Category: US Politics

Not Another Article about the Military-Industrial Complex

1.5 Trillion Reasons to Focus on the MICC–the Blob that Ate Washington

BILL ASTORE

JUL 20, 2026

Last week, I was chatting with an old friend, fellow veteran, and loyal reader when he suggested I should write less about the military-industrial complex. I laughed. I wish I could, I replied, but I’ve got 1.5 trillion reasons to write about it.

The MICC (we must add Congress to the mix) won’t leave me and America alone. If a trillion dollar military wasn’t bad enough, we’re now approaching $1.5 trillion for the Pentagon’s war and weapons budget, an absurd amount that represents roughly 75% of federal discretionary spending. (Estimates vary from 63% to as high as 81% of federal discretionary spending.) Meanwhile, as the Pentagon gobbles up even more money, it still can’t pass Congressionally-mandated audits. Talk about absurdity! Eight failed audits and the reward is more money—much more.

To modify an old saying, Americans may not be interested in the MICC, but the MICC is interested in them. It’s most certainly interested in their money. And their obedience.

I remember a time, 40-50 years ago, when you’d see informed and critical articles about the MICC in the mainstream media (MSM). I grew up reading them in newspapers like the Boston Globe. Such articles have just about vanished in the MSM today, and we know why: the newspapers are owned by billionaires and corporations that profit from that same MICC. They are not about to bite the hand that feeds them. 

There’s a sense of resignation today (I think) where the average American just goes along to get along, or, worse, Americans who simply don’t have the time and who also believe national security issues are beyond them. Thus they wave the flag and defer to the “experts” they see on TV and cable, all those retired generals and admirals who shill for the arms makers (and takers of our tax dollars), who repeat talking points they get from the Pentagon.

That’s why America needs a “big tent” movement of “alert and knowledgeable” citizens that incorporates critical voices from the left, right, and center. Instead, “hot button” cultural issues are used to divide and distract us. Somehow we must come together and resist wanton and wasteful spending on wars and weapons before the U.S. empire collapses under the weight of its own folly and greed.

We must fight the good fight against wars and ultra-expensive preparations for the same while we can.

I’d like to see a U.S. military focused on true national defense, and maybe we once had one in World War II, but of course it’s morphed into a global Goliath where naked aggression is twisted as “preemptive defense.”

Thirty-five years ago, when I was a young captain, there was a fleeting opportunity for “peace dividends” with the collapse of the Soviet Union. We had a precious opportunity, as Jeanne Kirkpatrick said back then, of becoming “a normal country in normal times.” But the vested interests and the pursuit of wealth triumphed over peace dividends and greater economic equity. Under Bill Clinton, the Democrats happily shifted to the right and adopted much of Reaganism. U.S. workers were abandoned for the pursuit of profit. Anger at this treachery helped to strengthen the BS populism of men like Donald Trump and his ilk.

Hope is dying, as is our trust in government. After all, why should we trust the government? It gave us the Pentagon Papers, the Afghan War Papers, the missing WMD in Iraq, and now we’re engaged in another disastrous war with Iran, basically for Israel.

And that’s not all. Congress is bought by AIPAC and major corporations. Members of Congress are selected, not elected, with big-money donors doing the selecting. SCOTUS said money is speech so those with lots of money control things and those with very little have no say at all. That’s not democracy, it’s plutocracy, and the plutocrats often double as kleptocrats (Trump and Pelosi, for example, using their offices to get richer, though Pelosi is a piker compared to Trump).

Run for your lives … before it’s too late!

We’ve drifted a bit from the MICC, but then again cutting the MICC’s budget and influence is a big part of the solution to America’s problems. For FY2027, the proposed Pentagon budget is the blob that ate Washington. We’ll never free ourselves of wasteful weapons and even more wasteful wars if we keep feeding that same blob.

Trump, running in 2024, complained about the MICC’s greed and sold himself as anti-war. As president, he’s worked to enlarge and engorge the blob while feverishly fighting new wars. In that sense, he’s much like other U.S. presidents, only more so. He’s become increasingly consumed by war, so much so that he’s reinforcing failure in Iran. The MICC, naturally, is happy to reap the benefits in more money, never mind the troops dying for no defensible or sensible reason.

So, despite my friend’s well-intended advice, I find myself once again writing about the MICC, the blob that ate Washington. And I guess I will continue to do so until the blob consumes me—or until we combine to put a stop to it.

