From: "Eli Pariser" <bulletin@9-11peace.org>
To: <9-11peace@complete.org>
Subject: War at All Costs
Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2002 08:56:40 -0500
Message-ID: <NFBBILDICDMBFNGCLHNECEHHDFAA.bulletin@9-11peace.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Importance: Normal
Sender: 9-11peace-bounce@complete.org
Errors-to: 9-11peace-bounce@complete.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-to: bulletin@9-11peace.org

WAR AT ALL COSTS: THE AMERICAN MILITARY BUDGET
Read online, subscribe, or unsubscribe at:
http://www.9-11peace.org/bulletin.php3
Susan V. Thompson, ed.


CONTENTS
---------
1. Introduction: The Price of War
2. One Link
3. Spending or Squandering
4. FY 2003: The "War Budget"
5. Budgeting for Peace
6. Get Involved
7. About the Bulletin


INTRODUCTION: THE PRICE OF WAR
-------------------------------
The budget I submitted is the largest single increase in
military spending in a generation.  If we're going to fight
for freedom, we have to pay the cost to fight for freedom.
And it's worth it.
-- President Bush, addressing American troops in Alaska

President Bush has released his proposed budget for Fiscal
Year (FY) 2003, and it seems that the "War on Terrorism" is
being used to give a blank check to anything related to the
military or "defense".  This year marks the highest proposed
increase in military spending in 20 years.  At the same
time, Social Security and other programs that focus on
improving the quality of life for ordinary American citizens
are being plundered or cut.  To make matters worse, the
long-anticipated budget surplus has fizzled; in its place, a
glaring $106 billion deficit has materialized.

Military watchdog groups are furious.  And even some
conservatives and defense analysts who have steadfastly
supported the "war on terrorism" concede that a number of
Bush's proposed military expenditures are wasteful and
unnecessary.  After all, many of the proposed increases come
in areas which have little or nothing to do with fighting
terrorism.

This week, we explore the controversies underlying the FY
2003 budget and look, in particular, at why it is so
vehemently opposed by critics from both the left and the
right--from peace activists to military experts.


ONE LINK
---------
"Shame on Bush for trying to use the flag and September 11
to justify more big government, a return to deficit
spending, stealing from the Social Security surplus,
permanent tax cuts for the rich and further fattening an
already bloated Pentagon."

Read this excellent CNN article to get a quick and dirty
summary of the budget and its many failings.
http://9-11peace.org/r.php3?redir=99


SPENDING OR SQUANDERING
------------------------
Many defense experts, who are not necessarily opposed to the
current war effort or war in general, still see the current
budget as dangerously overblown.  The problem, as they see
it, is that there is a lack of focus on dropping or
reforming expensive Cold War-era weapons and systems.
Instead, these military programs are being included in the
current proposed military spending spree, which means that
money is being wasted on outdated aspects of defense which
have nothing to do with the war on terrorism.

The author of this article outlines some key things to look
for to help determine whether or not money is being wasted
in the proposed budget.
http://9-11peace.org/r.php3?redir=100

The proposed Bush budget is stalling efforts to re-evaluate
military spending.  This means that the increase in funding
may be providing only a false sense of security as money is
wasted on expensive and ineffective weapons and systems.
http://9-11peace.org/r.php3?redir=101

The military budget is being described as "leaving no
defense contractor behind".  According to the author of this
article: "A quick review of the Pentagon's 'Program
Acquisition Costs by Weapon System' for FY 2003 indicates
that more than one-third of the Pentagon's $68 billion
weapons procurement budget for the year will be allocated to
big ticket, Cold War era systems that have little or nothing
to do with the war on terrorism. In fact, many of these
systems were mentioned as candidates for major reductions or
cancellation during the Bush campaign and during the early
months of Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld's defense
review. "
http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0206-02.htm

Rear Adm. (Ret.) Stephen H. Baker provides 15 examples of
Pentagon programs that could/should be cancelled or
re-tooled.  These recommendations would save at least $147
billion over the next 10 years.
http://www.cdi.org/mrp/transformation.cfm

Defense industries have a vested interest in promoting and
supporting a larger military budget, since they stand to
profit from it.  The current war on terrorism is also
increasing the risk of these industries gaining more
governmental influence.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0213/p02s03-uspo.html


FY 2003: THE "WAR BUDGET"
--------------------------
Are you an American who wants to know where your income tax
is going?  This fantastic page from the War Resisters League
uses pie charts to illustrate that the proposed budget sets
aside far more money for the military than for human
resources such as education and medical care.  It is also
packed with point-form information on past military spending
and includes several action ideas.
http://www.warresisters.org/piechart.htm

FY (Fiscal Year) 2003 Budget at a glance.
http://www.clw.org/milspend/dodbud03.html

Quick facts about the military budget.  For example, the $45
billion increase is more than three times the combined
defense budgets of all of the "rogue" states that are seen
as a threat to America.
http://www.clw.org/milspend/fy03facts.html

A brief summary of the "war budget", which, while increasing
military spending, cuts funding many programs.  Concludes
with a graph of US military spending since 1945.
http://9-11peace.org/r.php3?redir=102

