Some advocates of an end to the Israeli military’s ongoing slaughter of Palestinians in Gaza have seen signs of hope in the Biden administration’s recent shift in rhetoric on the conflict, as well as its decision to abstain on a U.N. resolution calling for a ceasefire. The hope was that the administration was moving — albeit far too slowly — towards conditioning continued military aid to Israel on a ceasefire and an end to the shameful practice of blocking humanitarian aid at a time when large numbers of Gazans are on the brink of starvation.
The optimistic interpretation of the direction of Biden policy has been destroyed by the administration’s recent actions, from apparently giving the green light to an $18 billion transfer of F-15 combat aircraft to the Israeli Air Force.
Although the planes might not be delivered for years, agreeing to provide them in the midst of Israel’s war on Gaza sends a signal of support that runs contrary to the administration’s claims to be pressing the Netanyahu government to avoid civilian casualties and clear the way for humanitarian aid shipments. Of more immediate concern is a report by the Washington Post that the administration is poised to send thousands of bombs to Israel, including “2,000-pound bombs have been linked to previous mass-casualty events throughout Israel’s military campaign in Gaza.”
The sad truth is that there have been zero consequences from Washington for Israel’s crimes in Gaza. Regardless of the rhetoric, the weapons keep flowing and the killing continues. The Biden administration’s argument that it is simply giving Israel the means to defend itself willfully ignores the fact that killing over 32,000 people and attempting to deny them food and other essential goods goes far beyond defense, to the point that the International Court of Justice has suggested that Israel’s actions could “plausibly” be considered a campaign of genocide.
Even worse, the tragedy in Gaza has been compounded by Israel’s attack on Iran’s consulate in Syria, which has increased the chances of a wider Middle East war which could easily draw in U.S. personnel.
To put it bluntly, the policies of the current Israeli government are diametrically opposed to U.S. interests, and to the prospects for peace and stability in the Middle East. Cutting off arms supplies until the Netanyahu government stops the killing in Gaza and pledges to stop attacks on neighboring countries is not just a humanitarian gesture — it is essential to securing a peaceful, stable, forward looking Middle East, which should be in the interest of the entire international community.
President Biden’s stubborn attachment to a policy of “Israel Right or Wrong” is doing serious damage to U.S., regional, and global interests.
William D. Hartung is a senior research fellow at the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft. His work focuses on the arms industry and U.S. military budget.
In half a century of public life, U.S. President Joe Biden has demonstrated unwavering support for Israel. In this photo Biden is welcomed by Israeli Prime Minster Benjamin Netanyahu, as he visits Israel amid the ongoing conflict between Israel and Hamas, in Tel Aviv, Israel, October 18, 2023. REUTERS/Evelyn Hockstein/File Photo
Johnny Harris, a popular
YouTuber with nearly 6 million subscribers, published a video on Thursday that sought to answer an enormous question: “Why does the U.S. spend so much on its military”? He answers that question in extreme detail and ultimately arrives at uncovering why, in large part, the Pentagon budget is so high: the corrupt process of how lawmakers and big defense contractors and their lobbyists are all on the take.
The first half of Harris’s deep, 28 minute long dive into the U.S. military budget focuses on what the Pentagon is actually paying for, things like troops’ salaries and health care, operations and maintenance, bases, construction, and research and development. He notes that the Defense Department is so big and complex, it has
never been able to pass a financial audit.
“The U.S. is not a normal country with a regular military,” Harris says, by way of offering a kind of explanation as to why the Pentagon spends so much on all these things. “The U.S. is a global hegemon who uses its military to assert control and order over every corner of the globe,” he adds, in effect, flagging American primacy as a culprit.
“But there’s another reason why this budget is so high and this reason is much more infuriating to me,” Harris says. ”Most of this money is going to private corporations.”
Harris then spends the rest of the video breaking down our country’s corrupt procurement processes, starting with weapons companies. “We’ve got kind of a monopoly issue on our hands,” he says, noting how dozens of weapons contractors consolidated themselves down to 5 big corporations. “For this reason the prices can get pretty out of control.”