America’s Dilemma at 250

A Budget of the Pentagon, By the Congress and For the War Profiteers

BILL ASTORE

JUL 13, 2026

Note to Readers: The short essay below represents a joint effort of the Eisenhower Media Network, or EMN, an organization of former military and government officials who seek a wiser course for America and a more peaceful world. I’ve been a member since EMN’s founding.

In Common Sense, Thomas Paine challenged Americans to question an institution that had long seemed beyond challenge. He wrote, “A long habit of not thinking a thing wrong gives it a superficial appearance of being right.” Two hundred and fifty years later, those words apply just as well to America’s defense budget. What has become accepted through habit is neither sustainable nor accountable. Only the American people can change it.

The “defense of custom” now comes from the Military-Industrial-Congressional Complex that President Dwight Eisenhower warned against in his farewell address. Years earlier, in his famous “Cross of Iron” speech, Eisenhower observed: “Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed… Under the cloud of threatening war, it is humanity hanging from a cross of iron.”

More than seventy years later, Eisenhower’s warning has become reality. The United States spends more on its military than the next eight countries combined, most of them allies, while millions of Americans struggle with the costs of health care, child care, education, and housing.

The Military-Industrial-Congressional Complex thrives by portraying every international challenge as justification for ever-larger Pentagon budgets. Defense contractors finance political campaigns and employ armies of lobbyists who help shape the annual National Defense Authorization Act. Taxpayer dollars then flow back into executive compensation, shareholder dividends, stock buybacks, and continued political influence, creating a self-perpetuating cycle that rewards corporate profits rather than national security. Even maintenance contracts are often structured so that only the original contractor can repair the equipment, locking taxpayers into decades of additional costs. The troubled F-35 fighter program—billions over budget, years behind schedule, and only partially mission capable—has become a symbol of this dysfunction.

An Air Force general described the F-35 (top) as a Ferrari, meaning it’s ultra-expensive, less than reliable, and overall less effective than the two F-16s also shown in the photo (Official AF photo)

Yet despite these enormous expenditures, America’s recent military record raises serious questions about whether ever-increasing budgets produce better outcomes. Since World War II, the United States has rarely achieved the political objectives it set out to accomplish in major conflicts, despite possessing the world’s largest military establishment and one of the most geographically secure nations on Earth.

Even more troubling, the Pentagon remains unable to account for how it spends taxpayer money. It has repeatedly failed the financial audits required by law, something every other federal department has managed to complete. Nevertheless, it is now requesting a budget approaching $1.5 trillion. Asking taxpayers to approve such an increase before explaining where previous funding went reflects a level of fiscal irresponsibility that would be unacceptable anywhere else in government—or in any American household.

Thomas Paine understood that institutions derive their power not only from force but from unquestioned assumptions. Britain’s empire appeared invincible in 1776 until Americans decided its authority no longer deserved their consent. Today, questioning the continual expansion of military spending may seem equally unfashionable, but history reminds us that accepted practices are not always wise ones.

A $1.5 trillion Pentagon budget represents more than $9,000 per taxpayer. As America marks its 250th anniversary, we should ask whether endless increases in military spending truly make us more secure, or whether they come at the expense of the investments that strengthen our nation at home. The courage required today is not to defeat an empire abroad, but to confront the entrenched interests of the Military-Industrial-Congressional Complex and reclaim a government that serves the American people rather than the economics of perpetual war.

Why Does War Always Win in America?

Answering a Question from a Reader

BILL ASTORE

JUL 10, 2026

Hello Readers: I thought I’d highlight an excellent question from a reader and my attempt to answer it succinctly. Please use the comments section to chime in.

Dear William, starting from the assumption that you are substantially right in your arguments, what I ask myself is why, from 1945 to the present day, there has never been a lasting reversal of course in the history of the United States, but only brief anti-war flare-ups against the foolish and bloody choices of military interventions abroad? I mean, what is it that we don’t know about the American people that justifies the MICC [military-industrial-congressional complex] always managing to assert its kleptocratic, racist, colonialist, supremacist, and megalomaniacal designs? I believe that the American people are mostly made up of good people, willing, respectful of family and clan values, and lovers of cooperative living together. There are totally different groups, but to my knowledge, they are strongly in the minority and substantially ghettoized. It is the presidents or politicians of the moment who open the doors to these groups of rowdies. So I ask myself: what are the main factors that determine the success of the MICC? I await your reflections to delve deeper into the topic. WR Rocco Santoro

Answer by Bill Astore

Hello Rocco: that is a very big question. Threat inflation by the MICC is part of the answer. So too is the fact that both political parties, Democratic and Republican, are right-wing, pro-war parties. See this recent article by Caitlin Johnstone: 

Caitlin’s Newsletter

It’s Been Ten Years. It’s Time To Admit Bernie Sanders Was Wrong.

