Nov.-Dec. 2001:
Drums of War, Voices for Peace
Pacifism in a Time of National Pain
Roots of Conflict
What’s Next for Global Justice?
Pentagon’s Blank Check
Our One-Dimensional Media
Countering Military Recruiting
The Constitution in Turmoil
A Nonmilitary Response
New Yorkers Against War

Homepages:
War Resisters League
The Nonviolent Activist

A Blank Check for the Pentagon

by William D. Hartung and Frida D. Berrigan

he nation gave generously in the aftermath of the September 11 tragedy. At this writing, donation centers remain full, volunteers are still being turned away and the lines to give blood remain hours long. Money to support the families of the victims has poured in. But, as the country moves too quickly from mourning to warring, the Pentagon and giant weapons contractors like Raytheon and Lockheed Martin are benefitting from an even greater benevolence.

photo: David McReynolds

Just days after the attack, Congress rushed through a $40 billion emergency spending package—half for reconstruction, half for fighting terrorism. The Pentagon will get most of the $20 billion to fight the war on terrorism. And that’s just the beginning.

Congress is preparing to sign off on an $18.4 billion increase in the FY2002 military budget, followed by a supplemental appropriation of $20 to $25 billion to underwrite military attacks in Afghanistan. Christopher Hellman of the Center for Defense Information suggests that military spending for Fiscal Year 2002, which began October 1, could hit $375 billion, a $66 billion increase over this year. Deputy defense secretary Paul Wolfowitz has indicated that this increase is a down payment on major, longterm increases in military spending to fight a “new kind of war.”

It would be one thing if these massive sums were carefully targeted toward projects with the highest probability of succeeding against terrorism. But as one Pentagon official said, the emergency money “will have nothing to do with retaliation in response to the Sept. 11 attacks. The money will go to the [military departments’] wish lists for things that we’ll have several years from now.” Joseph Cirincione of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace summed up the current politics of military spending when he observed that some are using the terrible tragedy to justify existing programs by “slapping [on] an ‘anti- terrorism’ label.”

In the short term, the biggest winner will be the Bush administration’s misguided missile defense scheme. The September 11 attacks underscore a central point made by missile defense critics: That the United States is far more vulnerable to “low-tech” attacks than to a nuclear missile attack. Despite this, Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin backed off—in the spirit of unity—from his effort to cut $1.3 billion from Bush’s missile defense request.

Another likely beneficiary is the scandal-plagued Boeing V-22 “Osprey,” which has crashed repeatedly, resulting in the deaths of 30 U.S. military personnel. The program could get a new lease on life thanks to influential allies like Rep. Curt Weldon (R-PA). Weldon, whose district is home to a Boeing facility that builds V-22s, is likely to argue that the Osprey’s unique ability to fly like either a plane or a helicopter will be ideal for searching out terrorist hiding places.

Similarly, Lockheed Martin’s F-22, which, at more than $200 million each, is the most expensive fighter plane ever built, will be in a much stronger position. The plane was originally designed to do battle with next-generation Soviet fighter aircraft that were never built. But the program’s allies in the Georgia and Texas delegations will keep pressing to get the $70 billion project up and running, regardless of its utility in future conflicts. The Crusader artillery system, built by United Defense in House Majority Whip J.C. Watts’ (R-OK) district, is also likely to be shored up in the Pentagon’s new, cash-rich environment.

The Crusader had been singled out for possible elimination because it is too big to move to distant battlefields. But with so much money for weapons, who needs to make choices?

Beyond the existing pet projects of key lawmakers, the Pentagon has its own wish list. Pentagon Comptroller Dov Zakheim recently signaled his department’s intention to boost funding for a string of reconnaissance aircraft, missile-equipped submarines and high tech munitions.

Last but not least, look for congressional advocates of Northrop Grumman’s B-2 “Stealth” bomber, like Norm Dicks (D-WA) and Randy “Duke” Cunningham (R-CA), to seek funding for at least 20 more planes. The first 21 cost about $2 billion each. The argument used to push more B-2s will be that U.S. pilots need to fly long-range missions without accessing military bases near the theater of conflict as they did during the war in Kosovo/a.

This avalanche of new weapons spending begs the larger question of whether “disproportionate” military responses to terrorist violence are appropriate or even effective. If runaway Pentagon spending isn’t curbed soon, the funds, energy and attention needed for a more intelligent approach aimed at addressing the root causes of terrorism will be siphoned off into a narrowly focused military effort that is likely to do far more harm than good.

William D. Hartung is the director of the Arms Trade Resource Center at the World Policy Institute. Frida Berrigan is a Research Associate at the Arms Trade Resource Center.