The National Security
State Doesn’t Protect Us. Let’s Redefine Security for All.
National
Guard troops stand outside the U.S. Capitol on February 13, 2021, in
Washington, D.C.WIN MCNAMEE / GETTY IMAGES
After the nation watched white supremacists take over the
Capitol building, the failure of the national security state to appropriately
recognize and address the threat became a national scandal. But this “failure”
shouldn’t have surprised us. If there is one thing that the trillion-dollar
national security apparatus is good at, it’s under-hyping and misinterpreting
threats that aren’t based on threats from “outsiders,” while overhyping the
threats that are.
It’s not just white supremacy that the national security state
often overlooks. The downplayed threats are often those that aren’t suggestive
of national security “solutions.” Everyone knows that bombs can’t stop climate
change, a virus or a hurricane (with the exception of one former president). In the case of white
supremacist violence, the failure to appreciate the danger reflects a
reluctance to use the full violence of state power against white citizens, but
the effects are similar. And when it isn’t ignoring them, the national security
state co-opts these threats rather than relinquish power to other arms of
government.
Of course, the bread and butter of the national security
state is the idea that we need plenty of bombs (and ships, jets, troops and so
on) to deal with threats posed by terrorists from “over there,” or countries
that would threaten U.S. global primacy. The overhyping of a supposed threat
posed by China is particularly insidious, as it threatens not only to ignite
a new Cold War, but to drag climate negotiations, future pandemic
preparations and the rest of the world down with it.
National security needs to be reimagined twice: once to
refocus it on real threats like climate change, global pandemics and
authoritarianism, and again to refocus the response to those crises away from a
militarized response and toward real solutions. It will take significant outside
pressure to make that happen.
Overhyped Threats and
Military Overreach
The U.S. military reaches around the globe, with
approximately 800 foreign military installations in
nearly half the world’s countries, and takes up more than half the discretionary budget
that Congress allocates each year. Every decade or two, there is a new
rationale for all this, with a new threat.
In recent decades, the threats have shifted from Russia (the
first time), to terrorists in the Middle East, to “rogue states” like North
Korea and Iran, and most recently to economic and ideological rivals like China
and Russia. Each of these overhyped threats has generated a military response
out of all proportion to what might reasonably be deemed necessary, both
because the U.S. military already has more capacity than it needs to rebuff any
military threat, and because in most of these cases, the threat can’t be
addressed through military means anyway.
Through the 1980s, the U.S. and Russia engaged in an arms race
that led to the two countries possessing enough nuclear weapons to destroy each
other, and the planet, many times over. The primary justification on
the U.S. side was an ideological fear of communism — a problem (if you can call
it that) without a military solution. To this day, no other country comes even close to the
number of nuclear weapons these two nations still hold, and the national
security state continues to demand more resources for nuclear weapons.
The same fear of communism was used to
justify the U.S. war in Vietnam.
The next big threat was terrorism. Twenty years after the “war
on terror” began, the U.S. continues to fight aimlessly and at great cost in lives and
riches. According to the Brown University Costs of War project, more
than 800,000 people have died, 37 million people have been displaced, and the
U.S. has spent $6.4 trillion on the war on terror to date. The continuing violence in the region has
spread and mutated beyond what anyone imagined in 2001. The ongoing U.S. war
against terror is a case of an overblown threat without a military solution.
And yet many national security voices insist that the
U.S. military must not abandon the cause.
Today, the new oversold threats come from China and Russia.
Recent national security strategy has set “great
power competition” as the newest raison d’être for U.S. military hegemony, and
signs point to the Biden administration largely continuing on this track, at
great peril to crucial diplomatic efforts on climate. However,
despite some disturbingly hawkish signs from the new
administration, President Joe Biden’s national security adviser, Jake Sullivan,
has acknowledged that the primary U.S. response to China must be domestic “economic renewal” — in other
words, not primarily a beefed-up military, but rather, a rejuvenation of U.S.
education and jobs. It’s not that there aren’t real problems associated with these countries. It’s just that those problems
have little to do with the supposed threats to the U.S., and they certainly
have no military solutions.