Reading by Tim Foley…

Read more

a day ago · 318 likes · 249 comments · Caitlin Johnstone

The power of propaganda is strong. Americans are told “our” troops are freedom-bringers. We’re taught we’re the exceptional nation, inherently good. We’re taught we’re not imperial.

As Ike said, only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel and control the MICC, and we are neither. The MICC is shrouded in secrecy, and Americans in general are not knowledgeable about our own history, let alone what the MICC has been up to for the last eighty years (since the end of World War II).

Those who seriously question it, and especially those who seriously resist it, are denounced as misguided, or unpatriotic, and in some cases they are arrested and put in prison.

Perhaps the biggest reason is that Americans no longer think of themselves as citizens with a right to knowledge. We’ve been reduced to passive consumers. Meanwhile, we’ve been sold the idea “our” troops are warriors and warfighters. We’ve come to believe and accept that being constantly at war is normal, the health of the state, when it’s actually the death of democracy and liberty.

The other part of this is that Americans are kept divided, distracted, and downtrodden, making it very difficult to act en masse against an entity as powerful and wide-reaching as the MICC.

*****

That was my initial answer. I must add the enormous amount of “legal” corruption in the U.S. government. Effectively, money equals speech in America, meaning that most Americans have no say in their government.

Obviously, powerful corporations have deep pockets and thus plenty of say. Weapons makers like Lockheed Martin, Boeing, and Northrop Grumman also help to determine policy, exercising influence over Congress and also through propaganda. Corporations control what is shown on our mass media. The mainstream media in America is almost entirely pro-military and pro-war.

The Pentagon has so much money that even academe in America is highly cooperative with the national security state, even as Americans are told to fear a Marxist, “radical left” academic establishment! Consent has been manufactured in America to support a state that’s constantly in a state of war or in preparations for the same.

Perhaps the best source for understanding how and why this has happened is George Orwell’s “1984,” and especially his book within a book that details how a permanent state of war can be maintained in what is ostensibly a republic but which is actually a militaristic empire.

Within the U.S., militarism is a form of cancer, and we are at Stage 4. That cancer is represented by the MICIMATT(SHV) and the penetration of most sectors of society by military imperatives and war. So, to define the awkward acronym: military-industrial-congressional-intelligence-media-academia-think-tank, plus sport, Hollywood, and video gaming. All these are throughly invested in, infested by, militarism.

The Trump administration’s answer to Stage 4 militarism is to give the Pentagon and the national security state another $500 billion, accelerating the cancer further.

The “cure” is deep cuts to the Pentagon’s budget, a dramatic downsizing of empire, and a return to being “a normal country in normal times.” It’s Stage 4 cancer, so radical surgery, chemotherapy, and radiation will take their toll. The cure will hurt. But the alternative is death. Death of the republic, and perhaps of the world in the case of widespread nuclear war.

Back in 1963, Senator George McGovern put together a sound plan to return America to a saner path, a less militarized one, citing Ike’s military-industrial complex speech in 1961. McGovern’s plan included the conversion of military production back to civilian purposes. But his ideas, supported by many prominent democrats back then, were dismissed as a major war with Vietnam was ginned up in the stated cause of curbing communist aggression.

The MICC will always have a war, a reason, to continue to expand. War on terror. War on Iran. Chinese expansion. Russia. Even communism again. Even a war within against “radical leftists.” Against “illegal” immigrants.

More than anything, the American people need to reject this fear-mongering. We must remember that “fear is the only darkness.” That “fear is the mind-killer.” We must reject the mindset of war and embrace the possibilities of peace. But that is very difficult when the drums of war sound so loudly, and when America’s leaders are so eager to buy even more war drums and to amplify them yet further.

Readers, what do you think?

Declaring America’s Independence From the Tyranny of Militarism and War

Beware the Termites of War 

BILL ASTORE

JUL 03, 2026

In July 1776, courageous colonists came together to declare their independence from the perceived tyranny of King George III. “Rebels” like Thomas Jefferson urged the colonists to start down a new path, one of independence from the Crown, one that put life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness before fealty to a king. It was a long-shot effort, but the rebels somehow pulled it off.

