With support from the University of Richmond
History News Network

History News Network puts current events into historical perspective. Subscribe to our newsletter for new perspectives on the ways history continues to resonate in the present. Explore our archive of thousands of original op-eds and curated stories from around the web. Join us to learn more about the past, now.

News Abroad

The Bush Administration's Militarism

by Lawrence S. Wittner
Mr. Wittner is Professor of History at the State University of New York/Albany. His latest book is TOWARD NUCLEAR ABOLITION: A HISTORY OF THE WORLD NUCLEAR DISARMAMENT MOVEMENT, 1971 TO THE PRESENT(Stanford University Press).

History Posters of All Kinds! Georgetown Bookshop

The word "militarism"--which refers to a reverence for military ideas and policies--seems to have fallen out of favor in recent years. But perhaps it should be revived, for it tells us much about the Bush administration's national security policy.

In the year 2000, the United States was militarily supreme throughout the world, with a military budget that surpassed that of all its potential rivals combined. Nevertheless, George W. Bush, campaigning for the presidency, castigated the Clinton administration for allegedly letting the U.S. armed forces deteriorate, criticized nuclear arms control treaties negotiated by his Democratic and Republican predecessors, and called for a military buildup. Once elected, Bush and his advisors began putting their militarist priorities into effect.

In fact, as U.S. intelligence reports repeatedly warned the Bush administration, the greatest threat to U.S. national security did not come from foreign military forces, but from stateless terrorists. And, as we now know, the Bush administration largely ignored such warnings. Instead, its top priority remained preparation for a military confrontation with other nations, particularly Iraq. Ultimately, nineteen men, armed only with box-cutters, succeeded in murdering thousands of Americans on September 11, 2001. Against this kind of attack, the U.S. government's vast military machine proved useless.

Nevertheless, the president quickly declared a "war on terrorism." War, after all, was what the Bush administration had the resources and desire to fight. But would war really address the issue of terrorism? Wasn't terrorism best dealt with on an immediate basis by law enforcement (including sophisticated intelligence work and police action) and on a long-term basis by overcoming the hatred and sense of grievance that motivated terrorists?

Given the Bush administration's militarist mentality, it brushed aside any doubts about military solutions to U.S. problems and quickly plunged into wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. In Afghanistan, at least, there were terrorist training centers, and so some justification for war could be assembled. But, in Iraq, there were none, and so the administration leaned heavily on misleading claims about weapons of mass destruction.

Nor was the aftermath of war in either nation conducive to creating a world free of terrorism. In Afghanistan, where the Bush administration relied on little more than a military campaign by local warlords and the U.S. armed forces, terrorist groups are making headway once again. In Iraq, where there was no terrorist campaign in the past, that nation is now flooded with terrorist acts, increasingly directed against U.S. occupation forces. Meanwhile, around the world, large numbers of angry Muslims, infuriated by these bloody U.S. wars against their co-religionists, are gravitating to extremist positions, including terrorism.

Of course, there has been some progress against terrorism. U.S. airport security, for example, is much better than in the past, and as a result there has been no repetition of the tragic events of 9/11 or even of the airplane hijackings that occurred over the years. But this enhanced security has no connection whatsoever with U.S. military action or with the expansion of U.S. military might.

Yet, despite the lack of any evidence that U.S. military power has effectively countered terrorism or that the United States faces a serious military threat from other nations, the Bush administration's militarist priorities continue. Its latest budget slashes spending on domestic programs while increasing military spending to a record $421 billion--more money than the next twenty-five countries combined devote to their armed forces. Furthermore, this budget does not include spending for the ongoing costs of the occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan or the cost of announced plans to expand the U.S. army. These additional items could bring total U.S. military spending for fiscal 2005 to $520 billion or more.

At the insistence of the Bush administration, one of the items funded by this budget is the development of new nuclear weapons. How, exactly, are these new nuclear weapons going to be used against terrorism? Isn't it possible that their development, testing, and deployment will increase dangers from terrorist acts and, in addition, spur the development of nuclear weapons in other nations? Wouldn't the United States be safer if there were fewer nuclear weapons, rather than more?

Such questions, however, do not seem to unsettle the Bush administration. After all, if one believes fervently that military might solves all national security problems, then one remains free of doubt.

But does it?