The federal government is projected to run a $106 billion
deficit this year, which is due not only to the war on
terrorism but also to Bush's tax cuts for big corporations
and the wealthy.  This means that money for the current
spending spree must be taken out of programs like Social
Security.
http://9-11peace.org/r.php3?redir=103

Some Republican groups, including Project for a New American
Century, are not satisfied with Bush's spending and want to
see more money put toward the military.  Project for a New
American Century's Board of Directors includes Bruce
Jackson, who is the Vice President of the world's largest
defense corporation, several powerful Republicans, and
advocates of the NMD.  With groups such as these helping set
American fiscal priorities, it is no wonder that more
moderate budget scenarios are being ignored.
http://www.commondreams.org/views01/0224-02.htm


NATIONAL MISSILE DEFENSE (NMD)
-------------------------------
The proposed budget includes an increase in funding for a
system of National Missile Defense (NMD).  This is perhaps
one of the most obvious examples of the Bush administration
throwing money at extremely expensive and yet generally
ineffective military systems.

First, an excellent brief history of missiles and ballistic
missile defense (up to and including the Clinton
administration).
http://www.cdi.org/hotspots/issuebrief/ch2/index.html

Bush recently pulled out of the ABM treaty, and began to
call for an NMD.  Bush's proposed shield is even more
ambitious (and expensive) than the one proposed by President
Clinton, since Bush has promised that it will protect not
only America but American allies such as Israel. Sen. Tom
Daschle has said, "We fear that the president may be buying
a lemon here."
http://9-11peace.org/r.php3?redir=104

The NMD, which is often compared to "hitting a bullet with a
bullet", is technologically extremely complex, which means
that it is both expensive and vulnerable to malfunction.
The proposed missile defense system would be comprised of
six separate systems that all must work perfectly if the NMD
is to be successful.  Testing so far has had mixed to poor
results.
http://www.cdi.org/hotspots/issuebrief/ch4/index.html

The main problem with investing in the NMD is that it won't
work. A scientific study completed during the Clinton
administration has shown that there are several
countermeasures that an attacking country could take to
render the planned defense system ineffective, all of which
require less technology than the missile defense system
itself.  Three of these countermeasures are specifically
discussed..
http://www.commondreams.org/views/051100-101.htm

The Federation of American Scientists, which includes 50
Nobel Laureates, has sent a letter asking Congress not to
pursue the NMD.
http://www.guerrillanews.com/government/doc228.html

This Q and A with a member of the Federation of American
Scientists helps explain why the group opposes the NMD.  Did
you know, for example, that this is the eighth proposed NMD,
and that all previous attempts have failed?
http://www.guerrillanews.com/government/doc117.html

Incomprehensible amounts of money have already been spent on
the NMD since the Reagan era.  Get the details.
http://www.cdi.org/hotspots/issuebrief/ch5/index.html


BUDGETING FOR PEACE
--------------------
Those of us who advocate peace rather than a military
response can take criticism of the proposed budget a step
further, and demand that money be used not for waging war
and maintaining military involvements in other countries,
but rather for social programs, humanitarian aid, and other
important long-term human investments.

The war on terrorism is a bad investment. "Like the bankrupt
energy giant [Enron], the Bush administration has a
predilection for secrecy and deregulation and a penchant for
being indiscriminate when it comes to making potentially
costly investments -- mainly in the form of new military
entanglements -- in unstable partners around the globe."
http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=12403

This entertaining site promotes the idea of diverting some
of the money currently spent on the military to social
programs such as education.  Includes highly entertaining
and informative multimedia presentations, forms to send to
members of congress, and a neat counter displaying how much
money the Pentagon has spent while you were visiting the
site.
http://www.moveourmoney.com/Default.htm

The President's proposed budget largely ignores the root
causes of terrorism in favor of military spending. The
proposed increase in military spending is six times the
total amount President Bush plans to spend on international
development and humanitarian assistance and more than twice
the total that he would spend on all non-military
international affairs programs.  It is our responsibility to
act now to shift these priorities before they become
legislation.  (This page includes information on writing
letters to representatives as well as background information
on the budget.)
http://www.fcnl.org/act_lam_current/actnow_lam_index.htm


GET INVOLVED
-------------
If you would like us to include an action, giving idea, news
article, or source in the bulletin, please write to
bulletin@9-11peace.org and describe your item in the subject
line.

The 9-11Peace.org bulletin is looking for volunteers to help
us with research. If you think you've got the time,
know-how, and energy to do this well, please write to Eli or
Susan at editor@9-11peace.org. Put "Volunteer" in the
subject line, and add a brief paragraph summarizing your
experience and interest.

We apologize if you have sent us an email and we have not
gotten back to you yet. Our response time will be slow until
we can get some more volunteers working on this aspect of
9-11Peace.org.


ABOUT THE BULLETIN
-------------------
The 9-11Peace.org bulletin is a weekly newsletter providing
resources, news, and action ideas to over 25,250 people
around the world. The full text of the bulletin is online at
http://www.9-11peace.org/bulletin.php3; users can subscribe
to and unsubscribe from the bulletin at that address also.
The bulletin is a project of 9-11Peace.org. Contact
bulletin@9-11peace.org for more information.