Today, America has a new “king.” It’s the national security state, with all its threat inflation, its wars, and its appetite for more, always more. Combine that with President Trump and self-styled Secretary of War Pete Hegseth and their reckless pursuit of war irrespective of the Constitution and of international law, let alone Christian concepts of morality, and you have a form of tyranny that Americans must declare their independence from.

So, consistent with Jefferson, we need a new American revolution, or if you prefer a restoration of the republic, one that recognizes that immense imperial militaries are corrosive to democracy and individual liberty.

2026 can be a new 1776 if America rejects the tyranny of war and ever-higher Pentagon spending. America needs new sons and daughters of liberty, committed to diplomacy and peace, as fostered in a true participatory democracy that puts the needs of U.S. citizens first.

America’s Founders knew that persistent war is a most insidious and pernicious enemy to our freedoms. America today is a structure infested by the termites of war. If we fail to get rid of them, our house will collapse in a pile of dust.

Since 1776, many patriotic Americans have warned of the dangers of persistent warfare and steroidal military spending. Perhaps most famously, President Dwight D. Eisenhower in 1953 spoke of the immense waste of weapons spending: how humanity would crucify itself on a cross of iron if wars endured and war budgets kept rising. He spoke again in 1961 of how America’s military-industrial complex was threatening the fundamental freedoms and liberty of Americans, especially if that complex was allowed to spread and grow. Ike’s warning went unheeded as America fought disastrous and unnecessary wars in Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran and elsewhere.

Ike came to recognize the astonishing waste and dangers of militarism and war. So should we all. Let us on our nation’s 250th birthday declare our independence from persistent and pernicious militarism and warfare.

Weapons Are Us

More Guns, Please, Never Mind the Reason

BILL ASTORE

JUN 30, 2026

Almost fifteen years ago, I wrote an article for TomDispatch with the title, “Weapons ‘R’ Us.” It was a play, of course, on Toys ‘R’ Us, echoing the old saw about the difference between men and boys being the price of their toys. Nowadays, I guess “real men” play with F-35s, Ford-class aircraft carriers, Sentinel ICBMs, and the like, to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars each year. And if that’s not enough, Americans can always spend billions of dollars more on private weaponry like assault- and sniper rifles. Rather amazingly, there are more firearms than people in America, with the only amendment SCOTUS won’t dare abridge being the Second Amendment.

Back in 2012 I gave a Tomcast interview with Timothy MacBain about my own weapons “addiction”; it started the usual way with toy soldiers, GI Joes, and cap pistols and escalated from there. As a teenager, I built a lot of model military planes, tanks, warships, and the like. All gone now, though I kept and used a few when I was teaching a course on “technology and warfare.”

The military loves to speak of weapons as “investments,” but President Dwight D. Eisenhower was far more honest in calling them a form of theft from those who hunger, from those who need health care, from those who want a better education. Weapons, I think Ike would agree, have a very narrow band of winners, specifically those who profit from making and selling them. They are the real band of (gun-running) brothers, with a few sisters thrown in as well.

If wars were won purely by weapons, America would never lose, such is our commitment to winning through “superior firepower.” But they’re not, so losing has become an American habit.

Speaking of losing, I recently read a terrific article by Patrick Lawrence that argues it’s high time for America to embrace defeat and to learn from it. He’s right about that, but how to tell “winner” Trump that his war against Iran has been a big loser?

Thinking about that led me to make this comment in response to Lawrence’s article:

Yes, but this is America, where the worst insult is to be called a “loser,” and where to criticize even the stupidest war is to be labeled a “defeatist.”

Meanwhile, management gurus speak of “win-win” scenarios, because talk of losing must be avoided at all costs. Even compromise is suspect.

To modify an old expression, if not he who dies with most toys, wins, it seems we in America believe that he who dies with the most weapons, wins.

So, we’ll embrace our weapons–very tightly indeed–before we [ever] embrace defeat.

Bill Astore

4d

Yes, but this is America, where the worst insult is to be called a “loser,” and where to criticize even the stupidest war is to be labeled a “defeatist.”

Meanwhile, management gurus speak of “win-win” scenarios, because talk of losing must be avoided at all costs. Even compromise is suspect.

