Ending the “End of Endless Wars” Rhetoric is as Likely as an Actual End
Ending “forever wars” is one of the few political hot buttons that has bi-partisan support.
Ending “forever wars” is one of the few political hot buttons that has bi-partisan support.
President Donald Trump’s abrupt withdraw of troops supporting the Kurds in northeastern Syria in October was placed under the umbrella of the president’s effort to “end the endless wars.” Barely a month later, the U.S. Central Command ordered 500 troops to resume fighting in that region to quell any ISIS growth.
The American military is now “conducting training exercises, active combat, and air and drone strikes on six continents.”
Put another way, the United States military is currently operating in 40% of the world’s nations.
There are 80 impacted countries:
40 have military bases
65 have counterterrorism training
26 have military exercises
14 have U.S. troops in combat
7 have active air and drone strikes
Despite the proclamations and efforts of recent presidents, and presidential candidates, the “end of endless wars” has no visible expiration date.
HISTORY
The end of the Second World War began the start of the Cold War: the battle between democracy and communism and the United States and Russia. With the Cold War came a stronger relationship between the military and private industry.
The Cold War was good for business and as the saying goes, business was good.
However, this relationship wasn’t given a public name until President Eisenhower’s farewell speech in 1961, when he said, “We must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex.”
President Kennedy did not heed that clarion call…and neither did any president after him.
The military-industrial complex relates specifically to those fluid relationships that include political contributions, political approval for military spending and lobbying. Perhaps it’s best understood by the flow of money and resources among individuals, defense contractors, private military contractors, institutions, the Pentagon, the U.S. Congress and the executive branch of the United States.
Famed linguist Noam Chomsky disputes the concept of the military-industrial complex. In On Power, DIssent, and Racism: a Series of Discussions with Noam Chomsky, he asserts, “There is no military-industrial complex: it’s just the industrial system operating under one or another pretext.”
THE PRESENT
With only a handful of years where defense spending decreased, it has steadily increased since 1948. After the end of the Cold War, military spending in the United States increased very little until September 11, 2001, and the beginning of the “War on Terror.” In 2002, the military budget was 362 billion.
For the 2020 budget, 718 billion has been designated for the Department of Defense. And that is expected to grow to 776 billion by 2034.
However, this proposed .5% annual military increase from 2020–2034 seems to be an egregious miscalculation…or a pipe dream…perhaps delusional. Based on historical military spending, in the years between 1996 and 2015 that had an uptick in military spending, that increase averaged 3.75%.
Somehow a .5% annual increase in Department of Defense spending appears small when America is doing battle on 40% of the world.
The relationship between military contractors, the U.S. military and government oversight is such that it’s often referred to as the “iron triangle.” This “iron triangle” is made up of the decision making relationships between congressional committees, the bureaucracy and interest groups. Given the fluid nature of these relationships and the various U.S. military activity throughout the world, the question that must be asked is whether this “end of endless wars” is even a possibility.
The rhetoric from President Trump and the presidential candidates around this topic would lead you to believe that an end to all of the American military conflicts is on the horizon. The reality is more complicated.
And the truth can’t be widdled down to a 240-word tweet or a 20 second sound bite.
All of the Democratic front-runners have released articles and proclamations saying there must be an “end to endless wars” and that “forever wars” must cease. However, all the candidates are short on specifics on how to do so.
In a release from June of 2019, Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders offers a plan that falls short on specifics. Somehow, while maintaining the U.S. fight against terror (the largest war we are engaged in) he calls for a softer approach like diplomacy.
Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren’s plan calls for a similar approach. However, her inexperience in foreign affairs has led to more than one gaff. In October, she mentioned that America needed to “get out of the Middle East” — which led to her team scrambling to immediately issue a follow-up tweet to clarify that Warren meant “combat troops.”
Former Vice President Joe Biden, and current Democratic presidential front-runner, also claims a desire to end “forever wars.” However, given his hawkish foreign policy views and history on pro-war voting as a member of Congress, one must consider his statements with a raised eyebrow of skepticism.
In 2016, then-candidate Donald Trump won over a large number of voters by also claiming he was going to end the wars that America was embroiled in. This has also been part of his rhetoric for the length of his administration.
However, to date, Trump’s attempt to end wars indicates a very broken campaign promise.
As President, he’s been unable to withdraw troops from Afghanistan, he vetoed an order to exit Yemen and has not ruled out military action in Venezuela. He’s also been less than shy about his animus towards Iran.
Despite President Trump’s bombast, the military’s presence around the world isn’t contracting it’s expanding.
In 2007 the United States established Africa Command (AFRICOM).
The American military has thousands of troops, planes, air bases, drone bases, outposts, etc. spread all over the continent. Harkening back to the Cold War, former AFRICOM commander General Thomas Waldhause believes that “Russia has taken a more militaristic approach in Africa.”
In March of 2019, as he was leaving his position, General Waldhause told congress that AFRICOM is bound to be a “forever outfit.”
In Somalia alone, 2018 saw U.S. forces strike the leaders and fighters of Islamist terror group al-Shabaab 47 times, tripling the amount carried out by the Obama administration in 2016 and doubling that in 2019.
The U.S. military is increasing its presence there, placing 500 troops and an estimate from the Pentagon says that those troops in Somalia will be there for “at least another seven years.”
And just recently, after tearing up and exiting the Iran Nuclear Deal and as a result of Trump’s animus and the heightened tensions with Iran, 14,00 additional troops have been ordered to the Persian Gulf as a precautionary measure.
The past sixty-plus years have seen America expand its military influence across the globe. In addition to no less than five wars: Korea, Vietnam, Operation Desert Storm, Afghanistan and the War on Terror there have been countless military skirmishes, both covert and overt, and billions of dollars spent on varying degrees of military support for American allies.
And the human toll of all of these “forever wars” is incalculable.
The sentiment behind removing troops and slowing down global military expansion is largely a bi-partisan political issue. It’s also a perspective shared by a large swath of voting Americans.
However, given the intricate web and fluidity of geopolitics and the influence of the military-industrial complex an end to all the military conflict America is involved in is an optimistic point of view. Furthermore, anyone who claims to have the definitive idea or plan to end these “forever wars” should be considered dubious.
The light at the end of the tunnel purporting to be the “end of endless wars” is more likely a train. There’s no end in sight.
