The Trillion Dollar Silencer: Why There Is So Little Anti-War Protest in the United States

INTRODUCTION

Why is there so much acceptance of and so little protest against our government’s illegal and immoral wars and other military operations? Why is there mostly silence about the death and destruction that wars and even the preparation for war inflict on people, including the troops, and on the environment? Why is there so little concern about the potential for the extinction of human and other life posed by nuclear war, now seen as an option by the U.S. and other militaries? While propaganda, fear, and distractions are some of the reasons, the interests created by military’s penetration into so many aspects of civilian life is largely ignored. This book is an attempt to make visible the enormity of this penetration and the interests concerned.¹

THE MILITARY INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX

Eisenhower’s Farewell Address to the Nation warned as far back as 1961 of this problematic development:

This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence—economic, political, even spiritual—is felt in every city, every Statehouse, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society. In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists, and will persist.²

Today Eisenhower would be amazed at how far and deeply the military-industrial complex has penetrated.

THE USE OF FORCE: ILLEGAL AND IMMORAL

The United Nations Charter, a ratified treaty and hence for the United States the law of the land, outlaws the use of force among nations, except as approved by UN intervention resolutions or in immediate self-defense. It also prohibits non-violent aggression in any form, such as blockades, or regime change operations. These principles of the Charter have been affirmed by the UN General Assembly, inter alia in the 1981 Declaration on the Inadmissibility of Intervention and Interference in the Internal Affairs of States. Here are some excerpts:

No State or group of States has the right to intervene or interfere in any form or for any reason whatsoever in the internal and external affairs of other States.

The duty of a State [is] to refrain from the promotion, encouragement or support, direct or indirect, of rebellious or secessionist activities within other States, under any pretext whatsoever, or any action which seeks to disrupt the unity or to undermine or subvert the political order of other States;

The duty of a State [is] to refrain from the exploitation and the distortion of human rights issues as a means of interference in the internal affairs of States, of pressure on other States or creating distrust and disorder within and among States or groups of States.³

NATO bombing of Belgrade, 1999Source: J. Roelofs graphic

In addition, the General Assembly Declaration on Principles of International Law, Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States in Accordance with the Charter of the United Nations of 1970 provides that:

States shall accordingly seek early and just settlement of their international disputes by negotiation, inquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or arrangements or other peaceful means of their choice. In seeking such a settlement the parties shall agree upon such peaceful means as may be appropriate to the circumstances and nature of the dispute.⁴

Nevertheless, the U.S. public, press, and politicians appear unperturbed by the U.S. military conducting wars, regime change and other aggressive interventions. The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), a strong arm of the U.S. military, began its out of area wars with the bombing of Yugoslavia. There was no audible protest from U.S. citizens, which signaled a go-ahead for future illegal wars and devastations. At election time there are barely any questions to candidates on these matters reported in the media, if indeed they were raised.

Sirte, Libya, 2012

Source: Etienne Laurent, ©ECHO/European Commission 2012⁵

Even those from whom we would expect some protest—liberals, progressives, religious communities, universities, artists, civil rights organizations, and environmental activists—are strangely silent. Protest on other issues is rampant, but the outraged and discontented rarely connect their concerns to militarism, or the perpetual war on terror. Peace activists have made a plea to those who make art on other vital issues to pay more attention to the threat of nuclear war:

On the darker side, we have to acknowledge that much less attention is being given to the most imminent threat of all—the development, storing, selling, and transporting of nuclear weapons…. [W]e progressives must enhance our work by incorporating the arts in our efforts to resist calls to arms and promote not just the pursuit of peace but the elimination of nuclear weapons.⁶

WHY THE SILENCE?

While much is due to propaganda, fear, and distractions, this book will focus on the interests created by the military penetration of civilian society and the domestic economy. There are other silencers of great importance, but they have already been explored in many fine publications, such as Norman Solomon’s book on the media and government, War Made Easy.⁷

The Propaganda Blanket

From our earliest education to the contemporary culture we experience today in adulthood, we have been told that the United States is a beacon to the world and that its foreign policy is always intended for good. Very many want to believe this and do, including those who benefit from government provision and are grateful for their relative advantages, breeding a reluctance to scrutinize too closely the full scope of our government’s activities. In addition, many have been persuaded that patriotism requires acceptance of whatever foreign policies the government pursues.