To modify an old expression, if not he who dies …52

So, no matter how poorly America’s wars go, the demand for weapons continues to rocket upwards. That old “arsenal of democracy” of World War II fame has for the last sixty years or so mutated into merely an arsenal, ever-growing in cost if not in effectiveness.

The F-35, often unavailable to fly, and still very expensive (USAF Photo)

Today’s big-ticket weapons like the F-35 are becoming so expensive, and often so unreliable, that America is almost disarming itself by accident. All the more reason, weapons proponents will say, for America to spend even more on weapons!

Abandon all logic, ye who wish to curb America’s “investment” in more weaponry.

The Real Enemy Is War

For Democracy to Prosper, America’s Wars Must End

BILL ASTORE

JUN 24, 2026

To democracy, the real enemy is war. Almost any excess, any use of power, any abridgment of rights, is justifiable in the name of winning a war.

War, as Randolph Bourne said, is the very health of the state. A state’s apparatus of coercion and control grows ever more powerful whenever wars are prosecuted. Coercive power is of course anathema to democracy and the exercise of liberty.

Many wise people have noted this. Early in the 19th century, Alexis de Tocqueville wrote in Democracy in America that war is “the surest and shortest means” to “destroy the liberties of a democratic nation.” Even earlier, James Madison wrote in 1787 that

Constant apprehension of War has the … tendency to render the head too large for the body. A standing military force, with an overgrown Executive will not long be safe companions to liberty. The means of defense against Foreign danger, have been always the instruments of tyranny at home. 

How true is it today that the U.S. government’s “head” has grown too large for the American body politic, and that the Executive branch, as represented by men like Donald Trump and Pete Hegseth, is both overgrown and an unsafe companion to liberty.

Arguably the most pressing matter our nation finds before it today is its permanent state of war. It has driven the creation of the so-called national security state, America’s unofficial fourth branch of government and arguably its most powerful. It certainly gobbles up the lion’s share of federal discretionary spending. This colossus is mainly represented by the Pentagon, Homeland Security, and eighteen(!) intelligence agencies. Like Topsy, it keeps growing as presidents as diverse as Barack Obama, Joe Biden, and Donald Trump keep feeding it more and more money.

The result has been a series of disastrous wars of choice, completely unnecessary, whether in Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, and now Iran. Among other deleterious effects, these wars have grievously wounded democracy in America; indeed, the constant hammer blows of these wars have perhaps already proven fatal to democracy.

The only solution here is to stop. Stop waging wars across the planet. Downsize the imperial apparatus. Make major cuts to the budgets of the Pentagon, Homeland Security, and the Intelligence “community.”

The price of liberty is a willingness to turn away from war, to dismantle a wildly overgrown and increasingly oppressive “security” state, while still recognizing the world can be a dangerous place, and that therefore a defensive military posture and presence is still needed.

For my entire life, my country has been at war. Those wars have profited the few at the expense of the many. Even worse, those wars have enlarged the state and enabled self-styled warriors and warfighters to enforce their vision of security through massive spending on weapons and mass killing.

Peace is what America is most in need of. No more war! Sadly, so much of our country is now centered on war, dependent on war, intoxicated by war, that charting a peaceful path that reinvigorates and restores our democracy seems like the longest of long shots.

To paraphrase Abraham Lincoln, we must disenthrall ourselves from war, and then we shall save our country.

Thou Shalt Not Kill

Making War No More

BILL ASTORE

JUN 22, 2026

An argument the Trump administration is using to justify massive increases in war spending is that the U.S. military is short on munitions. What a surprise! After the Iran War, attacks on Yemen and Somalia, supplying Israel with all sorts of air defense missiles as well as bombs and who knows what else (some of it is classified), the ongoing Russia-Ukraine War, and so on, it’s no wonder munitions are in short supply.

Bottles of nips may be in short supply after an alcoholic raids a hotel minibar. Is it wise to resupply it while the drinker is still there, intoxicated, begging for more?

Fascinating to me are the lack of moral arguments against America’s orgy of murderous weapons. The Bible says “Thou shalt not kill.” Killing is immoral and a crime unless as a last resort in self-defense. When our nation goes to war, it is also supposed to be in self-defense to uphold our Constitution and our highest ideals.

We always hear about a shared Judeo-Christian tradition—there’s a moral imperative here that demands fewer swords and more ploughshares. A God-given mandate to make war no more. To be peacemakers, not warfighters.

