At the moment I began writing this introduction, ICE agents had just shot Alex Pretti, a 37-year-old White man -- an intensive care unit nurse, in fact -- in Minneapolis. He was carrying in his hand -- no, not a gun, but a phone. In a sense, Minneapolis is, for ICE, if not the U.S. military, the Afghanistan of this moment. In the Trump era, there's no need to go thousands of miles away anymore to kill "the enemy." In Donald Trump's America, that enemy is right here, right now.
The president, in fact, quickly responded to the killing this way: "What is that all about? Where are the local Police? Why weren't they allowed to protect ICE officers? The Mayor and Governor called them off? It is stated that many of these Police were not allowed to do their job, that ICE had to protect themselves -- Not an easy thing to do!" Ah, the poor ICE officers needed state protection. Of course, it's so obvious, isn't it?
Count on this: in the Trump years, whatever money is cut from places like the U.S. Agency for International Development (which was simply wiped out, ensuring a stunning number of deaths globally) or the Department of Education, it won't be cut from the ICE budget. After all, Trump's "big, beautiful bill" had, as PBS reported, "already essentially doubled annual Homeland Security funding, adding $170 billion to be used over four years. Of that, ICE, which typically receives about $10 billion a year, was provided $30 billion for operations and $45 billion for detention facilities." Take that in for a moment.
And that, in turn, is modest compared, as retired Air Force lieutenant colonel, historian, and TomDispatch regular William Astore makes vividly clear today, to what the president plans to spend on the U.S. military" oops, sorry, his "dream military." In America, nothing -- and I mean nothing! -- seems capable of reversing massive military spending and the incessant warfare that goes with it. Again at the moment I was writing this, the president who had already ordered the bombing of three Iranian nuclear sites in 2025 was dispatching a naval "armada" toward Iran and threatening chaos. But let Astore fill you in on the all-too-strange and strangely militarized world of President Donald J. Trump. Tom
Trump's $1.5 Trillion "Dream Military"
Or What National Nightmares Are Made Of
What constitutes national security and how is it best achieved? Does massive military spending really make a country more secure, and what perils to democracy and liberty are posed by vast military establishments? Questions like those are rarely addressed in honest ways these days in America. Instead, the Trump administration favors preparations for war and more war, fueled by potentially enormous increases in military spending that are dishonestly framed as "recapitalizations" of America's security and safety.
Such framing makes Pete Hegseth, America's self-styled "secretary of war," seem almost refreshing in his embrace of a warrior ethos. Republican Senator Lindsey Graham is another "warrior" who cheers for conflict, whether with Venezuela, Iran, or even -- yes! -- Russia. Such macho men revel in what they believe is this country's divine mission to dominate the world. Tragically, at the moment, unapologetic warmongers like Hegseth and Graham are winning the political and cultural battle here in America.
Of course, U.S. warmongering is anything but new, as is a belief in global dominance through high military spending. Way back in 1983, as a college student, I worked on a project that critiqued President Ronald Reagan's "defense" buildup and his embrace of pie-in-the-sky concepts like the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI), better known as "Star Wars." Never did I imagine that, more than 40 years later, another Republican president would again come to embrace SDI (freshly rebranded as "Golden Dome") and ever-more massive military spending, especially since the Soviet Union, America's superpower rival in Reagan's time, ceased to exist 35 years ago. Amazingly, Trump even wants to bring back naval battleships, as Reagan briefly did (though he didn't have the temerity to call for a new class of ships to be named after himself). It'll be a "golden fleet," says Trump. What gives?
For much of my life, I've tried to answer that very question. Soon after retiring from the U.S. Air Force, I started writing for TomDispatch, penning my first article there in 2007, asking Americans to save the military from itself and especially from its "surge" illusions in the Iraq War. Tom Engelhardt and I, as well as Andrew Bacevich, Michael Klare, and Bill Hartung, among others, have spilled much ink (symbolically speaking in this online era) at TomDispatch urging that America's military-industrial complex be reined in and reformed. Trump's recent advocacy of a "dream military" with a proposed budget of $1.5 trillion in 2027 (half a trillion dollars larger than the present Pentagon budget) was backed by places like the editorial board of the Washington Post, which just shows how frustratingly ineffectual our efforts have been. How discouraging, and again, what gives?
Sometimes (probably too often), I seek sanctuary from the hell we're living through in glib phrases that mask my despair. So, I'll write something like: America isn't a shining city on a hill, it's a bristling fortress in a valley of death; or, At the Pentagon, nothing succeeds like failure, a reference to eight failed audits in a row (part of a 30-year pattern of financial finagling) that accompanied disastrous wars in Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, and elsewhere. Such phrases, no matter how clever I thought they were, made absolutely no impression when it came to slowing the growth of militarism in America. In essence, I've been bringing the online equivalent of a fountain pen to a gun fight, which has proved to be anything but a recipe for success.
In America, nothing -- and I mean nothing! -- seems capable of reversing massive military spending and incessant warfare. President Ronald Reagan, readers of a certain (advanced) age may recall, was nicknamed the "Teflon president" because scandals just didn't seem to stick to him (at least until the Iran-Contra affair proved tough to shed). Yet history's best candidate for Teflon "no-stick" status was never Reagan or any other president. It was and remains the U.S. warfare state, headquartered on the Potomac River in Washington, D.C. And give the sclerotic bureaucracy of that warfare state full credit. Even as the Pentagon has moved from failure to failure in warfighting, its war budgets have continued to soar and then soar some more.
Forgive the repetition, but what gives? When is our long, national nightmare of embracing war and (wildly overpriced) weaponry going to end? Obviously, not anytime soon. Even the Democrats, supposedly the "resistance" to President Trump, boast openly of their support for what passes for military lethality (or at least overpriced weaponry), while Democratic members of Congress line up for their share of war-driven pork. To cite a cri de coeur from the 1950s, have they no sense of decency?
The Shameless Embrace of Forever War and Its Spoils
I'm just an aging, retired Air Force lieutenant colonel. Who cares what I think? But America should still care about the words of Dwight D. Eisenhower, also known as Ike, the victorious five-star general of D-Day in 1944 and beyond, and this country's president from 1953 to 1961. Ike was famously the first significant figure to warn Americans about the then-developing military-industrial complex (MIC) in his farewell address to the nation. Yet, even then, his words were largely ignored. Recently, I reread Ike's warning, perhaps for the 100th time and was struck yet again by the way he highlighted the spiritual dimension of the challenge that is, all too sadly, still facing us.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
Post Article Comment and Rate This Article