Our citizens do not want to believe that the U.S. government has ever engaged in war crimes. They are reassured by Polygraph.info, an official website that corrects what it bills as misleading foreign accusations. In response to foreign disinformation, as an instance, we are told that According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the United States has never used chemical weapons in warfare.⁸ This, despite the overwhelming evidence of the use of napalm in Korea, Vietnam and other wars.

We hear from the media and our government that only sissies pay attention to international law or the UN Charter; once the derogatory epithet was pointy-headed intellectuals who were the spoilsports. Children are now exposed to a culture of violence and the increasing militarization of their schools, normalizing violent policies for them, much like their ubiquitous war-related computer games that teach children that killing is fun. The government, the print and digital press, TV, movies, sports shows, parades, and computer games all relentlessly promote and glorify the military.

This indoctrination is easily swallowed, since it meshes with an educational system that glorifies the violent history of the nation. Our schools are full of in-house tutoring, STEM (science, technology, engineering and mathematics) programs, and fun robotics teams personally conducted by employees of the weapons makers. Young children may not understand all the connections, but they tend to remember the logos. The JROTC programs, imparting militaristic values, enroll far more children than those who go on to become future officers. The extremely well-funded recruitment efforts in schools include fun simulations of warfare.

Celebrities are deployed in the propaganda; take the Soldier for a Day program:

Some special guests are getting to immerse themselves in that life this weekend at remote Fort Irwin, California. From sun-up to sun-down, actors, heads of talent agencies and leaders from business giants like Lucas Oil and the NFL Network will no longer be themselves—they’ll be privates, learning all there is to know about Army life.⁹

Intellectuals may be influenced by articles in liberal magazines alleging that violence is genetically implanted in humans and is generally a positive force. This barrage normalizes violence and war. Wanting to be regarded as normal, and not fuzzy idealists or crackpots, they can comfortably view aggression as inevitable, and perhaps a good thing. The astounding notion that it is possible to bomb people into democracy is never framed as such, and overthrowing governments is presumed to be a routine world improvement activity.

Rockstar Energy Drink Extreme athletesSource: DoD

In addition to a host of Department of Defense and military contractor employees whose job is public relations, there is a worldwide supporting cast for that function, including think tanks, NATO, and foreign defense ministries and military corporations.

Fear of Reprisal

Being an outspoken opponent of war or organizing anti-war protests can incur penalties. These may range from social ostracism to loss of employment. Professors at even supposedly liberal colleges and universities have lost their positions because of opposition to U.S. foreign policy. In academia today there are fewer with any job protection and thus have much to fear. Liberal religious groups face declining memberships, and fear discouraging prospective congregants by promoting a dissenting stance. There also lurks the threat of government reprisal to individuals and organizations.

People do not want to offend their neighbors or the community leaders of civic organizations who have military connections or work in weapons manufacturing. There is strong support from the military to persuade its retirees to engage in local politics and volunteer work. Similarly, weapons companies encourage their employees to serve in national and local charitable and progressive organizations. Democratic Party supporters may fear the further loss of funding, Congressional seats and the Presidency as the electorate veers toward the right. While advocating for more humane domestic policies, their recent Congressional candidates are notably people with backgrounds in military or intelligence. In fact, the Democrats and liberals have long been major war boosters.

Distractions

With the advent of the Covid pandemic, U.S. foreign operations were even less visible. With or without this enormous distraction, many people are preoccupied by the daily difficulties of working, keeping a job, feeding the children, preventing the house from falling down, caring for ill relatives, and all the other needs of daily existence. There is little energy left to ponder U.S. foreign activities, and if they view mainstream media reports, much of the story is omitted in any event. The mainstream media assuredly doesn’t publish stories which cry out for domestic anti-war protest—at least, protest that relates to bloodshed caused by the U.S.

Then there are the more obvious distractions. Alcohol, drugs, sports, TV, celebrities, internet surfing, video games, pornography, horrible crimes, earthquakes, etc., often displace attention from foreign wars. Perhaps anti-depression drugs foster political tranquility. Make love not war is a fine principle, but it may also be a distraction from out-of-the-house protest activities.

