A Half Trillion Dollar Military Budget Is Not Enough?

by Gerard Emershaw

The United States is prepared to wave the white flag and surrender to its enemies. Well, according to neoconservatives at least. Retired General Wesley Clark has cautioned: “We cannot go back to a pre-World War II Army with a bunch of people marching around with broomsticks on their shoulders doing right face and right shoulder arms.” Former Vice President Dick Cheney—who like most neoconservative RINOs believes that deficits do not matter—scoffed: “I can guarantee you there's never going to be a call from a future secretary of defense to Obama to thank him for what he's done to the military.” What has President Obama done to the United States? According to Cheney, “enormous long-term damage.” Of course, American soldiers are going to be marching around with broomsticks instead of guns.

Wait, what? American soldiers are not going to be marching around with broomsticks on their shoulders? What Cheney is talking about is the announcement that the Obama administration is going to be spending a mere $496 billion in FY 2015 on the military. According to Newsmax:

For the five years ending in 2019, the Defense Department's budget forecast includes $115 billion more in spending than currently authorized in congressionally mandated levels under the budget cuts called sequestration.

The plan calls for requesting $535 billion in 2016, or $35 billion more than the sequestration level; $544 billion for 2017, or $31 billion over the cap; $551 billion in 2018, or $27 billion over the cap; and $559 billion in 2019, or $22 billion over the cap.

One would think that a half trillion dollars a year could buy a lot of broomsticks. Maybe even a lot of modern weaponry. Nations like China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea manage to constitute alleged threats to the United States while spending only a fraction of what the United States does on military. How are these nations able to afford to equip their soldiers with more than broomsticks?

Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel’s plan will cut the size of the military:

Hagel's plan would reduce the Army by 6 percent to about 490,000 personnel by 2015 from about 522,000 today, accelerating by two years the Army's plan to reach that total by 2017. Hagel’s proposal also calls for reductions to about 450,000 by 2019—30,000 fewer than the active-duty force in September 2001 before the terrorist attacks on the U.S.

These cuts would make the United States military smaller than it has been since 1940. Of course, the United States is not fighting total war against rival superpowers across the globe. The U.S. military also possesses an arsenal of nuclear weapons along with Stealth fighters, drones, etc. which makes a large standing army unnecessary.

The only reason that large standing armies are necessary is if it is going to be misused. Corporatist wars of aggression overseas require large armies with bottomless budgets. However, such wars stand in stark opposition to the advice and practice of the Founders. Such wars are expensive and produce blowback. If one believes that military cuts are off the table, then one is not truly fiscally conservative. The purpose of the military is to defend the Republic and not to protect foreign despots, multinational corporations, or the bottom line of the Military-Industrial Complex. Deficits do matter, Vice President Cheney. The national debt—and not the Russians, Chinese, Iranians, or North Koreans—is the greatest threat to national security. The military budget simply cannot be treated like a sacred cow or one day soon there may not be a Republic left for the military to defend.

Too Pretty for Combat?

By Gerard Emershaw

Colonel Lynne Arnhart complained in an internal U.S. Army e-mail that female soldiers pictured in military press releases are too pretty, and set off a maelstrom of controversy in the mainstream media and the blogosphere. Arnhart claimed:

In general, ugly women are perceived as competent while pretty women are perceived as having used their looks to get ahead…. There is a general tendency to select nice looking women when we select a photo to go with an article (where the article does not reference a specific person). It might behoove us to select more average looking women for our comms strategy. For example, the attached article shows a pretty woman, wearing make-up while on deployed duty. Such photos undermine the rest of the message (and may even make people ask if breaking a nail is considered hazardous duty).

Giving Colonel Arnhart the benefit of the doubt, one may have imagined that the Army had illustrated an article with a photo of a supermodel. However, the article, featuring a photo of CPL Kristine Tejada, was a photo of an actual soldier providing security while on duty in Iraq. Taken at face value, Colonel Arnhart’s statement is wrongheaded. It is an empirical question whether “ugly women” are perceived as more competent than “pretty women.” Studies have shown that when women wear makeup, they are perceived as being more competent. Studies have also shown that attractive people tend to be more intelligent. It is also strange that Colonel Arnhart is employing a double standard. Are ugly men perceived as more competent? Should the Army use photos of “average looking men” to illustrate official publications?


Official Army publications can be characterized as public relations materials. Perhaps they can even be characterized as propaganda. Television commercials and other advertising tend to employ attractive men and women. This is unsurprising. Why should the Army not do the same? The Army must be doing something right. Enlisted military routinely ranks among the worst jobs in the country, and 6,750 U.S. service members have died in Iraq and Afghanistan. Despite this, all branches of the United States armed forces have been meeting or exceeding their recruitment goals.

Colonel Arnhart’s statement also highlights what the military actually thinks about Americans in general and potential recruits in general. Who is stupid enough to believe that a “pretty woman” in the military has gotten ahead merely because of her looks? Who is stupid enough to believe that serving in the armed forces is a glamorous job? Colonel Arnhart essentially believes that Americans are either misogynists or naïve fools, and it is not a stretch to believe that this attitude is common among the military brass.

The issue of women in the United States military goes far beyond academic feminism or political correctness. There is a danger that this particular story will lead people to view it all as a superficial matter. The truth is that this issue is anything but superficial.

Sexual harassment and sexual assault are alarmingly widespread in the armed forces. Between 2011 and 2012, there were 26,000 sexual assaults committed in the armed forces. This was up from 19,000 in 2010. The victims are predominantly women. Attitudes such as that exhibited by Colonel Arnhart reinforce the notion that female service members are nothing but objects characterized completely by physical appearance. Such attitudes only serve to further endanger women in the military.

In January, the U.S. military officially lifted its ban on women serving in combat roles. While the issue of whether women should serve in combat roles will continue to be hotly debated, the nature of modern warfare likely makes it inevitable. Modern warfare is becoming more technological. However, the real question is not whether women should serve in combat roles. In fact, they already do. Over 150 female service members have died in Iraq and Afghanistan. With the economy still in tatters and no true recovery in sight, it is likely that more women will enlist in the armed forces. With the way that neoconservatives in the Republican Party and neo-progressives in the Democratic Party warmonger and allow the armed forces to be used unconstitutionally by imperial presidents as cannon fodder to protect corporatist and foreign interests, far more women will be needlessly endangered. Far more service members will be cruelly sacrificed regardless of gender.

The fact that the Army is concerned at all with how attractive its female members are displays how warped its priorities are. The Army should be concerned with protecting the proud and brave women who serve this nation from sexual harassment and sexual assault. The Army should also be concerned with ensuring that women and men in the armed forces are only placed in danger in defense of the nation and not in the defense of corporate or foreign interests.