Dr. Heidi Peltier, Senior Researcher at the Watson Institute at Brown University and Director of the Costs of War Project, then tells Harris about how, because of their monopoly, weapons contractors can engage in severe
price gouging practices. “The Department of Defense has found routinely that there’s overcharging through corruption and waste and fraud,” she said, which, in part, has resulted in 40-50% profit margins.
For example, the Pentagon, Harris notes, paid Boeing $3,357 for one ball bearing, a part it could have gotten for $15. Harris then details how all the corruption works:
The big 5 contractors — Boeing, Lockheed Martin, General Dynamics, Raytheon (now RTX) and Northrop Grumman — are “doing whatever they can to make sure the money keeps flowing to their companies” with lobbying and campaign contributions.
The revolving door: “In 2022 top defense companies hired 672 employees directly out of the Pentagon to work as lobbyists, board members and executives,” Harris says. According to Peltier: Contractors “promise a good, high paying job after that government official is out of government and so the government official has an incentive to give a generous contract to the contractor.”
Lawmakers’ profit: “To add insult to injury here, some of the lawmakers who approve the Pentagon’s budget own stocks in the defense contracting companies,” Harris says. “The lawmakers get richer if we spend more money on defense,” he adds, noting that this is a clear conflict of interest: “We should not do this. This is not a thing we should do.”
Lawmakers’ incentive for re-election: Harris then explains how defense contractors “intentionally allocate their operations all across the country” so “lawmakers are incentivized to keep these contractors making stuff in their district to provide jobs for their people so they can keep getting elected.”
Harris then highlights Sen. Roger Wicker as an example of a member of Congress who often pushes for more money for the Pentagon, which in turn goes to weapons companies, who then lobby Congress and make campaign contributions so lawmakers can tell their constituents they’re diverting federal funds to their districts to protect (or create) defense jobs:
“It is this system that has created an environment where there is very little political pushback to the endless ratcheting up of our military budget,” Harris says. Watch:
keep readingShow less
Top image credit: Diplomacy Watch: A peace summit without Russia (RS)
The Ukrainian Defense Contract Group (UDCG or Ramstein) meeting in Germany this week has been officially postponed as President Biden bowed out to instead focus on the fallout from Hurricane Milton.
Initially planned for October 12, Ukrainian President Volodomir Zelensky was supposed to share his plans with Western policy makers and defense contractors at the meeting, saying “we will present the victory plan, clear, specific steps for a just end to the war.”
While the Ramstein summit has been postponed, Ukraine’s Western allies seem to be shifting their stances on how the war can, or should end. Former NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg recently indicated that Ukraine may have to give up some territorial integrity in exchange for peace or even NATO membership. Stoltenberg had previously explicitly ruled out any land for peace deals.
Western allies may be coming to a decision point on how they will move forward with the Ukraine-Russian war. Zelensky is regularly meeting with NATO allies, and said they are consistently affirming support, but still refusing to cross certain lines. For example, UK Prime Minister Kier Starmer reaffirmed the United Kingdom’s support for Ukraine after a meeting with the Ukrainian president on Thursday.
But when asked about allowing Ukraine to use British-made long range missiles deep into Russian territory, a spokesperson said, “We obviously want to put Ukraine in the strongest position. But no war has ever been won by a single weapon. And on Storm Shadow specifically, there has been no change to the UK government’s position on the use of long-range missiles.”
Further weapons packages and NATO assurances were likely to be approved at the Ramstein meeting, according to U.N. Secretary General Mark Rutte. ”What we need to do is to focus on what NATO can do,” he said. “What NATO can do is help to strengthen Ukraine's hands by providing enough military support. That's why I'm so happy that next Saturday we will participate in the Ramstein meeting.” Additional weapons packages were guaranteed at the previous meeting in 2023.
