Update 5/20, 6:40 a.m. ET : Sen. Bernie Sanders (D-Vt.) says he is prepared to introduce a bill in the Senate today that would put a hold on the $735 million sale of precision guided missiles to Israel.
***
As the Biden administration muddles through efforts to end the fighting in Israel and Gaza, progressives in Congress appear to be stepping in to fill the leadership vacuum.
One day after House Foreign Affairs Committee chair Rep. Gregory Meeks (D-N.Y.) reversed course on his plan to ask the White House to pause an arms sale to Israel amid the ongoing fighting, Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.), Mark Pocan (D-Wis.), and Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) announced on Wednesday that they would introduce a resolution disapproving of the sale.
“The United States should not be rubber-stamping weapons sales to the Israeli government as they deploy our resources to target international media outlets, schools, hospitals, humanitarian missions and civilian sites for bombing,” Rep. Ocasio-Cortez said on Twitter. “We have a responsibility to protect human rights.”
The measure is unlikely to go very far as the period for congressional review expires on Friday, but supporters praised its symbolism.
“This is a historic day.” said Raed Jarrar, advocacy director for the human rights group Democracy for the Arab World. “Congress has never attempted to block an arms sale to Israel before, and it sends a clear message to the Israeli government that its days of impunity are coming to an end.”
Meanwhile, in the Senate, Sen Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) announced on Wednesday that he would block a GOP-led resolution offering “full and unequivocal U.S. support” for Israel’s bombardment of Gaza with a resolution of his own calling for an immediate ceasefire and supporting diplomatic effort to resolve the conflict.
Ben Armbruster is the Managing Editor of Responsible Statecraft. He has more than a decade of experience working at the intersection of politics, foreign policy, and media. Ben previously held senior editorial and management positions at Media Matters, ThinkProgress, ReThink Media, and Win Without War.
Photos: Diego G Diaz and lev radin via shutterstock.com
It is time to retire the phrase “military-industrial complex.”
President Dwight Eisenhower coined this immortal phrase during his January 17, 1961farewell address to warn Americans against the “acquisition of unwarranted influence” by the conjunction of “an immense military establishment and a large arms industry.”
As a five-star general, Ike knew, perhaps better than anyone, the self-serving and mutually beneficial relationship between the defense industry and the military. But he neglected to mention Congress’s role in the arrangement, nor could he necessarily have foreseen the ways in which corporate interests would intertwine themselves with the various bureaucracies that keep the Pentagon's coffers flowing.
While the phrase “military-industrial-congressional-information complex” would be more accurate, it doesn’t exactly roll off the tongue. And like Eisenhower’s snappier appellation, it still suggests an element of conspiracy. But, of course, none of this is theoretical.
The Pentagon, Congress, the defense industry, think tanks, lobbyists, and industry-sponsored media outlets are all very real. When combined, they make up what is better termed the “National Security Establishment,” which Americans see in action all the time.
We see it when a retired generalgoes on television to explain exactly how the Ukrainian army can defeat the Russians — but only if Congress passes the latest billion-dollar aid package. No mention is made of the rather relevant fact that the general’s think tank is fundedby defense contractors who stand to benefit from the aid package he is calling for.
We see it when another general retires from his post as the head of his service branch and turns up six months lateron the board of a major defense contractor. Coincidentally, it’s the same defense contractor that celebrated a year earlier when that generalannounced the company had won the $21.4 billion contract to build a fleet of bombers.
We see it when a senior member of the Senate Armed Services Committee proposes the U.S.spend 5% of the gross domestic product every year on the military — a $55 billion increase to the current Pentagon budget. Predictably, he fails to mention that the majority of this money would go to defense contracts awarded to the same organizations that have given him more than $530,000 in campaign money since 2019. He fails to acknowledge how flush Pentagon budgets over the past 25 years created the sorry state of the military today.
We even see it when we least expect to, as when the country’s largest defense contractorruns advertisements during the Oscars and postsan interactive map on the company’s website touting the economic benefits of a weapon program. The company wants everyone to know how many jobs could be lost if Congress votes to disrupt the program in any way.
The American people also see the impact of these actions by the National Security Establishment.
We see tens of billions spent on a fighter jet that can only be reliably ready for combata third of the time. We also see more than$60 billion spent designing and building warships that were so flawed Navy officials apparently can’tget rid of them fast enough. The Navy decommissioned one of these shipsless than 5 years after its commissioning ceremony, roughly two decades ahead of the ship’s planned lifespan.
Starting in 2003, the Army spent at least $8 billion, and some sources say the better part of$20 billion, developing the Future Combat System, a family of armored vehicles to replace Cold War-era tanks, personnel carriers, and artillery vehicles. The Pentagon then canceled the program in 2009 with little to show for the effort and expense.
There are plenty of other examples of failed acquisition efforts from the past 25 years which partially explain why annual defense spending is now a whopping 48% higher than it was in 2000. Compounding these efforts is the Pentagon’sreliance on contractors to perform many roles once performed by uniformed service members at a much lower financial rate. The Department of Defense itself analyzed one case where hiring a group ofcontractors cost 316% more than the government employees tasked with similar work.
