{"id":121874,"date":"2018-11-12T12:00:29","date_gmt":"2018-11-12T12:00:29","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/?p=121874"},"modified":"2018-11-11T10:40:10","modified_gmt":"2018-11-11T10:40:10","slug":"the-pentagons-cunning-plot-to-militarize-the-economy","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/2018\/11\/the-pentagons-cunning-plot-to-militarize-the-economy\/","title":{"rendered":"The Pentagon\u2019s Cunning Plot to Militarize the Economy"},"content":{"rendered":"

\u201cA nation whose economic priority is militarism is contrary to our world federalist vision and values.\u00a0 After all, world federalists seek to convert the United Nations into a true democratic world federal union governing structure because such a design has the best potential to put an end to the current global war system.\u00a0 The Pentagon\u2019s further militarization of the US economy therefore, is going in exactly the wrong direction. Militarization is a dead end.\u00a0 A peace economy, not a war economy, should be the desired direction of all governments.\u201d<\/em>
\n— Roger Kotila, Ph.D – President, Democratic World Federalists<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

8 Nov 2018 – <\/em>Given his erratic behavior, from daily Twitter eruptions to\u00a0upping<\/a>\u00a0his tally of lies by the hour, it\u2019s hard to think of Donald Trump as a man with a plan. But in at least one area \u2014 reshaping the economy to serve the needs of the military-industrial complex \u2014 he\u2019s (gasp!) a socialist in the making.<\/p>\n

His plan is now visibly taking shape \u2014 one we can see and assess thanks to a Pentagon-led\u00a0study<\/a>\u00a0with a distinctly tongue-twisting title: \u201cAssessing and Strengthening the Manufacturing and Defense Industrial Base and Supply Chain Resiliency of the United States.\u201d The analysis is the brainchild of Trump\u2019s adviser for trade and manufacturing policy,\u00a0Peter Navarro<\/a>, who happens to also be the key\u00a0architect<\/a>\u00a0of the president\u2019s trade wars.<\/p>\n

Navarro, however, can hardly take sole credit for the administration\u2019s latest economic plan, since the lead agency for developing it was also the most interested of all in the project, the Pentagon itself, in particular its Office of Defense Industrial Policy.\u00a0 In addition, those producing the report did so in coordination with an alphabet soup of other agencies from the Department of Commerce to the Director of National Intelligence.\u00a0 And even that\u2019s not all.\u00a0 It\u2019s also the product of an \u201cinteragency task force\u201d made up of 16 working groups and 300 \u201csubject matter\u201d experts, supplemented by over a dozen industry \u201clistening sessions\u201d with outfits like the\u00a0National Defense Industrial Association<\/a>, an advocacy organization that represents 1,600 companies in the defense sector.<\/p>\n

Before jumping into its substance and implications for the American economy and national defense, let me pause a moment to mention two other small matters.<\/p>\n

First, were you aware that the Pentagon even had an\u00a0Office of Defense Industrial Policy<\/a>? It sounds suspiciously like the kind of government organization that engages in economic planning, a practice anathema not just to Republicans but to many Democrats as well.\u00a0 The only reason it\u2019s not a national scandal \u2014 complete with Fox News banner headlines about the end of the American way of life as we know it and the coming of creeping socialism \u2014 is because it\u2019s part of the one institution that has always been exempt from the dictates of the \u201cfree market\u201d: the Department of Defense.<\/p>\n

Second, how about those 300 subject matter experts? Since when does Donald Trump consult\u00a0subject matter experts<\/em>?\u00a0 Certainly not on climate change, the most urgent issue facing humanity and one where\u00a0expert opinion<\/a>is remarkably unified. The Pentagon and its contractors should, however, be thought of as the ultimate special interest group and with that status comes special treatment. And if that means consulting 300 such experts to make sure their \u201cneeds\u201d are met, so be it.<\/p>\n

A Slogan for the Ages?<\/strong><\/p>\n

Now for the big stuff.<\/p>\n

According to Peter Navarro\u2019s summary of the new industrial base report, which appeared as an\u00a0op-ed<\/a>\u00a0in the\u00a0New York Times<\/em>, the key to the Trump plan is the president\u2019s belief that \u201ceconomic security equals national security.\u201d When it comes to weapons manufacturing, the administration\u2019s approach involves building a Fortress America economy that will depend as little as possible on foreign suppliers. Consider it just the latest variation on Trump\u2019s \u201cAmerica First\u201d economic strategy, grounded in its unapologetic\u00a0embrace<\/a>\u00a0of nationalism. As a slogan, \u201ceconomic security equals national security\u201d doesn\u2019t have quite the populist ring of \u201cMake America Great Again,\u201d but it\u2019s part of the same worldview.<\/p>\n

In a flight of grandiosity (and flattery) that must have made his boss swell with pride, Navarro suggested in his op-ed that the slogan might go down in the annals of history alongside other famed pearls of presidential wisdom.\u00a0 As he put it:<\/p>\n

\u201cMcKinley\u2019s\u2026 \u2018Patriotism, protection and prosperity\u2019\u2026 catalyzed strong economic growth. Roosevelt\u2019s \u2018Speak softly and carry a big stick\u2019 helped transform the Navy into a military force capable of projecting power around the world. And Reagan\u2019s \u2018Peace through strength\u2019 inspired an unprecedented rebuilding of the military that brought the Soviet Union to its knees\u2026 History will judge whether Donald Trump\u2019s \u2018economic security is national security\u2019 joins the ranks of great presidential maxims.\u201d<\/p>\n

The essence of the Pentagon\u2019s scheme for making America safe for a never-ending policy of war preparations (and war) is to organize as much of the economy as possible around the needs of military production. This would involve eliminating what Navarro describes as the \u201c300 vulnerabilities\u201d of the defense economy \u2014 from reliance on single suppliers for key components in weapons systems and the like, to dependence on foreign inputs like\u00a0rare earth minerals<\/a>\u00a0from China, to a shortage of younger workers with the skills and motivation needed to keep America\u2019s massive weapons manufacturing machine up and running. China figures prominently in the report\u2019s narrative, with its trade and investment policies repeatedly described as \u201ceconomic aggression.\u201d<\/p>\n

And needless to say, this being the Pentagon, one of the biggest desires expressed in the report is a need for \u2014 yes, you guessed it! \u2014 more money. Never mind that the United States already spends\u00a0more<\/a>\u00a0on its military than the next seven nations in the world combined (five of whom are U.S. allies).\u00a0 Never mind that the increase in Pentagon spending over the past two years is\u00a0larger<\/a>\u00a0than the entire military budget of Russia.\u00a0 Never mind that, despite pulling tens of thousands of troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan, this country\u2019s spending on the Pentagon and related programs (like nuclear warhead work at the Department of Energy) will hit\u00a0$716 billion<\/a>\u00a0in fiscal year 2019, one of the\u00a0highest levels<\/a>\u00a0ever. Face it, say the Pentagon and its\u00a0allies<\/a>\u00a0on Capitol Hill, the U.S. won\u2019t be able to build a reliable, all-weapons-all-the-time economic-industrial base without spending yet more taxpayer dollars.\u00a0 Think of this as a \u201cPentagon First\u201d strategy.<\/p>\n

As it happens, the Pentagon chose the wrong 300 experts.\u00a0 The new plan, reflecting their collective wisdom, is an economic and security disaster in the making.<\/p>\n

Consider it beyond ironic that some of the same experts and\u00a0organizations<\/a>\u00a0now suggesting that we bet America\u2019s future on pumping up the most inefficient sector of our economy \u2014 no, no, I didn\u2019t mean the coal industry, I meant the military-industrial complex \u2014 are conservative experts who criticized the Soviet Union for the very same thing.\u00a0 They still claim that it imploded largely because Washington cleverly lured its leaders into devoting ever more of their resources to the military sector.\u00a0 That, they insist, reinforced a rigidity in the Soviet system which made it virtually impossible for them to adapt to a rapidly changing global economic landscape.<\/p>\n

