. In contrast, a capabilities-based force
carries with it the implication of offensive capabilities if not
intent: the US focus is not on any particular threat as it prepares
for any and all contingencies by adopting an aggressive, forward-leaning
posture.
This posture assures that the interventions in
Iraq and Afghanistan are only the beginning of a worldwide eruption
of US militarism.
See Also:
US troops slaughter three more Iraqis
[25 September 2003]
Americas maimed come
home from Iraq
[30 July 2003]
US plans widespread
use of nuclear weapons in war
Bush orders Pentagon to target seven nations for attack
[11 March 2002]
State of the Union
speech: Bush declares war on the world
[31 January 2002]
Billions for war and
repression: Bush budget for a garrison state
[6 February 2002]
Top of page
The WSWS invites your comments.
Copyright 1998-2008
World Socialist Web Site
All rights reserved |