In a city where partisanship and political rancor impacts nearly every debate, wasteful and ineffective defense policies are a conspicuous exception. That is because the National Security Establishment is party-agnostic. Military contractors donate money to candidates and lobbyists on both sides of the aisle, those candidates vote for Pentagon budget increases and fund weapons programs long after their failures are widely known, and lobbyists and corporate-sponsored media groups generate public support for those programs.
Without massive structural changes, this pattern is all but certain to continue into future generations. Today’s National Security Establishment has launched several major weapons programs in recent years that, if allowed to continue on their current trajectories, will drive the annual Pentagon budget to truly unprecedented levels.
But this doesn’t have to be the case, if Congress actually does its oversight job. Several of these programs are already behind schedule and over budget. Costs for the Sentinel missile program haveincreased 81% to $140.9 billion from the original $77.7 billion estimate and it will still be several years before the first missile is installed in its silo. Yet, given the massive financial influence, even these egregious failures are all but glossed over, a simple footnote for most, and then prepared for a rubber stamp.
The services and their bureaucracies, the defense industry, members of Congress, and the paid mouthpieces promoting their interests in the media and during lobbying visits all comprise the all-too-real National Security Establishment. Identifying this network is the first step to avoid saddling future generations with the crushing debt associated with unsustainable U.S. military policies today.
While it is long-past time to update the name, Eisenhower’s warning is still more real than ever. Americans must remain vigilant and guard against the self-serving nature of this apparatus that is more intent on lining its own pockets than it is actually keeping Americans and our allies safe.
-
keep readingShow less
Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu (C) talks to reporters with U.S. House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA) (L), Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) (2nd L), House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) (2nd R) and House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) (R) after Netanyahu's speech before Congress at the Capitol in Washington May 24, 2011. REUTERS/Jonathan Ernst
On September 12, 2002, Benjamin Netanyahu — then a private citizen — was invited to Congress to give “an Israeli perspective” in support of a U.S. invasion of Iraq. Netanyahu issued a confident prediction: “if you take out Saddam, Saddam’s regime, I guarantee you that it will have enormous positive reverberations on the region,” adding, “and I think that people sitting right next door in Iran, young people, and many others, will say the time of such regimes, of such despots is gone.”
In 2015, Netanyahu returned to Congress — this time as Israel’s prime minister — to undermine the Iran nuclear deal (JCPOA) negotiations led by the Obama administration along with key U.S. allies the United Kingdom, Germany, and France. After a tepid acknowledgement of President Obama’s support for Israel — Obama ultimately gave Israel $38 billion, the largest military aid package in history — Netanyahu spent the remainder of his speech attacking what would become one of the sitting president’s signature foreign policy achievements.
In both cases, Netanyahu’s advice was catastrophically wrong. America’s invasion of Iraq was a bloody disaster that killed hundreds of thousands and displaced millions more, creating massive instability in the region and paving the way for ISIS’s rise.
Meanwhile, Obama’s deal with Iran had succeeded in rolling Iran’s nuclear program back and blocking its pathways to a bomb — that is until the Trump administration followed Netanyahu’s advice and backed out of the deal in 2018, thus forfeiting our capability to contain Iran’s nuclear program while torpedoing prospects for productive engagement with Tehran on reducing regional tensions.
When Trump withdrew from the JCPOA, Iran was at least one year away from being able to produce enough enriched uranium to produce one nuclear weapon. Thanks to that withdrawal, Iran can produce a nuclear weapon in less than two weeks.
Tomorrow, Netanyahu is set to address Congress again — this time, as he prosecutes a campaign of mass carnage and destruction in Gaza that has killed more than 39,000 Palestinians — to ask for continued support for his efforts to “defeat Hamas.” Meanwhile, the Israeli Defense Forces themselves call Netanyahu’s pursuit of “total victory” against Hamas impossible and “misleading to the public.”
By now, Netanyahu is used to coming to Washington, telling U.S. leaders what to do, and seeing them oblige. The consequences of abiding his arrogant approach have been nothing short of disastrous. So will Washington allow itself to be bullied by Bibi again? Will Congress and the administration put his selfish demands ahead of the American people’s interests in avoiding a regional war, and ending our complicity in the destruction of Gaza?
Unfortunately, U.S. leaders appear ready to do just that. Meanwhile, Netanyahu likely plans to repeat the same playbook from his last Washington visit: offering the Biden administration nominal praise for their nearly unconditional support of Israel’s war in Gaza before pivoting to put his thumb on the scale for hawkish U.S. politicians during an election year, in a bid to quash any criticism of Israel’s actions in Gaza.
If the last nine months have taught us anything, a large, bipartisan majority in Washington will be happy to oblige Netanyahu’s request for silence on Gaza — even as scores of Americans descend on the Capitol complex to protest Netanyahu and continued U.S. support for this war.
