Eisenhower's Worst Fears Came True: We Invent Enemies to Buy
the Bombs
by Simon Jenkins for the Guardian
Friday, June 17, 2011
Britain
faces no serious threat, yet keeps waging war. While big defence exists,
glory-hungry politicians will use it. Why do we still go to war? We seem unable
to stop. We find any excuse for this post-imperial fidget and yet we keep
getting trapped. Germans do not do it, or Spanish or Swedes. Britain's
borders and British people have not been under serious threat for a generation.
Yet time and again our leaders crave battle. Why?
Last week we got a glimpse of an answer and it was not nice.
The outgoing US Defense Secretary, Robert Gates, berated Europe's
"failure of political will" in not maintaining defense spending. He
said NATO had declined into a "two-tier alliance" between those
willing to wage war and those "who specialize in 'soft' humanitarian,
development, peacekeeping and talking tasks". Peace, he implied, is for
wimps. Real men buy bombs, and drop them. This call was echoed by NATO's chief,
Anders Fogh Rasmussen, who pointed out how unfair it was that US defence
investment represented 75% of the NATO defense expenditure, where once it was
only half. Having been forced to extend his war on Libya
by another three months, Rasmussen wanted to see Europe's
governments come up with more money, and no nonsense about recession. Defense
to him is measured not in security but in spending. The call was repeated back
home by the navy chief, Sir Mark Stanhope. He had to be "dressed down"
by the Prime Minister, David Cameron, for warning that an extended war in Libya
would mean "challenging decisions about priorities". Sailors never
talk straight: he meant more ships. The navy has used so many of its £500,000
Tomahawk missiles trying to hit Colonel Gaddafi (and missing) over the past
month that it needs money for more. In a clearly co-ordinated lobby, the head
of the RAF also demanded "a significant uplift in spending after 2015, if
the service is to meet its commitments". It, of course, defines its
commitments itself.
Libya has
cost Britain
£100m so far, and rising. But Iraq
and the Afghan war are costing America
$3bn a week, and there is scarcely an industry, or a state, in the country that
does not see some of this money. These wars show no signs of being ended, let
alone won. But to the defense lobby what matters is the money. It sustains
combat by constantly promising success and inducing politicians and journalists
to see "more enemy dead", "a glimmer of hope" and "a
corner about to be turned". Victory will come, but only if politicians
spend more money on "a surge". Soldiers are like firefighters,
demanding extra to fight fires. They will fight all right, but if you want
victory that is overtime. On Wednesday the Russian ambassador to NATO warned
that Britain and France were "being dragged more and more
into the eventuality of a land-based operation in Libya". This is what the
defense lobby wants institutionally, even if it may appall the generals. In the
1980s Russia watched the same
process in Afghanistan,
where it took a dictator, Mikhail Gorbachev, to face down the Red Army and
demand withdrawal. The west has no Gorbachev in Afghanistan at the moment. NATO's
Rasmussen says he "could not envisage" a land war in Libya, since
the UN would take over if Gaddafi were toppled. He must know this is nonsense.
But then he said NATO would only enforce a no-fly zone in Libya. He
achieved that weeks ago, but is still bombing.
It is not democracy that keeps western nations at war, but
armies and the interests now massed behind them. The greatest speech about
modern defense was made in 1961 by the US president Eisenhower. He was no
leftwinger, but a former general and conservative Republican. Looking back over
his time in office, his farewell message to America was a simple warning
against the "disastrous rise of misplaced power" of a
military-industrial complex with "unwarranted influence on
government". A burgeoning defense establishment, backed by large corporate
interests, would one day employ so many people as to corrupt the political
system. (His original draft even referred to a
"military-industrial-congressional complex".) This lobby, said
Eisenhower, could become so huge as to "endanger our liberties and
democratic processes". I wonder what Eisenhower would make of today's US, with a
military grown from 3.5 million people to 5 million. The western nations face
less of a threat to their integrity and security than ever in history, yet
their defense industries cry for ever more money and ever more things to do.
The cold war strategist, George Kennan, wrote prophetically: "Were the Soviet Union to sink tomorrow under the waters of the
ocean, the American military-industrial complex would have to remain,
substantially unchanged, until some other adversary could be invented."
The devil makes work for idle hands, especially if they are well-financed. Britain's former special envoy to Kabul, Sherard Cowper-Coles, echoed Kennan last week in
claiming that the army's keenness to fight in Helmand
was self-interested. "It's use them or lose them, Sherard," he was
told by the then chief of the general staff, Sir Richard Dannatt. Cowper-Coles
has now gone off to work for an arms manufacturer. There is no strategic
defense justification for the US
spending 5.5% of its gross domestic product on defense or Britain 2.5%,
or for the NATO "target" of 2%.
These figures merely formalize existing commitments and
interests. At the end of the cold war soldiers assiduously invented new
conflicts for themselves and their suppliers, variously wars on terror, drugs,
piracy, internet espionage and man's general inhumanity to man. None yields
victory, but all need equipment. The war on terror fulfilled all Eisenhower's
fears, as America
sank into a swamp of kidnapping, torture and imprisonment without trial. The
belligerent posture of the US
and Britain
towards the Muslim world has fostered antagonism and moderate threats in
response. The bombing of extremist targets in Pakistan is an invitation for
terrorists to attack us, and then a need for defence against such attack.
Meanwhile, the opportunity cost ofappeasing the complex is astronomical. Eisenhower remarked
that "every gun that is made is a theft from those who hunger" – a
bomber is two power stations and a hospital not built. Likewise, each Tomahawk
Cameron drops on Tripoli destroys not just a
Gaddafi bunker (are there any left?), but a hospital ward and a classroom in Britain.
As long as "big defense" exists it will entice
glory-hungry politicians to use it. It is a return to the hundred years war,
when militaristic barons and knights had a stranglehold on the monarch, and no
other purpose in life than to fight. To deliver victory they demanded ever more
taxes for weapons, and when they had ever more weapons they promised ever
grander victories. This is exactly how Britain's defense ministry ran out
of budgetary control under Labour. There is one piece of good news. NATO has
long outlived its purpose, now justifying its existence only by how much it
induces its members to spend, and how many wars irrelevant to its purpose it
finds to fight. Yet still it does not spend enough for the US Defense
Secretary. In his anger, Gates threatened that "future US leaders … may
not consider the return on America's
investment in NATO worth the cost". Is that a threat or a promise?
[I find it interesting that I came across a quote from
Eisenhower a few days ago in a book I’m reading and then discover this article
yesterday. I do like that sort of thing. Anyway – just think of what we might
have been able to achieve without the expense in money, time and effort spent
on and by the military. It honestly staggers belief at how much we spend (hence
waste) on bombs and bullets. War? What is it good for….?]