America, the shining city on a hill, should celebrate the sanctity of life rather than building more weapons to destroy life. But today’s America is much more akin to a heavily armed garrison-state, bristling with weapons, with satellite garrisons around the world.

Anyhow, Professor David Vine served as point man for a point paper on the unwisdom of using a shortage of munitions as leverage to justify more orgiastic Pentagon spending. It’s available online and I’ve pasted it below:

*****

Not Another Nickel for Bombs and War: Why the “Munitions Shortfall” Is No Reason to Boost the Pentagon Budget

★ Buying more weapons now would reward Trump for using tens of thousands of missiles, bombs, and interceptors in his reckless, illegal war of choice in Iran and would encourage more endless war and more out-of-control Pentagon spending.

★ The Pentagon is sitting on nearly $118 billion in unobligated reconciliation funds, including more than $44 billion for procurement, as of April, according to the Senate Budget Committee. Before Congress provides another dollar for munitions, it should ensure the Pentagon spends what it already has.

★ The Pentagon’s current budget is already far too large. It could easily buy additional bombs and missiles by canceling unnecessary weapons contracts, including Trump’s Golden Dome, the Trump-class destroyer, the Sentinel ICBM, and the F-35.

★ Even without replacing a single weapon, the U.S. military remains the world’s most powerful and fully capable of defending the country. We shouldn’t be preparing for war with China or any other nation. We should be pursuing diplomacy, arms control, and international cooperation to end endless wars and avoid new ones.

★ The wars in Iran and Ukraine show that the U.S. should prioritize inexpensive drones and remote technologies, not costly legacy systems that pad contractor profits.

★ Voting for a $1.15 trillion Pentagon budget is a vote for Trump’s full $1.5 trillion war budget since Republicans can pass the additional $350 billion in reconciliation funds on their own.

★ A $1.15 trillion Pentagon budget, alone, is a 28% increase over last year. A $1.5 trillion budget would be the largest in U.S. history.

★ Enough is enough. Congress should reject demands for a bigger Pentagon budget, including to buy more bombs and missiles. We should be cutting the Pentagon budget, not fueling more endless war.

More Background: For two decades or more, the U.S. has faced a persistent munitions shortfall. The services have long favored costly platforms like F-35s and destroyers over munitions, which are routinely placed at the bottom of funding priority lists. This was well‑known before Trump launched his illegal war of choice against Iran. Trump’s own advisors warned him that going to war with Iran while the U.S. had low munitions stockpiles would be reckless. In other words, today’s shortfall is not a surprise—rather it’s the direct result of long‑standing U.S. policy choices.

It Doesn’t Matter What We Think About War and Military Spending

Until It Does

BILL ASTORE

JUN 13, 2026

Sad to say it doesn’t seem to matter what we the people think about war and military spending.. President Trump doesn’t care that at least 70% of Americans are against the Iran War. Dick Cheney infamously replied, “So?” when he was told by a reporter that Americans opposed further escalation in the Iraq War.

It might matter what we thought if we lived in a democracy, but we don’t. We live in a kleptocracy, a kakistocracy.

First, we must recognize we’ve lost our say–that we don’t have a government that represents us–then we need to reform, re-create, or otherwise change that government.

Again, in the main, Americans don’t want militarism and wars–but there are other forces at work that do want these things, for their reasons, and they are in control.

Americans, I believe, don’t want more nuclear weapons. We’re getting them anyway. Read this article by Bill Hartung on the profiteers of Armageddon.

Americans, I believe, don’t want to spend between $1.5 trillion to $2.3 trillion each year on the Pentagon and war (read this POGO report on the true total U.S. military budget), but the warmongers and the military-industrial complex spend that money anyway.

As George Carlin said, the owners don’t care about you—at all! At all! At all! Your preferences, your needs, simply don’t matter. You have no say. To “our” leaders, the owners, inflation is good—just ask President Trump. Rising gas prices are great—for fossil fuel companies. Rising credit card balances and debt are healthy—for bankers.

We need to act. We need to change American-made destruction into American-made construction. We must become builders again, not destroyers.

The weapons they fund and build, the wars they prosecute, all the shredded human bodies, and for what? What morally abject fools the weapons makers and warmongers are. Why do we allow them to get away with it?

Until we regain our morality and our nerve, until we cast aside the kakistocrats and kleptocrats ruling us, we will remain stuck in the malaise of mindless militarism and endless war.