Fear the Neighbors and
Feed the Security State
The national security state reaches inside the United States,
too, with its own mythology to justify its continued growth. The national
security state justifies its existence by overhyping the threat from crimes
ranging from drug selling and possession to the act
of crossing the border without the right papers.
Even before the Trump administration, we witnessed the deportation of millions of people, falsely
justified by fictions about “crime.” Today, overhyped fears about rising crime
rates and scaremongering around demands to defund the police are accompanied
by new calls for increased securitization. The
supposed “threats” that justify the growth of the security state inside the
U.S. are mostly our own neighbors.
If You Can’t Ignore It,
Militarize It
The national security state inflates threats that justify its
existence, but it also downplays or co-opts threats that in a different world
would be the sole province of government agencies for energy, the environment,
health care and so on. Instead of solving our problems, the national security
state co-opts them for more resources and power.
The most obvious and immediate threat, the COVID-19 pandemic,
has now killed more people in the United States
than every war except the Civil War — as many
as 165 9/11s in a row. It is abundantly clear that the U.S. did not adequately
prepare for a pandemic. While a pandemic plan developed by the national
security apparatus during the Obama administration was famously thrown out by the last
president, it also raised the question of whether the national security
apparatus is where pandemic plans should come from in the first place.
Likewise, the National Guard has deployed for everything from
the pandemic to an unprecedented storm in Texas (and of course, the siege in Washington, D.C.). The
constant reliance on the National Guard reflects the extent to which the
national security state is the only arm of government that is resourced well enough
to attempt to tackle big problems. In a vicious cycle, this fact continues to
draw even more resources into the national security state — resources which
are often misused. In a twist that seems all too
cruel, the CIA co-opting of a vaccination program in
Pakistan may now contribute to vaccine hesitation around COVID-19.
With white supremacist extremism now harder to deny, the national security state is
moving from an attitude of avoidance to securitizing the response there, too.
The military and law enforcement have chosen to excuse
blatant white supremacy in their own ranks: In fact, throughout history, white
supremacy has driven and shaped the growth of police departments in the U.S. and around the world. But here
too, the national security state adopts the problem by calling for new domestic terrorism laws and more
enforcement — another expansion of the national security state. Of course, it’s
all too easy to imagine enhanced domestic terrorism laws enacted ostensibly to
fight white supremacy being used against Black and Brown people, racial justice activists, environmental justice activists, and others.
Following the same pattern, the national security state
alternately ignores, contributes to, and seeks to co-opt climate change. In
military circles, climate change has long been recognized primarily as a
“threat multiplier” — a factor that could increase conflict (and therefore
opportunities for war) — and as a threat to military infrastructure like
sea-level naval bases. The Pentagon has begun to recognize the problem with
plans to “green” the military by reducing its own emissions, chasing an opportunity
to burnish its own image in the process.
The Search for True
Security
Living under COVID for the past year has driven home the
reality that militarization doesn’t buy security. The new administration and
Congress have an opportunity to redefine security, so that it encompasses
justice, health, housing, food, education, civil rights and more. That’s a
necessary step, but it’s not enough.
The next step has to be demilitarizing security by downsizing
the massive security state. Movements like the Poor
People’s Campaign, Defund Hate, Black Lives
Matter, Dissenters, and People Over
Pentagon have made real inroads at building power and
accomplishing both, but the road ahead is long. The solution is to keep
building power until these movements and others are strong enough to push back.
Copyright © Truthout. May not be reprinted
without permission.
Donations can be sent
to Max Obuszewski, Baltimore Nonviolence Center, 431 Notre Dame Lane, Apt. 206,
Baltimore, MD 21212. Ph: 410-323-1607; Email: mobuszewski2001 [at]
comcast.net. Go to http://baltimorenonviolencecenter.blogspot.com/
"The master class
has always declared the wars; the subject class has always fought the battles.
The master class has had all to gain and nothing to lose, while the subject
class has had nothing to gain and everything to lose--especially their
lives." Eugene Victor Debs
No comments:
Post a Comment