The penetration of the US military into all sectors silences the opposing voices
The latest book by anti-war activist Joanne Roelofs came to reveal how the US military was able to silence voices against its wars, as it intervened in all aspects of life, especially economic, academic and media, and worked on propaganda, spreading fear and distraction until it succeeded in suppressing most opposition movements and any attempts to protest against the war.
Washington – Political science professor Joanne Roelofs revealed in 2003 the political role that elite institutions have played in American power since the early twentieth century, and identified their exercise of strong but undemocratic power, and their special influence on the policy priorities and agendas of various non-profit industrial institutions and organizations Non-governmental organizations within the US states and in foreign countries.
In a new book published 20 years later, titled “A Trillion Dollar Silencer: Why No One Protests Against US Wars Anymore,” the retired political science professor at Kean University revealed the “concerns created” by the penetration of the US military-industrial complex into many aspects of American civilian life. Which was ignored by most supporters of the anti-war movement in the United States.
This book was dealt with by many journalists and analysts, including Bob Feldman of the American Patch website, who saw that the book was trying to “illustrate the horror of the military penetration” of aspects of American life.
He adds that he suggests ways that supporters of the anti-war movement in the United States can take to reverse the increasing militarization of American society in the twenty-first century. He formulates a brief “final word,” in which Roelofs asserts that “many have come to believe that militarism is natural and necessary.”
The introduction to the book discusses how pro-military propaganda, fear of retaliation, and visible and hidden interests limited the number of Americans willing to participate in antiwar protests. She notes that “the military economy yields a high return on investments” and that these returns benefit “union and civil service funds, churches and universities, charitable, human rights and cultural organizations” as well as wealthy CEOs and corporations thanks to the arms manufacturers’ stockpile.
The book notes in Chapter Three that “arms companies have channels to influence progressive activists” because “their CEOs and board members serve on (…) the boards of directors of universities and non-profit organizations.” He specified that it is also involved in providing technical assistance to “social justice and even peace organizations.” At the same time, “universities and non-profit organizations (including churches) get excellent returns on their investments in military contractors.”
While all chapters provide a wealth of information, photographs and diagrams that show the extent to which the influence of the American industrial military permeates all aspects and institutions within society.
In Chapter Four, the book states that “after 9/11, the militarization of higher education was mostly accepted, if not encouraged.” And 1,700 US colleges or universities now offer ROTC programs. The “militarization” of academic research is widespread.
Chapter 5 notes that “military contractors are important sources of support” for NGOs.
Anti-war advocates working in public schools in New York City might find in reading chapter six of the book that “the state government invests money and pension funds heavily in the arms industry.”
And Arn Albert saw in a report for the “Weighting Non-Violence” website that Roelofs elaborates on the Eisenhower Doctrine in more comprehensive words, such as a massive catalog, to the point that it poisons democracy and silences opposition. It is a “maze of organizations, agencies, boards, and partnerships involving government, industry, universities, and nonprofits,” a “thick blanket of insecurity” that crushes resistance.
He also believes that Roelofs’ treatment of the environmental movement raises important questions, as the US military remains the largest consumer of fossil fuels in the world. Wouldn’t it make sense for groups like Sanra’s Movement and Organ 350 to stand out among the organizations calling for cuts in the military budget by downsizing the Navy and Air Force?
“I can’t see them or any major green groups among the American participants in the Global Action Days on Military Spending,” he says. It is difficult to imagine anything more environmentally destructive when considering the realities of modern warfare, and especially the growing threat of nuclear conflict. However, a few US environmental groups are among the partners of the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons. But what about others? Did I silence them or are they just silent?”
In her conclusion, Roelofs writes, “Those who see change as necessary for the survival of the planet and of justice must recognize all the ways in which congressional military-industrial complexity is maintained.”
Albert considers that Roelofs has done an enormous service and raised important questions.
As for the analyst W. T. Whitney, he believes that awareness is the first step to resisting American militarism, and he indicated in a report for the “Counter Punch” website that Roelofs’s thesis shows that the military institution’s participation in civilian institutions has an effect in protecting the army from widespread public anger at war-making and large spending.
“Her smooth book takes us to the first item on the agenda, which is convincing ordinary people to say no.”
The author invites her readers to speak up, write to editors, contact elected officials, and join and work with antiwar organizations. She advocates a Green New Deal, a “national service program,” and “the transition to a civilian economy.” It clearly hopes that the masses will build a resistance movement and win some victories.
Whitney says that if Roelofs had presented sweeping topics such as past US military adventures and the evils of a profit-driven political system, her call to action would have yielded nowhere. But it does support a protest movement in its infancy.