Withhold your consent. Run for office yourself. Organize and protest. Talk to your neighbors. Even write a blog. Whatever you can do to derail the war train rushing toward Armageddon is a good thing. 

And don’t ever give up.

War Is Too Easy

Tyranny of the Warmongers

BILL ASTORE

JUN 04, 2026

Making war shouldn’t be this easy.

With the Iran War, two men determined America’s attack on Iran, and one was a foreign leader. The latest aggression against Iran is inconceivable without Bibi Netanyahu and Donald Trump. Of course, there are plenty of operators and schemers and interests behind these men, but they are proud to take credit as the deciders.

This isn’t supposed to be how America goes to war. War is supposed to be a constitutional process involving the Congress and the people. There is to be no war without the consent of the governed. And there should be no wars of aggression, for a democracy should know that persistent wars are an insidious and pernicious enemy of freedom and liberty.

In spite of that, war persists in America. If you’re 25 years old or younger in America, you’ve never known a time when your country has been at peace. Nor is there any prospect of peace in the next three years. I’ve lost track of the countries the Trump administration has bombed or attacked or snatched the leader of, but besides Iran the list would include Venezuela, Somalia, Nigeria, and Yemen. And let us not forget U.S. efforts in the Russia-Ukraine War, for nuclear-armed Russia surely won’t forget.

There’s simply no end to America’s wars partly because it’s all just so easy.

A common expression inside the Washington Beltway is that “all options are on the table,” meaning the worst option, that of deadly attacks and even war, is always an option. A harsh truth is that it’s increasingly the only option considered in DC circles.

The U.S. State Department has become a tiny branch of the Pentagon. Diplomacy takes time. Patience. Expertise. Empathy. A willingness to compromise. Within the Trump administration, these are qualities in short supply, even as they’re not respected. Washington sees itself as a hegemon, the lone and dominant superpower, barking out orders and threats with unrestrained profligacy.

It’s a recipe for disaster and that is what it’s produced: disaster after disaster.

Yesterday, the House finally and narrowly approved a resolution to halt military action against Iran. Its immediate impact is limited and mainly symbolic. As usual, the Democrats fumbled the messaging, making it about gas and grocery prices:

“Enough is enough,” said Rep. Gregory Meeks of New York, the top Democrat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, who led the effort.

“It is time for the president to do the right thing,” he said. “The people are tired of suffering because of his war of choice — suffering at the gas pump, suffering at the supermarkets.”

Let’s not focus on the unconstitutional nature of the war, the needless deaths of thousands of Iranians, the enormous price tag of $100 billion or more. It’s really about Americans having to pay more to gas up their steroidal SUVs and monster trucks.

As America approaches its 250th birthday, it’s enduring a tyranny of the warmongers. Yet again, Americans find themselves under the thumb of a tyrannical and foreign government. It is exceedingly difficult to see how we chart a new course when we are so hopelessly lost.

Take heart, America: At least there will be cage fighting soon on the White House lawn. Bread is dear, but the circuses are here.

UFC cage fight to celebrate Trump’s 80th birthday on June 14th!

Freedom of Speech But Without Any Say

BILL ASTORE

JUN 01, 2026

I woke up this morning with a depressing reality in my head: Americans may have freedom of speech (be careful criticizing Zionist Israel, though), but we have no say. Those who have a say in (and sway over) “our” government are those with the most money and power. AIPAC is just one example of a powerful, highly organized, lobby that wields say and sway over “our” elected representatives. Other powerful lobbyists hail from Big Pharmaceutical companies, fossil fuels, Wall Street in general, the banks, and of course the military-industrial complex.

Generally speaking, Americans don’t want wars (Trump’s war on Iran is deeply unpopular) and they don’t want $1.5 trillion war budgets. Sorry, you have no say here. I may be able to write critiques of disastrous wars, bloated Pentagon budgets, and kleptocratic insiders, but it doesn’t move the needle because I have no say. 

This reminds me of when I wrote to my senator back in 2018 about endless wars and the military-industrial complex. The response I received is recounted in the article below.

(Re-reading my article for TomDispatch in 2018, I noted that the Trump administration was scheming for war with Iran back then, which led me to a letter I cited signed by Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS), warning that such a war would be catastrophic. The VIPS, professionals like Larry C. Johnson and Ray McGovern, have been proven right, but even they have no say. When it comes to the Iran War, Israel and AIPAC arguably have had the most say of all.)