The postponement of this important confab is surely disappointing for Zelensky as it is preceded by Russian successes on the battlefield and a shift in opinion amongst Ukrainian soldiers and civilians around the war. Vice President Kamala Harris also recently refused to say if she would support a Ukrainian ascension into NATO if elected. Additionally, fiscal realities in Europe are shifting German and French support for Kyiv.
In other Ukraine are new this week:
On Tuesday Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban said that Ukraine is not able to beat Russia on the battlefield and called for a ceasefire. Reuters reports that Hungary has also decided to place a hold on a pending $50 billion G7 loan to Ukraine until after the American election. “We don't want to block anything, we just want to convince European leaders to change their strategy (on Ukraine) because the current strategy does not work,” Orban said.
Ukraine claims to have hit a North Korean weapons cache in Russia. On Wednesday Al Jazeerareported that a Ukrainian spokesperson announced that a drone attack in Bryansk successfully destroyed this strategic weapons cache. The Ukrainian General Staff said, “the arsenal stored ammunition for missile and artillery systems, including those delivered from North Korea, as well as glide bombs.” This comes as North Korean engineers and officers are reported to be assisting Russia in the conflict.
Russia continues to make territorial gains. Last week it captured Vuhledar in Ukraine's southeast, and this week Russian troops have now entered Toretsk, a city about 50 miles north, according to the New York Times. A Ukrainian Army spokeswoman, Anastasia Bobovnikova, confirmed late Monday that Russia had entered the city.
In this week’s October 7th State department briefing:
State Department Spokesperson Matthew Miller was asked about Moscow’s recentsentencing of an American citizen to prison for allegedly fighting as a mercenary in Ukraine. Miller said the United States has limited information as of now, and urges Moscow to grant consular access to him for Washington.
Miller did not answer a question concerning the report that North Koreans were killed fighting for Russia.
keep readingShow less
TOP IMAGE CREDIT: An aerial view of Diego Garcia, the Chagossian Island home to one of the U.S. military's 750 worldwide bases. The UK handed sovereignty of the islands back to Mauritius last week, with the sole exception that the U.S. must be allowed to continue its base's operation on Diego Garcia for the next 99 years (Kev1ar82 / Shutterstock.com).
The United Kingdom agreed last week to return the Chagos Islands, a remote archipelago in the Indian Ocean, to the African nation of Mauritius after buying the islands and forcibly removing its native inhabitants in the late 1960s to make way for a U.S. military base.
This agreement will not spell the end of American military presence on the islands, however. In fact, the only condition of the UK’s deal with Mauritius is that the U.S. must be allowed to continue its base’s operation on the Chagossian island of Diego Garcia for the next 99 years.
The White House released a statement on Oct. 3 lauding the renewed lease, writing that the outpost on Diego Garcia, one of the Americans’ estimated 750 bases across the world, “enables the United States to support operations that demonstrate our shared commitment to regional stability, provide rapid response to crises, and counter some of the most challenging security threats we face.”
These vague, well-rehearsed statements on foreign policy priorities, however, fail to explain the supposed threats, material or otherwise, that justify the American military’s permanent operations in at least 80 countries across the globe.
“These bases are not vital to protect the homeland, they are vital to protect primacy,” charged Sarang Shidore, director of the Global South Program at the Quincy Institute. “There isn’t a logical argument for protecting vital national interests through domination of every corner of the world.”
This global network of military bases has too often damaged both U.S. interests in themselves and the rights and interests of those living in the places where our military machine has sought permanent operation. The history and intentions behind the base at Diego Garcia, ironically nicknamed the “Footprint of Freedom,” proves no different.
The British bought the Chagos archipelago from Mauritius in 1965, forming the British Indian Ocean Territory. The following year, the U.S. struck a secret deal with the UK for a 50-year lease of Diego Garcia and the removal of its people, offering a $14 million discount on its sale of Polaris missiles to the UK military in return.
At America’s request, the UK promptly began expelling the more than 1,500 Chagossians on Diego Garcia and its surrounding islands — violating a slew of international laws in the process. Chagossians who had not been deported by the beginning of the base’s construction in 1971 were loaded onto overcrowded cargo ships and left on the docks of Mauritius and the Seychelles with no compensation, resettlement or employment plans provided for them.