As for the Politics Today website, it dealt with the book from another angle, which is how propaganda plays a major role in creating silence, as it saw that the book connects the complex network of organizations, industries, partnerships, and agencies that have silently evolved into a system in which the military-industrial complex plays a powerful role. Roelofs wants to spread recognition of the issue in order to confront it more effectively.
The public considers the use of force immoral as well as illegal under international law. However, no one is bothered by the aggressive interventions of the United States. Why? Roelofs identifies three factors: publicity, fear of retaliation, and distraction.
Propaganda plays a big role in creating the state of silence, as many different fields, such as education, politics, civil society organizations, and the media that are expected to support and educate the public’s opinions, have become a tool for distortion and indoctrination. The fear of retaliation arises from the army’s entrenchment and the manufacture of weapons through financing, participation and donations. Those who might want to take a stand are forced to sacrifice much for little. Distractions, meanwhile, work in tandem with silence and distractions that organizations may carefully nurture to promote calm.
The book also mentioned the hidden and visible interests in the formation of this network. And some interests may be well-intentioned. But in the end, it rooted the greater damage done by the regime.
Money is the biggest silencer. Roelofs explains that the military sector is a growing, highly motivated, recession-proof sector with few cost disadvantages from an economic perspective. The military economy also achieves a high return on investments.
More importantly, the boundaries between the military and civilians are blurred in the many ways Roelofs mentioned. This in turn fuels militarization without public notice because the broad outlines of what constitutes militarization are still uncertain.
America’s global hegemony amplified this trend as an international phenomenon. The international networks, like the local networks, managed to defeat the activists and peace advocates.
For his part, Jeremy Kozmarov sees in a report for the magazine “Cover Action” that the army’s penetration into aspects of American life hinders the development of a strong anti-war movement.
The early protests against the Iraq war did not last nor were they followed by any large-scale movements against the military interventions in Afghanistan, Libya, Syria and now Ukraine, instilling in the public opinion that Russia is the aggressor.
Ukraine offers military contractors another argument for why things should keep going forward and upward, writes William D. Hartung, a fellow at the Quincy International Institute for Responsible Government.
In the aftermath of the protest movement of the 1960s, Roelofs asserts, corporate foundations began funding groups that called for societal reforms without threatening American empire or capitalism.
A 1969 report by David Horowitz in Ramparts revealed that the CIA used no fewer than 46 foundations to funnel money to organizations whose main goal was to defuse anti-war protest or divide the political left in the United States.
Then came the establishment of the National Endowment for Democracy in the 1980s to promote propaganda for regime change that highlighted the oppression of minorities in countries that formulated foreign policies independent of the United States.
But how does military spending affect sectors of civil society?
The book shows that contractors and bases become economic hubs in their areas. State and local governments are intertwined with the Department of Defense, and some states even have military departments. Annual subsidies to the National Guard remain substantial. Joint projects include helping state environmental departments and teams of governmental and environmental organizations to create buffer zones for bombing ranges. The economic development committees aim to attract military industries and preserve existing bases and companies.
Universities, colleges, and faculty receive contracts and grants from the Department of Defense and its agencies, such as Project Minerva. The ministry also supports the programs of the Reserve Officers Training Corps. Civilian jobs provide opportunities for scientists, engineers, policy analysts and others.
Every type of business and nonprofit, including some environmental and charitable organizations, is fed into the DoD basin through contracts and grants. For-profit individuals, art institutions, charities, churches, and universities are subject to military-related investments. So philanthropy is another muffler.
Journalist Geoffrey St. Clair says it might be the question, “What happened to the anti-war movement?” The most dangerous of our time.
Roelofs delves deeply into the inner workings of the massive political economy of war-making, revealing how the weapons cartel has consolidated power, taken over our political system, infiltrated the media and suppressed dissent. And it woke us up, loud and clear enough to hear our numb consciences.”
As for researcher Catherine Lutz, she says, “The book is introductory and in-depth in the United States military institution, which has thousands of faces and functions, and consumes about a thousand billion dollars annually to support its role in preparing and waging war around the world. Rich in illustrations, charts, and maps, the pieces of the puzzle identified by Joanne Roelofs are so many and so intricate that readers, even if they are well-informed, will learn something in each chapter. The central question of the book is how the military-industrial complex managed to make so much taxpayer money year after year while mustering public approval for its grueling mission.
This view seems close to that of David Swanson, executive director of the “World Beyond War” organization, author of “War is a Lie,” who said that the book “helps us realize the penetration of every inch of American society by normalizing or celebrating preparations for war. This is ingrained in our culture, and this book also provides guidance on what we can do about it
alarab-co-uk
