To fund...

The size and budget of the military has always been a hotly contested question, with constantly changing coalitions on both sides of the issue. Generally, Republicans wanted to expand the military budget, while Democrats wanted to maintain or shrink it. However, a lot has changed since Reagan called on Mikhail Gorbachev to tear down the Berlin Wall in 1987. The left wing has continued to call for reductions in the military budget, with an emphasis on more spending for social programs. The fringe right however, has adopted a new stance. They call for less spending on the military not because they want to spend more on other programs, but because they want a smaller federal government. Thus, it is the establishment wings of both parties that tend to support additional or maintained military spending.

Usually, I fnd myself situated in the ranks of the progressive caucus on many issues, from Universal Healthcare, to Social Welfare and equality more broadly. Yet, I believe that foreign policy is one (and potentially the only) issue where the progressives and I do not see eye to eye. Perhaps it is my upbringing as the son of 2 immigrants, or maybe it is watching regions and countries around the world come under siege when America either abandons them (the Kurds) or chooses not to intervene in the frst place (Myanmar). With China, Russia, and others increasingly acting in a bellicose manner, with regards to Ukraine or Taiwan, it is the duty of America to defend these nations. America is the global heart of democracy, and I believe, as FDR once said, that we must once again become the “Arsenal of Democracy.” When FDR made that statement, he was watching as two authoritarian powers, Japan and Germany, began to make gains throughout Europe.

Once again, we are confronted by two main adversaries, Russia and China. Military force, and diplomatic pressure more broadly, has resulted in numerous democratic victories, such as Kosovo or diplomatic pressure, especially in this day and age relies at least in some way on military spending. The refusal of much of Western Europe to meet the 2% NATO required GDP spending until recently has prevented signifcant aid making its way to Ukraine. However, claiming to defend democracy means that

...or not to fund

Yet again, the military-industrial complex has gripped Congress and forced them to pass a massive 100 billion dollar increase in military spending, on the order of 100 billion dollars. This increase comes in a volatile atmosphere of global geopolitics and represents the fear of the ruling class as the American empire and its colonies wither away. The increase in “defense” spending is at the expense of the American people, tax dollars sucked down the endless vacuum of military demands. Such vast resources could and should be spent elsewhere, as they currently beneft nobody but the arms manufacturers.

In October of 2022, President Joe Biden ominously warned of nuclear “armageddon” if Russia used such weapons in Ukraine. The threat of nuclear war has not declined since, and although during the Cold War made it clear that a nuclear exchange would result in the efective destruction of civilization, many modern pundits speak to the contrary. We live in dangerous times, and the solution is not more saber-rattling. Increases to the military budget and the continued funneling of billions of dollars and war materiel to Ukraine–and Taiwan–is not a solution. Instead, the US and NATO should be encouraging a peaceful resolution to conficts, lest the world be led to disaster.

Those in favor of increased military spending would argue that the US military budget covers more than just the American military. Many argue it is protection for our allies, helps supplement humanitarian aid, and presents a strong America to the world in response to aggressive adversaries. While I don’t dispute that Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is unjustifed, cruel, and must end nor that a Chinese invasion of Taiwan would be disastrous, increasing military spending and counter- we must break our alliances with rogue dictatorships such as Saudi Arabia, unless they commit to increasing the democratic nature of their nation. This means cultivating alliances with formerly “socialist” nations, who are small “d” democratic in nature, such as Armenia, while helping others such as Pakistan transition to democracy. aggression will only worsen the situation. Undoubtedly, the decision threat ens to make a country like Russia feel that it is fghting an existential and desperate confict, pushing the world even further to the brink of annihilation.

Too often, we defend allies we shouldn’t and abandon or don’t even try to make allies with those we should. Our teachers watched as the nations of the Former USSR collapsed into civil war, with spillover from former conficts into Afghanistan and Yugoslavia. The lack of substantive aid given by the United States, particularly under the Clinton administration, allowed Russia to slip back into autocracy. As our generation fnally reaches the age to vote, or even run for ofce, we must advocate for a more robust approach to democracy. Funding for the military can (and should) provide jobs for Americans. It can (and should) lead to a more democratic world. It can (and should) lead to a freer, more equal world. It should not be used to support rogue dictatorships. It should be used to support democratic nations. However, military funding doesn’t need to be at the expense of welfare programs. The economy, like civil rights, is not a zero sum game. Taxation on those who are the richest can more than pay for the funding we need to defend ourselves and our allies and also the welfare funding to ensure that we can grow as a nation and as a people.

Funding can’t be reduced, not until we have made the entire world that shining city on a hill. It is not enough to simply declare that we are democratic, pledge to vote for the party that espouses those ideals, and advocate for democracy and civil rights at home. We must do the same abroad, and defend those who are doing so.

In the face of climate disaster, worldwide food shortages, the break down of supply chains, and the threat of nuclear war, the global powers need to attempt to cooperate with each other. Solutions cannot be created if they push each other away. Europe is sufering a recession and struggles without Russian gas imports. The Middle East, which relies on Ukrainian and Russian grain, may soon sufer mass starvation (a country like Yemen is a tragic extreme of what could come). Within the United States itself, the cost of living is growing intolerable and social conditions are deteriorat ing in many areas. Not enough is being done to mitigate disastrous climate change. Some may argue that cooperation is futile, but it cannot hurt to try.

Much of the money given to the military is used to purchase equip ment that will never be used or doesn’t even work. The benefts for becoming a soldier in the present are not good enough, and as a result military recruitment numbers are very low. The US spends more on its military than the next sixteen countries combined, most of them our al lies, which alone displays the gargantuan overspending on the armed forces. So, the question fnally arises: where should this money be spent?

Education funding, for a start, to increase and equalize opportunities for students across the country. A massive investment in giving the coun try a fast and efcient rail network beftting of a modern, industrialized nation. Not only would it help to connect the country, it would also take cars of the road for the beneft of the environment. More money could be spent on at least the very beginning of a single-payer universal health care system that would counter the extortionate healthcare apparatus that currently exists. And of course, money should be invested in clean energy and environmental protection. The military budget could be halved and still be greatly sufcient. This money can be spent better, for a better future.