Rep. Scholten uses the weak justification of national security for why she voted for the $886 billion US military budget

On Friday, I posted an article about the US House of Representatives and the US Senate both voting to approve the largest US military budget in history at $886 billion.

The US military budget is always one of those things that receives bi-partisan support, since such large amount of military funding is necessary to maintain US Imperialism abroad. 

On Saturday, Rep. Hillary Scholten posted her weekly newsletter, where she addressed the importance of voting for the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). Scholten mentioned the US military budget in two separate part of her weekly newsletter, which are posted below, with my own analysis of the comments. 

However, before addressing Rep. Scholten’s vote for the largest US military budget in history, it is important to talk about language, since the vote was on the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). As most of you probably know, the US used to refer to the military as part of the War Department. This change took place in 1947, at the beginning of the so-called Cold War with the former Soviet Union. Choosing to change the War Department to the Defense Department was an important PR move, since the US wanted to present themselves in a more positive light around foreign policy. 

However, the actually function and practice of US foreign policy maintained a very imperialist posture, as the US shifted their justification for interventions abroad as a fight against Communism. Take for example the CIA coup in Iran in 1953 and Guatemala in 1954. While fighting Communism was the justification, the US interventions in both of these countries was primarily about protecting economic interests. In Iran, the US opposed their government’s decision to nationalize the oil and use that wealth for the betterment of the Iranian people, and in Guatemala, the government was engaged in land reform, which threatened the interests of the United Fruit Company. American writer and journalist, Stephen Kinzer, has written books that address both of these US interventions, which I highly recommend – All the Shah’s Men: An American Coup and the Roots of Middle East Terror, along with, Bitter Fruit: The Story of the American Coup in Guatemala. 

Rep. Scholten’s newsletter comments

“Our big task this week was to make sure that lapsing authorizations in the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Reauthorization did not expire–mission accomplished. We passed extensions on each of these that will continue to allow these critical funds to flow to agencies tasks with our national security and our safety in the skies. Passing the NDAA was only possible because the extremist policy riders added by fringe members of the Republican Party were finally stripped so the reauthorization passed by suspension with bipartisan support.”

The only real point with this first comment from Rep. Scholten that I want to address is the claim that passing the $886 billion (an amount she omits) US military budget is for “national security.” The Congresswoman never qualifies how $886 Billion in military spending equates to national security, so here are a few questions I have for Rep. Scholten in regards to so-called National Security:

• Does the national security of the US depend on the more than 700 US military bases abroad?
• Does the national security of the US depend on selling massive amount of weapons to countries like Saudi Arabia, which perpetrates human rights abuses against their own people?
• Does the national security of the US depend on the so-called dozens of counter-terrorism campaigns and US military exercises in several dozen countries? See report.
• Does the national security of the US depend on massive stockpiles of nuclear weapons?
• Does the national security of the US depend on having a military budget that is the largest in the world and as big as the next 7 countries’ military budgets combined?

Here is the second comment from Rep. Scholten regarding US military spending.

Unfortunately, Speaker Johnson sent us home without voting on a bill to ensure the United States is doing its part internationally–and domestically–in supplying much-needed aid for our allies and our border security. As we look to an aid supplemental, my TOP priority is ensuring that the United States supports our democratic allies around the world in the struggle against tyranny, terrorism, and extremism, and absolutely does so in a way that protects civilians and delivers essential humanitarian assistance. It’s also making sure that these conflicts–in Ukraine and Israel specifically–do not expand into larger conflicts, particularly ones that would require the direct engagement of U.S. soldiers. 

In the above statement, Rep. Scholten wants to blame the Republican House speaker for not voting on funding for humanitarian relief for “our allies” and for “our border security.” Again, there are no amounts of funding provided and the use of security is included, which in the case of the US/Mexican border, security is code for keeping undocumented immigrants out.

Next, Rep. Scholten says that her top priority is to make sure the US, “supports our democratic allies around the world in the struggle against tyranny, terrorism, and extremism, and absolutely does so in a way that protects civilians and delivers essential humanitarian assistance.” No examples are provided, so we don’t know which countries are fighting tyranny and terrorism. In addition, the so-called humanitarian assistance the US provides is rather insignificant compared to the $886 billion US military budget, which is consistently spent for violent purposes that causes humanitarian crises in the first place.

Lastly, Rep. Scholten states, “that these conflicts–in Ukraine and Israel specifically–do not expand into larger conflicts, particularly ones that would require the direct engagement of U.S. soldiers. Scholten fails to mention that there are numerous US foreign policy scholars, like Noam Chomsky or Gilbert Achcar, who have critiqued the US role in Israel and the Ukraine as increasing the chances of impacted larger regional conflicts. 

In the end, there are no details provided for people who live in the 3rd Congressional District, details that would help us understand how Rep. Scholten can justify voting for the $886 billion US military budget, especially while so many people living around the country and in her district that are barely surviving with the high cost of rent, lack of adequate health care, working in low wage jobs and not being able to meet basic needs for their families. As Dr. King would say, “A nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual doom.”