Endless War and the Lack of a Progressive Critique of the Pentagon

brac_pentagon
The Pentagon has won the war that matters most

W.J. Astore (Written in 2018)

In my latest article for TomDispatch.com, I argue the Pentagon has won the war that matters: the struggle for the “hearts and minds” of America. Pentagon budgets are soaring even as wars in places like Afghanistan continue to go poorly. Despite poor results, criticism of the Pentagon is rare indeed, whether in the mainstream U.S. media or even among so-called liberals and progressives, a point hammered home to me when I contacted my senator. Here’s an excerpt from TomDispatch; you can read my article in full here.

A Letter From My Senator

A few months back, I wrote a note to one of my senators to complain about America’s endless wars and received a signed reply via email. I’m sure you won’t be surprised to learn that it was a canned response, but no less telling for that. My senator began by praising American troops as “tough, smart, and courageous, and they make huge sacrifices to keep our families safe. We owe them all a true debt of gratitude for their service.” OK, I got an instant warm and fuzzy feeling, but seeking applause wasn’t exactly the purpose of my note.

My senator then expressed support for counterterror operations, for, that is, “conducting limited, targeted operations designed to deter violent extremists that pose a credible threat to America’s national security, including al-Qaeda and its affiliates, the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS), localized extremist groups, and homegrown terrorists.” My senator then added a caveat, suggesting that the military should obey “the law of armed conflict” and that the authorization for the use of military force (AUMF) that Congress hastily approved in the aftermath of 9/11 should not be interpreted as an “open-ended mandate” for perpetual war.

Finally, my senator voiced support for diplomacy as well as military action, writing, “I believe that our foreign policy should be smart, tough, and pragmatic, using every tool in the toolbox — including defense, diplomacy, and development — to advance U.S. security and economic interests around the world.” The conclusion: “robust” diplomacy must be combined with a “strong” military.

Now, can you guess the name and party affiliation of that senator? Could it have been Lindsey Graham or Jeff Flake, Republicans who favor a beyond-strong military and endlessly aggressive counterterror operations? Of course, from that little critical comment on the AUMF, you’ve probably already figured out that my senator is a Democrat. But did you guess that my military-praising, counterterror-waging representative was Elizabeth Warren, Democrat of Massachusetts?

Full disclosure: I like Warren and have made small contributions to her campaign. And her letter did stipulate that she believed “military action should always be a last resort.” Still, nowhere in it was there any critique of, or even passingly critical commentary about, the U.S. military, or the still-spreading war on terror, or the never-ending Afghan War, or the wastefulness of Pentagon spending, or the devastation wrought in these years by the last superpower on this planet. Everything was anodyne and safe — and this from a senator who’s been pilloried by the right as a flaming liberal and caricatured as yet another socialist out to destroy America.

I know what you’re thinking: What choice does Warren have but to play it safe? She can’t go on record criticizing the military. (She’s already gotten in enough trouble in my home state for daring to criticize the police.) If she doesn’t support a “strong” U.S. military presence globally, how could she remain a viable presidential candidate in 2020?

And I would agree with you, but with this little addendum: Isn’t that proof that the Pentagon has won its most important war, the one that captured — to steal a phrase from another losing war — the “hearts and minds” of America? In this country in 2018, as in 2017, 2016, and so on, the U.S. military and its leaders dictate what is acceptable for us to say and do when it comes to our prodigal pursuit of weapons and wars.

So, while it’s true that the military establishment failed to win those “hearts and minds” in Vietnam or more recently in Iraq and Afghanistan, they sure as hell didn’t fail to win them here. In Homeland, U.S.A., in fact, victory has been achieved and, judging by the latest Pentagon budgets, it couldn’t be more overwhelming.

If you ask — and few Americans do these days — why this country’s losing wars persist, the answer should be, at least in part: because there’s no accountability. The losers in those wars have seized control of our national narrative. They now define how the military is seen (as an investment, a boon, a good and great thing); they now shape how we view our wars abroad (as regrettable perhaps, but necessary and also a sign of national toughness); they now assign all serious criticism of the Pentagon to what they might term the defeatist fringe.

In their hearts, America’s self-professed warriors know they’re right. But the wrongs they’ve committed, and continue to commit, in our name will not be truly righted until Americans begin to reject the madness of rampant militarism, bloated militaries, and endless wars.