Chris Jepson: A modest proposal

I’ve a modest proposal that I’ll shortly outline, but I think it amazing that two of America’s outstanding military leaders and presidents both came to similar cautionary conclusions regarding a bloated and duplicitous military establishment. George Washington foretold in his Sept. 19, 1796 farewell speech to the nation that, “Over grown military establishments are under any form of government inauspicious to liberty, and are to be regarded as particularly hostile to republican liberty.”

On Jan. 17, 1961, President Dwight D. Eisenhower – another wartime commander – spoke his now famous warning, “In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists, and will persist.”

Why is it that Washington and Eisenhower’s prophetic warnings about an out-of-control military establishment are today largely ignored?

Much is being said about Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel’s recent Pentagon budget. Hagel is recommending that the army shrink to between 440,000 and 450,000 troops, a troop level not seen since before WWII. The U.S. military consumes 57 percent of the nation’s discretionary spending (Federal Budget), as opposed to say education, which receives 6 percent of federal discretionary dollars.

This figure does not include the obscene amounts of money spent on homeland security. By some estimates America will spend nearly a trillion dollars in 2014-15 on national security. If what America spends on national security were its own economy, it would be the 19th largest in the world. By comparison, the world’s next largest military budget is China’s at approximately $135 billion.

The only “good” war of the 20th century for America was WWII. Viet Nam, Iraq, Afghanistan, the Spanish American War, and all of our nation’s excursions into Latin America were ill-conceived ventures that squandered American morality, lives and treasure. We muck around the world because we have the military “toys” to do so and an imperialistic mindset that patriotically runs-up-the-flag of U.S. exceptionalism (democracy/capitalism/pluralism), that it is an exportable product like American beef and soybeans.

America’s defense establishment has “plants” in 420 of the nation’s 433 congressional districts. Consider that for a second. Plants equal jobs. Think of military appropriations as corporate welfare (full employment for engineers, technicians, etc.). When building a new weapons system, say the F-35 aircraft, make sure that you have sub-contracts for 1,300 suppliers in 45 states. America is spending $400 billion to purchase 2,400 F-35 airplanes. That is twice the amount of what it cost for America to put a man on the moon. What? You want to cut the F-35 budget? We’re talking national security. We’re talking jobs.

What if? What if we attempted to reduce military appropriations and homeland security by half? It wouldn’t happen because the military-industrial complex Eisenhower so rightly excoriated would “lobby” against it, claiming that such reductions undermine national security and, well, jobs. Let’s be real. What really drives the issue is that any reduction cuts into corporate profits.

Here is my proposal. If, hypothetically, you are The Boeing Company with nearly $22 billion in annual military contracts, you have five years to shift half your production to non-military, societal-benefitting programs such as solar power, water treatment facilities, roads, bridges, etc. Be creative. Take your expertise and use it to actually benefit America. You get the same amount of federal money, you just invest it in programs (employ Americans) that help the nation meet its real challenges. Corporate profits remain intact. It’s a win/win situation.

It’ll never happen.