Danny Sjursen - Trump’s National Defense Strategy: Something for Everyone (in the Military-Industrial Complex)
Think of it as the
chicken-or-the-egg question for the ages: Do very real threats to the United
States inadvertently benefit the military-industrial complex or does the
national security state, by its very nature, conjure up inflated threats to
feed that defense machine? Back in 2008, some of us placed
our faith, naively enough, in the hands of mainstream Democrats --
specifically, those of a young senator named Barack Obama. He would
reverse the war policies of George W. Bush, deescalate the unbridled Global War
on Terror, and right the ship of state. How’d that turn out?
In retrospect, though couched in a far more sophisticated and peaceable rhetoric than Bush’s, his moves would prove largely cosmetic when it came to this country’s forever wars: a significant reduction in the use of conventional ground troops, but more drones, more commandos, and yet more acts of ill-advised regime change. Don’t get me wrong: as a veteran of two of Washington’s wars, I was glad when “no-drama” Obama decreased the number of boots on the ground in the Middle East. It’s now obvious, however, that he left the basic infrastructure of eternal war firmly in place.
In retrospect, though couched in a far more sophisticated and peaceable rhetoric than Bush’s, his moves would prove largely cosmetic when it came to this country’s forever wars: a significant reduction in the use of conventional ground troops, but more drones, more commandos, and yet more acts of ill-advised regime change. Don’t get me wrong: as a veteran of two of Washington’s wars, I was glad when “no-drama” Obama decreased the number of boots on the ground in the Middle East. It’s now obvious, however, that he left the basic infrastructure of eternal war firmly in place.
Enter The Donald. For all his
half-baked tweets, insults, and boasts, as well as his refusal to read anything of substance on issues of war and peace, some of
candidate Trump’s foreign policy ideas seemed far saner than those of just
about any other politician around or the previous two presidents. I mean,
the Iraq War was dumb, and maybe it wasn’t the craziest idea for
America’s allies to start thinking about defending themselves, and maybe
Washington ought to put some time and diplomatic effort into avoiding a
possibly catastrophic clash or set of clashes with Vladimir Putin’s
Russia.
Unfortunately, the
White House version of all this proved oh-so-familiar. President Trump’s
decision, for instance, to double down on a losing bet in Afghanistan in spite
of his “instincts” (and on similar bets in Somalia, Syria, and
elsewhere) and his recently published National Defense Strategy (NDS) leave little doubt
that he’s surrendered to Secretary of Defense James Mattis and National
Security Advisor H.R. McMaster, the mainstream interventionists in his
administration.
In truth, no one
should be surprised. A hyper-interventionist, highly militarized foreign
policy has defined Washington since at least the days of President Harry Truman -- the first in a long line of hawks to
take the White House. In this context, an ever-expanding national
security state has always put special effort into meeting the imagined needs
(or rather desires) of its various component parts.
The result: bloated
budgets for which exaggerated threats, if not actual war, remain a
necessity.
Without the threat of
communism in the previous century and terrorism (as well as once again
ascendant great powers) in this one, such bloated budgets would be hard to
explain. And then, how would the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marines get
all the weaponized toys they desired? How would Congressional
representatives in a post-industrial economy get all those attractive “defense”
jobs for their districts and how would the weapons makers get
the government cash they crave?.. read more:
