Peaceniks, eat your hearts out: Finally, good news! In spite of the global recession, business is booming for arms makers. In 2009, global military spending reached a record $1.5 trillion US—a solid gain of nearly six percent over 2008 and a whopping increase of 49 percent since the year 2000. The authoritative 2010 yearbook from SIPRI, the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, notes that more than half of the increased military spending in 2009 came from the US. And no wonder. Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Yemen are a few of the lucky countries where Uncle Sam is dropping bombs and spreading treasure. American largesse supports the military in Mexico, where the four-year campaign against drug cartels has so far sent more than 34,600 people to a better world.
SIPRI points out that Canada’s $19.2 billion military budget continued to earn it the rank of 13th largest spender in 2009, a truly impressive achievement for a peaceable kingdom with less than one-half of one percent of the world’s population. The Canadian military budget has increased by 48.8 percent since 2000 and, praise be, further hikes are on the way, including $21 billion (or so) for a fleet of F-35 fighter jets—a contract that will surely put broad grins on the faces of the good people at Lockheed Martin.
Speaking of L-M, SIPRI figures show the US aerospace giant continues to flourish. It ranked number two among the top 100 arms makers in 2008, with $29.8 billion in arms sales and almost $3.22 billion in total profits. The number one arms maker in 2008 was BAE systems, based in Britain. It sold $34.4 billion worth of military goods and services in 2008 and racked up a total profit of $3.25 billion. Other companies in the top 10 included the US giants, Boeing (total profits $2.67 billion) and General Dynamics (total profits almost $2.46 billion). SIPRI predicts continued good times for these recession-proof companies.
Unfortunately, Canadian peaceniks tried to squelch this heart-gladdening investment news last week when the US celebrated Martin Luther King day. They pointed to an anti-Vietnam war speech King delivered in April 1967, a year before he was killed. In it, he called the US government “the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today” then went on to link poverty, racism and militarism:
“This business of burning human beings with napalm, of filling our nation’s homes with orphans and widows, of injecting poisonous drugs of hate into the veins of peoples normally humane, of sending men home from dark and bloody battlefields physically handicapped and psychologically deranged, cannot be reconciled with wisdom, justice and love. A nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual death.”
King also noted the “glaring contrast of poverty and wealth” and accused Western capitalists of extracting profits from poorer regions with no concern for social betterment. “We must rapidly begin the shift from a thing-oriented society to a person-oriented society,” he said. “When machines and computers, profit motives and property rights, are considered more important than people, the giant triplets of racism, extreme materialism and militarism are incapable of being conquered.”
Powerful words, but during an official ceremony honouring King last week at the Pentagon, defense department lawyer Jeh C. Johnson said the civil rights leader might applaud the US military today because its soldiers are acting as Good Samaritans. “I believe that if Dr. King were alive today, he would recognize that we live in a complicated world, and that our nation’s military should not and cannot lay down its arms and leave the American people vulnerable to terrorist attack,” Johnson said, adding that US military personnel are willingly risking their lives to bring peace, freedom and aid to people in Iraq and Afghanistan. Amen!
So there, peaceniks. Righteousness and the arms trade are flourishing together. And yes, war is peace.
This article appears in Jan 27 – Feb 2, 2011.
Thanks for the investment advice! Arms companies are great safe investment since they work hard to keep us safe. Also what you seem to forget aerospace for example has a rather large civilian use but of course since it helps the Capitalist system. Also ask the people of Iraq and Afghanistan I really doubt the miss their old system that much but of course leftest always support police states or systems of governments that treat women as second class citizens.
CF-35 – gonna be sweeeeeet!
http://f-35.ca/
What could have happened since 2000 to increase our military spending?
I dunno, stumped me…
Unless we have someone invading our borders, we have no business involving ourselves with them militarily. Simple as that.
Oh Good! Your cartoonist has taken that whole Harper as Hitler meme in a bold new zombie direction. That is so cutting edge. I mean really, who would have thought – Nazi Zombies.
I’d say someone deserves a raise or the New Yorker is going to snap him up in a heartbeat.
When I look at where my tax dollars are going – and every year that means tens of thousands of tax dollars – I know that only 8 cents on the tax dollar (http://www.fin.gc.ca/tax-impot/2010/html-e…) is going to defence. So forgive me if national defence isn’t the first thing I think of when I worry about waste and bloated government spending.
Having said that, I think we need to wonder why the hell we’re in Afghanistan, and I think the F-35 is a truly ill-advised purchase.
In terms of national defence as a need, there actually isn’t a greater obligation that a government has to its people. The world isn’t a friendly place, and humans innately are territorial and clannish. Although there are hundreds of examples of this in the past few decades, and dozens right now, let me highlight just a few. Sri Lanka just spent the best part of the past 3 decades in a civil war, and it’s an island barely bigger than Nova Scotia for Chrissakes. The Israelis and Palestinians have been perpetrating their idiocies in an area much smaller than that of Nova Scotia. After decades of fighting with their northern neighbours the south Sudanese will finally get their own country.
The list goes on and on. That’s the way we humans are. It’s nice to think that we could all just link our hands and sing Kumbaya, but it ain’t gonna happen.
This escalation in military spending is ominous and the right leaning political trends we see world wide including here in Canada thanks to Harper should be taken very seriously. Frankly, I’m having a hard time recognizing my country anymore or its current cultural values.
I hear you Peerless – the Canada I grew up with is dead. If I wanted to be part of a military superpower I’d move down south – and enjoy 5% federal income tax (and sometimes no state income tax as well) as a result.
Yes, lets rely on the U.S. to protect us while we bash them and continue to plow money into entitlement programs for senior immigrants, those who choose to be unemployed and single mothers of 6 from 5 different dads. Lets hope the NDP win with the usual 16% of the ignorant socialist vote.
We do have countries invading our borders daily. Fishing fleets,Russian incursions to the north and the Danes claiming land that has been Canadian/commonwealth for over two centuries. As for the jet fighter purchase this is welcome to me having family who fly our cf18’s. Would you want to fly a 40 year old airframe in defense of our country? I sure as he’ll wouldn’t. But no,service to your country is not a concept that the avg “gimme gimme” Canadian will take in their hearts. Long live our country of armchair generals and perfect visionaries of social justice.
By the way dartmouthy you may have forgotten so let me remind you. Our great country’s persona, the character we are recognized for started and remains because of our military both in war and in peace. Vimy brought the world recognition we enjoy today as courageous,strong, and noble. This wasnt created by a pen and piece of paper. It was carried on by such after military action. Furthermore, if pumping so much money into the US economy is so bad, then where will we get the procurements our military does require? Someone somewhere has to outfit our military so enlighten EVERYONE please as to your ideal replacement. This will be good, I’m waiting, General.
All that is happening is the military is getting on an even keel after DECADES of NEGLECT. Our fighters are almost 40 years old and I won’t even mention the embarassment of the Sea Kings. Our frigates are almost 20 years old, our main battle rifle is a model of almost 30 years, Herc aircrafts, etc, etc, etc.
Imagine neglecting your house for 30 years and expecting it to be perfect. If successive governments do the right thing and plan on proper replacements, then we wouldn’t have such large expeditures in such a short time.
A professional military has to be prepared for anything. Remember the fiasco after the Tsunamis? After the purchase of the heavy lift aircraft, we were in Haiti in nothing flat.
The argument in this article is poorly structured and unpersuasive.
Wark begins with the premise that Canada’s military spending has increased, and that this is terrible news. He later supports the ‘terrible news’ bit by quoting MLK, who effectively says that nations can become morally bankrupt when military concerns trump social concerns.
There’s a complete leap in logic here: Wark never actually demonstrates that Canada is prioritising military concerns over social ones. We’re supposed to infer this from increased military spending, but we are not given information on Canada’s social spending commitments — or offered analysis of WHY Canada might be increasing military spending. There is no mention of updating search and rescue equipment; no discussion of defending arctic sovereignty claims to the Northwest Passage (which are being challenged by every other polar nation); and not even a thought to Canada’s engagement in Afghanistan (which might even support his argument!).
Is this supposed to be an editorial about Canada, or just a rant against American arms companies?
Wark clearly has no idea what the hell he’s talking about. Or if he does, he’s certainly not sharing it with his readers.
I think the peacniks are right. They should go tell the clans in northern pakistan why they are racist and materialist. I think they’d be really receptive to their message.
Hey Dubbo: You should get your eyes checked. Nowhere do I say that Canada’s huge increase in military spending is “terrible news.” Au contraire, I call it “an impressive achievement”! Nor do I rant against American arms companies. I think I make the point pretty clearly that their multi-billion dollar profits are “heart-gladdening investment news” especially during this awful recession. And MLK’s rant is answered by lawyer Johnson at the Pentagon who quite properly likens the US armed forces to Good Samaritans. Amen!
Dubbo, I fear that my editorial caused *you* to think bad thoughts about military spending. What’s a poor writer like me to do? I certainly can’t control how readers like you might react. I notice you even go so far as to suggest that Canada’s engagement in Afghanistan might not be such a good thing! Now where did you get that notion? Not from me I hope!
Wark, come on. You clearly have a motivation, and whether its tongue-in-cheek or you clearly did not grasp the overture of your Ed comment it has been achieved. Are you naive, or creative? I personally cannot distinguish at the moment. But let us say that you are completely innocent. That what you wrote had absolutely NO overture, or inference to military spending instead of social spending. Fair enough. That to me is just like a sportscaster claiming a starting pitcher has perfect control and saying he “accidentally” beaned a batter in the head because it got away on him.
I say, that with the convenience of the recent protests outside of the dockyard recently which: lo and behold had something to do with the big bad lockheed martin and spending money on social programs instead of fighter jets…that your timing is suspect, and completely refutes your argument that you didnt mean that spending on the military was bad.
Please dont patronize your readers.
Oy vey. Obviously, gentle commentators, satire is lost on you.
Sorry, Wark.
The accompanying editorial cartoon with the zombie labelled “military spending”, who says “Thank god war is peace and death is life in our Harperland shamocracy” must have mislead me into believing that you were trying to write satire. The mistake is all mine.
Maybe you should have a word with whoever does the online art direction. They seem to be undermining your efforts at serious journalism.
I don’t think the problem here is with my eyes.
Best,
D
Satire;
the use of irony, sarcasm, ridicule, or the like, in exposing, denouncing, or deriding vice, folly, etc.
2. a literary composition, in verse or prose, in which human folly and vice are held up to scorn, derision, or ridicule.
3. a literary genre comprising such compositions.
hasnt been lost, which is why the ed cannot hide behind his comments that there was no intent behind his writing.
Bruce: to echo Cuja12’s and dubbo’s points, we understand the irony in the original editorial. That’s fine. But you can dispense with it when trying to seriously respond to peoples’ arguments.
In particular, dubbo’s point that “Wark never actually demonstrates that Canada is prioritising military concerns over social ones”. This is along the lines of the first comment I made, where I pointed out that it’s public fact that only 8 cents on the federal tax dollar goes to defence. Why don’t you explain to us why it is that it’s defence that’s really causing us budget problems, and nothing else is?
Ah Realist, you ask me to explain “why it is that it’s defence that’s really causing us budget problems, and nothing else is?” But where does my editorial say that military spending is causing us “budget problems”? Canada is a fabulously rich country where GDP per capita has roughly doubled since the 1970s.
Budget problems? As far as I can see, nothing is causing us budget problems. Oh yes, there’s a lot of talk in the media about budget problems, but given the country’s resources, these problems are trivial compared to the poverty in countries where people live on less than a dollar a day.
Hell, we even have enough money to subsidize Lockheed Martin which, as my editorial points out, earned total profits in 2009 of $3.22 billion! http://www.lockheedmartin.com/news/press_r…
As I point out, this should gladden the hearts of investors everywhere. Eight cents on the dollar for military spending? Canada as the 13th biggest military spender in the world? No problem, I say. We’re rich. We’ve got plenty of money and certainly more than enough for $21 billion worth of F-35s.
Likewise, the world’s richest countries can obviously afford the new record of $1.5 trillion on world military spending. Yes, 22,000 people may die of hunger-related ailments every day, but who says we can’t afford that $1.5 trillion? Certainly not me.
As usual the lefties are blaming the Conservatives for buying the F-35, which began in 1997 before 9/11 and Afghanistan and while the Liberals were in power. They invested in it, with other countries, after other competitors submitted their designs. So there was a competition.