Our military buildup, they still fervently\u00a0believe<\/a>, bankrupted the Soviet Union. Other analysts, like the historian Lawrence Wittner, have\u00a0questioned<\/a>\u00a0such a view. But for the sake of consistency, shouldn\u2019t conservatives who claimed that excessive military spending did in the Soviets be worried that President Trump\u2019s policy of\u00a0massive tax cuts<\/a>\u00a0for the rich, increased Pentagon spending, and trade wars with\u00a0adversaries and allies alike<\/a>\u00a0might do something similar to the United States?<\/p>\n

What Would a Real Industrial Policy Look Like?<\/strong><\/p>\n

Industrial policy<\/a>\u00a0should not be a dirty word.\u00a0 The problem is: the Pentagon shouldn\u2019t be in charge of it.\u00a0 The goal of an effective industrial policy should be to create well-paying jobs, especially in sectors that meet pressing national needs like rebuilding America\u2019s\u00a0crumbling infrastructure<\/a>\u00a0and developing alternative energy technologies that can help address the urgent dangers posed by climate change.<\/p>\n

The biggest economic challenge facing the United States today is how to organize an economic transition that would replace jobs and income generated by dysfunctional activities like overspending on the Pentagon and subsidizing polluting industries.\u00a0 The\u00a0argument<\/a>\u00a0that the Pentagon is crucial to jobs production in America has been instrumental in blocking constructive changes that would benefit both the environment and true American security.\u00a0 Members of Congress are, for example, afraid to jettison questionable weapons programs like the F-35 combat aircraft \u2014 an immensely costly, underperforming fighter plane that may\u00a0never be ready<\/a>\u00a0for combat \u2014 for fear of\u00a0reducing jobs<\/a>\u00a0in their states or districts.\u00a0 (The same is true of the coal and petroleum industries, which endlessly play up the supposed job-creating benefits of their activities.)<\/p>\n

Where could alternatives to Pentagon job-creation programs come from?\u00a0 The short answer is: invest in virtually anything but buying more weapons and waging more wars and Americans will be better off.\u00a0 For instance, Pentagon spending creates startlingly\u00a0fewer jobs<\/a>\u00a0per dollar than putting the same taxpayer dollars into infrastructure repair and rebuilding, alternative energy creation, education, or health care.\u00a0 A\u00a0study<\/a>\u00a0conducted by University of Massachusetts economist Heidi Garrett-Peltier for the Costs of War Project at Brown University found that, had the government invested in civilian activities the $230 billion per year wasted on America\u2019s post-9\/11 wars, that sum would have created 1.3 million additional jobs.\u00a0 A more equitable tax policy that required wealthy individuals and corporations to\u00a0pay<\/a>\u00a0their fair share could similarly fund a $2 trillion infrastructure program that would support 2.5 million new\u00a0<\/strong>jobs in its first year, according to a\u00a0proposal<\/a>\u00a0put forward by the Congressional Progressive Caucus.<\/p>\n

As for the president\u2019s much touted,\u00a0dramatically overblown<\/a>\u00a0claims about the jobs to be had from arms exports, the global arms market represents only a tiny fraction of the growing market for renewable energy technologies. If the goal is to produce jobs via exports, developing technologies to tap the huge future market in renewables, which one\u00a0study<\/a>\u00a0suggests could hit $2.1\u00a0trillion<\/em>by 2025, would leave weapons systems in the dust. After all, that\u2019s about 20 times the current size of the total\u00a0<\/strong>global arms trade, which clocks in at about\u00a0$100 billion<\/a>\u00a0annually. But an\u00a0analysis<\/a>\u00a0by Miriam Pemberton and her colleagues at the Institute for Policy Studies indicates that the United States spends 28 times as much on its military as it does on genuinely job-creating programs designed to address the threat of climate change.<\/p>\n