In the years following their expulsion, many Chagossians in these two countries experienced discrimination and extreme poverty. While the UK doled out small reparative sums on two occasions, the U.S. has neither admitted to any wrongdoing for its actions nor contributed to compensation for the expelled Chagossians.
David Vine, author of the book “Island of Shame: The Secret History of the U.S. Military Base on Diego Garcia,” says that the U.S. has always had the final word on what happens on the Chagos Islands.
“The U.S. government has been intimately involved in every detail and has always been the power behind the scenes from the initial idea to today,” he said.
With all the Chagossians gone by 1973, the U.S. completed its project and launched the base’s operation. Originally stationed for communications purposes, it expanded through the decades to become a major naval and air center used by the U.S. military for long-range bombing missions in its wars in Kuwait, Afghanistan, and Iraq. The base was also used for rendition flights in 2002, a claim denied by the U.S. but confirmed by the UK in 2008.
Further speculation surrounding U.S. activities on Diego Garcia has ranged from the storage of nuclear weapons to torturing captured suspected terrorists. Still, Vine said it’s impossible to know for sure the full extent of the military’s operations on the island.
“The military loves [Diego Garcia] because there’s no civilian population and they’ve been able to bar access to everyone — from journalists to rights organizations to academics,” Vine said, also citing his own unsuccessful attempts to visit.
Diego Garcia certainly stands out for its controversial origins and operative uses, but it is, again, a small node in the U.S. global military machine. In 2021, Vine and colleagues put together a dataset outlining every known U.S. military base, its financial and environmental costs, and the type of political regimes hosting such bases.
Of the 80 countries and territories known to house U.S. military bases, 38 are non-democratic (authoritarian, semi-authoritarian, or colonial). The authors also found that U.S. bases contributed to both civilian protests and “significant environmental damage” in about half of these countries and territories.
Given the bleak history of peoples subject to permanent U.S. military presence, both Vine and Shidore said the terms of the UK’s decision to hand back the islands leaves some room for positivity — especially in the context of the global decolonization movement. The UK has at least formally acknowledged its wrongdoing and the Chagossians now have a potential path to return to the islands.
“It’s better than the old era where people could just be kicked out without anyone doing anything about it. Now it’s being acknowledged that that was wrong,” Shidore said.
Still, mixed feelings prevailed among the Chagossi people themselves — today numbering about 10,000 across Mauritius, the Seychelles and the UK — with excitement about the prospect of returning dampened by their complete lack of inclusion in the negotiations.
“We feel sorry, upset, and angry,” said Jean-François Nellan, a member of the UK-based advocacy group Chagossian Voices. “They’ve made a deal on the back of the Chagossians, just as they did in the past.”
While the agreement allowed the Mauritian government to begin plans for resettlement of the Chagos Islands, Diego Garcia, where most Chagossians lived prior to the expulsion, is to remain restricted. Nellan, whose grandmother visited Mauritius during the expulsion period and was not allowed to return to her home on Diego Garcia, expressed his frustrations about this condition.
“People who were born on Diego Garcia — does that mean that they will never go back? They will need to wait another 99 years for the lease to end?,” he said. “My grandmother is in her eighties now; she was born on Diego Garcia. Does that mean she will never go back now?”
Nellan described how Chagossians feel let down by the U.K., Mauritius and the U.S. alike, and that their strife was “initiated” by the U.S., “executed” by the UK, and “helped” by Mauritius. He said they do not trust the Mauritian government to handle their resettlement plans and that they do not support Mauritius’ new sovereignty over the islands.
Shidore posits that the U.S. approved the UK’s recent decision as a small allowance in the face of growing international pressure, but that it would never go as far as jeopardizing the base’s existence and full operation.
“You have to make some concessions,” he continued. “But you don’t make the big concession and don’t let anything touch the question of primacy, which is the heart of this project.”
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.