Meditation and hobbies are good for clearing the mind—but do they clear too much? As Jean-Jacques Rousseau put it in his Discourse on the Arts and Sciences:

Science, literature, and the arts spread flowery garlands over the iron chains of law, inducing consent without obvious coercion. Thus all memory of their natural birthright liberty is stifled; they come to love their enslavement and they are transformed into a law abiding populace. Need created the powers that be; the arts and sciences fortified them. Great nations, love talents and reward those who cultivate them!¹⁰

Volunteer work is a humanistic response to the misery around us, yet it may crowd out action to change institutions that cause those miseries. The great wave of service learning requirements for high school and college students was instituted in response to the radical activism of the 1970s, following policy suggestions of the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.¹¹ It was designed to be a diversion from movements challenging capitalism and empire. Volunteers also face the entanglement of charity and reform with the military establishment and its contractors. Sometimes these connections are barely visible, and even so it is very difficult to contest kind hearts or gift horses.

Even noble causes can distract from attention to militarism’s harms. Citizens and organizations working to achieve equality and justice for all are limited in time and resources, unlike the military-industrial complex. Those trying to protect our health and environment by growing our own food, seeking out local organic food and helping farmers to grow it, keeping our communities and the planet free of harmful chemicals, and recycling waste are contributing their time and energy to important tasks for human wellbeing.

Those who are immediately threatened by deafening overflight noise or toxic military waste emissions understandably try to get the military to fulfill its mission in quieter and cleaner ways. They have hopes of gaining some peace through their protests, whereas challenging the mission itself is likely to induce public disapproval.

But inescapably, all these worthy activities leave less time and attention for protesting the ghastly environmental and human destruction resulting from wars and their preparation; development, production, testing, and transportation of weapons; war games on land, sea, and air; the militarization of space; the occupation of bases; and the threat of nuclear war.

INTERESTS, VISIBLE AND HIDDEN

Our elected representatives do not have to be bribed with campaign contributions from weapons makers to support the Department of Defense budget. They may, shockingly, be representing the actual interests of many citizens. This is possible because, as Australian political scientist David T. Smith has written: The National Security State maintains democratic legitimacy because of the way it disperses public and private benefits while shielding ordinary Americans from the true costs of high-tech warfare.¹²

As might be expected, foremost supporters are those in the military itself: the uniformed services, active, reserve, or retired, and their families—though indeed, a portion have also been among the most prominent in antiwar activism. Although the number actually engaged in our now volunteer military is small compared to previous musters, veterans and their families, including grandchildren, are numerous, and most still venerate military service. They do not focus on the killing and destruction inevitable in wars, but on comradeship, heroism, and idealism. Studies have shown that the majority of current volunteers in our services do not apply because they want to kill and destroy, but for benefits, training, comradeship, and status.¹³ These are now emphasized by recruiters, who speak low about the realities of military operations.

For veterans and all others, the military industrial complex’s unbeatable weapon is jobs, and all members of Congress, and state and local officials, are aware of this. Here is where well-paying jobs are found for mechanics, scientists, and engineers; even janitorial workers do better in taxpayer-rich agencies and industries. Expanding budgets permit many new hires in all positions and the implementation of diversity goals.

The economic impact of the military-industrial complex is a highly effective silencer. While it may contribute to a vastly unjust distribution of resources domestically, it also helps to keep the sagging economy afloat. Although current government expenditure (state, local, and federal) for education, health care, highways, other infrastructure, social security, and welfare far outweighs military expenditures, there is little doubt that, for a state claiming to provide global leadership and example, these sectors are severely underfunded.

Military spending is about 10% of all government outlays, but it consumes more than half of the federal government discretionary budget.¹⁴

This type of spending has a great impact on the economy because:

•it is a growing sector;

•it is recession-proof;

•it does not rely on consumer whims;

•it is a boon in rusted and depressed areas of the country;

•it is ideally suited to Keynesian remedies, because of the ready destruction and obsolescence of its products—what isn’t consumed in warfare, rusted out, or donated to our many allies still needs to be replaced by the slightly more lethal versions concocted in our research labs;

•the multiplier effect: contractors, subcontractors, corporate purchasing, and employee spending, as well as military bases and installations, are economic hubs of their region. supplying customers for real estate agents, landscapers, restaurants, tap dancing schools, furniture shops, museums, and yoga studios;

•local governments’ enhanced tax receipts support social services, education, infrastructure, and culture.

The appropriators in Congress are well aware of these benefits to their districts, along with their other incentives for generous funding such as campaign contributions and lobbying. Congresspeople also hold weapons industry stocks; some are gifts from lobbyists. When legal limits of campaign donations are reached, or for laundering their provenance, military corporations’ foundations donate to charities in Congresspeople’s districts.

Weaponry is also an important share of U.S. manufactured goods exports; our allies are required to have equipment that meets U.S. specifications. In addition to economic