Such actions would be a good start \u2014 but just a start \u2014 when it comes to reducing the dependency of the United States economy on guns and pollution.\u00a0 Of course, the Trump administration doesn\u2019t have the faintest interest in any of this.\u00a0 (It would apparently rather cede the lucrative future market in renewable energy to\u00a0China<\/a>, with barely a fight.)<\/p>\n

Still, the question remains: What would such a shift in priorities mean for the defense industrial base?\u00a0 If you accept the premise that the U.S. government needs to run a permanent war economy (and also fight\u00a0never-ending wars<\/a>\u00a0across a significant swath of the planet), some of the Pentagon\u2019s recommendations might almost make sense.\u00a0 But a foreign policy that put more emphasis on diplomacy \u2014 one that also thought it important to address non-military dangers like climate change \u2014 wouldn\u2019t require such a large military production network in the first place. Under this scenario, the alarmist argument that the U.S. won\u2019t be able to defend itself without stepping up the militarization of our already exceedingly militarized economy suddenly becomes unpersuasive.<\/p>\n

But let\u2019s give the weapons sector some credit.\u00a0 Its CEOs are working assiduously to build up local economies \u2014 overseas.\u00a0 Saudi Arabia\u2019s long-term economic plan, for instance, calls for\u00a050%<\/a>\u00a0of the value of its weapons purchases to be spent building up its own military industry.\u00a0 U.S. weapons giants like Raytheon and Lockheed Martin have been quick to pledge allegiance to that plan, setting up\u00a0subsidiaries<\/a>\u00a0there and agreeing to have systems like helicopters\u00a0assembled<\/a>\u00a0in Saudi Arabia, not the United States. Meanwhile, Lockheed Martin is helping the United Arab Emirates develop the capability to produce robot-controlled\u00a0machine tools<\/a>\u00a0that are in great demand in the defense and aerospace industries.\u00a0 And the F-35 program is\u00a0creating<\/a>\u00a0production jobs in more than a dozen countries, including assembly plants in Italy and Japan.<\/p>\n

Raytheon CEO Thomas Kennedy summed up this approach when he\u00a0discussed<\/a>\u00a0his company\u2019s growing partnership with Saudi Arabia: \u201cBy working together, we can help build world-class defense and cyber capabilities in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.\u201d And keep in mind that these are the jobs from so many of those Saudi weapons sales that President Trump keeps\u00a0bragging<\/a>\u00a0about.\u00a0 Of course, while this may be bad news for American jobs, it works just fine as a strategy for keeping the profits of U.S. arms makers stratospheric.<\/p>\n

Making the transition from Peter Navarro\u2019s \u201ceconomic security equals national security\u201d to an economy far less dependent on over-the-top military spending would mean a major shift in budget priorities in Washington, a prospect that is, at the moment, hard to imagine.\u00a0 But if the Pentagon can plan ahead, why shouldn\u2019t the rest of us?<\/p>\n

________________________________________________<\/strong><\/p>\n

William D. Hartung<\/em> is the director of the Arms and Security Project at the Center for International Policy.\u00a0 His most recent book is\u00a0<\/em>Prophets of War: Lockheed Martin and the Making of the Military-Industrial Complex<\/a>.<\/em><\/p>\n

Go to Original \u2013 dwfed.org<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

8 Nov 2018 – Given his erratic behavior, from daily Twitter eruptions to upping his tally of lies by the hour, it\u2019s hard to think of Donald Trump as a man with a plan. But in at least one area \u2014 reshaping the economy to serve the needs of the military-industrial complex \u2014 he\u2019s (gasp!) a socialist in the making.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":4,"featured_media":121875,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[65],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-121874","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-anglo-america"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/121874","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/4"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=121874"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/121874\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/121875"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=121874"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=121874"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=121874"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}