To be clear, the problem neither starts nor ends with Netanyahu’s far-right government. The Knesset's recent overwhelming vote to reject a two-state solution underscores the major political challenges that remain to any Israeli role in securing Palestinian self-determination. There are systemic roadblocks throughout the Israeli government and military which consistently entangle the U.S. in regional conflicts and erode any prospects for a viable Palestinian state; however, by continuing to provide unconditional support, the U.S. only undermines the conditions necessary to resolve the conflict.
America must use its considerable leverage with Tel Aviv to push for both an end to this war and for security and peace for Israelis and Palestinians.
Instead, the Biden administration has aided and abetted Israel’s reckless behavior during this war at every turn, from approving more than 100 arms sales to Israel and vetoing various efforts to push for a ceasefire at the United Nations, to rejecting legitimate findings that Israel violated international law during its war in Gaza. This unconditional support for Israel — a public “bearhug” meant to open space for difficult conversation in private — has utterly failed to restrain Israel in its war, while making Americans a party to the slaughter of Palestinian civilians.
This approach has not just been a moral failure — it’s a serious strategic mistake. Netanyahu has repeatedly proven that he is not a reliable partner for the United States. He has been a major obstacle to a ceasefire with Hamas; he is deeply divisive and it is widely accepted, even within Israel, that Netanyahu needs the Gaza conflict for his political survival.
As Netanyahu prolongs the war in Gaza while ramping up conflict with Hezbollah in Lebanon, he has made it abundantly clear that he is willing to drag the U.S. into yet another unnecessary war in the Middle East: a war that would not serve American or even Israeli interests, but only his continued pursuit of power.
The prime minister’s visit offers the White House and Congress an opportunity to turn the page on this failed strategy, to press Israel to end its war, and to prevent a wider regional war that would put U.S. troops in the line of fire. U.S. leaders must use their time with Netanyahu to deliver a clear message: enough is enough. Reach a deal, bring the hostages home, and end the bloodshed before it spirals into a wider war.
Washington likes to talk a lot about America’s power and prestige on the world stage. It is well past time to bring these assets to bear to end the assault on Gaza and begin building a durable peace. Israel’s government should not be able to count on a blank check from Washington for more war.
keep readingShow less
Gen. Laura Richardson, the commander of Southern Command, speaks at an Atlantic Council event on March 19, 2024. (Screengrab via atlanticcouncil.org)
Gen. Laura Richardson, the commander of Southern Command, speaks at an Atlantic Council event on March 19, 2024. (Screengrab via atlanticcouncil.org)
A top U.S. military general wants a "Marshall Plan" for Latin America but is likely more concerned about China's encroachment into America's backyard with "dual use" infrastructure than about what poor people in the Global South actually need.
But then again, Gen. Laura Richardson, SOUTHCOM commander, is a military officer,not a diplomat or humanitarian program lead at USAID.
Richardson told an audience at the Aspen Security Forum last week that the U.S. has been MIA in the region while Russia and especially China has been exploiting the post-COVID economic downturn with both military outreach (Russia recently in Cuba) and development projects (Beijing's Belt and Road). That is why Washington needs to offer its own "Marshall Plan" to Latin America, which it views as it its own sphere of influence.
She said 22 of the 31 countries in the region have signed on to the Belt and Road development program.
“How are we competing Team USA and Team Democracy with the tenders that are coming out from [other] countries? How are we getting our U.S. quality investment and talking about our U.S. companies investing in the region? We have a lot of companies in the region. I don’t think we’re branding Team USA as we should. It should be better. We’ve got to be bragging about what U.S. quality investment does,” she said.
The Marshall Plan, proposed by Secretary of State George C. Marshall in a speech at Harvard University in 1947, was launched by President Harry S. Truman in 1948 to help Europe rebuild after World War II. The plan provided $13.3 billion in aid to 16 countries through 1951, about $150 billion in today's dollars.
“I really believe that economic security and national security are going hand-in-hand here in this hemisphere,” she said.
Security of course, is the optimal word here. "If (Belt and Road is) for doing good in the hemisphere, then I’m all for it. But it makes me a little suspicious when it’s in the critical infrastructure … deep water ports, 5G, cybersecurity, energy, space … I worry about the dual use nature of that,” Richardson said.
“These are state-owned enterprises by a communist government and I’m worried about the flipping of that to a military application very quickly if something were to happen, maybe in the Indo-Pacom region,” she said.
Therein lies the crux of the situation. On one hand she is absolutely right. As in Africa, Global South countries are reacting to economic outreach from China and Russia because a) they need it and America (private nor public) isn't in the game and b) help from China and Russia doesn't appear to come with as many strings as U.S. assistance might demand. She may also be on point that there are a dearth of high-level visits and attention to the region, giving the very real impression that Latin America is an afterthought.
But we should also ask why the military is taking the lead on asking the real questions here. Where are the diplomats? Is this just another argument for putting more military eyes and assets in the region?
Richardson is right to raise the issue: it is past time that Washington stop whining about China's influence and apply some elbow grease to nurturing productive relations with its neighbors that aren't just about military or political ideological influence. In other words, a two-way street, that if paved well, will mean security and prosperity for everyone. But we should also ask why the military is taking the lead on asking the real questions here, and who, in the end will be providing the answers.
Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.