Bruce: if you’d stop being silly you’d find that a decent debate could be made out of this. Your idea of adequate defence spending is probably in the zero to “let’s arm the village constables with pikes and whistles” range, but you should know that not all of us “militarists” dispute the thesis that world military spending is grossly excessive.
Let’s dispose of one of your attempts to obfuscate the facts, though. Yes, Canada has the world’s 13th highest military budget. You should also, in the interests of clarity, have pointed out that (1) Canada is ranked 14th in the world by GDP (PPP), so that ranking of defence budget is not out of whack, and (2) Canadian defence spending is 1.3 percent of GDP, which is on the low side as this metric goes.
Is the Canadian defence budget too high in absolute terms? Forget the F-35 for a second – I happen to agree with you, albeit perhaps for different reasons, that this program is ill-advised. But consider that most Canadians agree that we should have a military capable of both defence of sovereignty and of humanitarian missions. Even without the Afghanistan expedition it’s possible that those two core missions I mention would in fact require the kinds of defence spending we see today, in particular since the CF has been neglected historically.
It really comes down to whether you think we should be capable of defending ourselves at all. Most Canadians think this is a good idea – I’m one of them. If *you* proceed on the basis that no defence is necessary then you may as well make that clear. It serves to guide the debate. It’s not an illegitimate argument, but it helps to be aware of it.
And while we’re at it, I think many of us “militarists” do believe that the US defence budget is bloated and obscene. Mainly because they have a deficit and debt which is frightening, so they can’t afford it even if they could justify it. Which in my opinion the US cannot justify.
WILLIAM HARTUNG author of “Prophets of War: Lockheed Martin and the Making of the Military-Industrial Complex” on *Democracy Now* today discussing arms subsidies to Egypt’s dictator Hosni Mubarak courtesy of US taxpayers:
[1] It’s a form of corporate welfare for companies like Lockheed Martin and General Dynamics, because it goes to Egypt, then it comes back for F-16 aircraft, for M1 tanks, for aircraft engines, for all kinds of missiles, for guns, for tear gas canisters…a company called Combined Systems International, which actually has its name on the side of the canisters that have been found on the streets there. So these companies—for example, Lockheed Martin has been the leader in deals worth $3.8 billion over that period of the last 10 years; General Dynamics, $2.5 billion for tanks; Boeing, $1.7 billion for missiles, for helicopters; Raytheon for all manner of missiles for the armed forces. So, basically, this is a key element in propping up the regime, but a lot of the money…is basically recycled. Taxpayers could just as easily be giving it directly to Lockheed Martin or General Dynamics.
[2] AMY GOODMAN: According to lists of arms sales notifications compiled by the Pentagon’s Defense Security Assistance Agency, in the last decade alone, the Department of Defense has brokered over $11 billion in U.S. arms offers to the Egyptian regime on behalf of weapons manufacturers Lockheed Martin, General Dynamics, Boeing, Raytheon and General Electric.
WILLIAM HARTUNG: And that’s just the last little while. In fact, Mubarak has been getting $1.3 billion per year, like clockwork, since the beginning of his regime. So that’s about $40 billion, that a lot of which has gone to these companies. So they, of course—you know, they’ve met with lobbyists. They’ve met with Egypt over the years. They’ve tried to keep the United States on good terms with Egypt, because they profit from this relationship.
Wow! Bruce we are not talking about Egypt, we are Talking about Canada. Who here think we should replace our military equipment that is at near 40 years old so we can respond to natural disasters and help our allies. Maybe Bruce will think its wrong?
i fail to see where its bad for a country to supply its armed forces with the equipment, training and rounds to both secure its own borders and its national interests. it is basic government to provide protection at home and abroad. If national interests arent protected with the beans and bullets that are necessary then how can all the starbucks people get their xxxxxxxl grande? nothing you are saying is an reason for the companies like Lockheed martin to exist. They are providing thousands upon thousands of jobs. developing cutting edge weapons AND they do other things in other markets. what do you suggest, hundreds of thousands of people get their jobs lost because we want to trip the light fantastic in tulip land with no weapons in the world. the moment our country stops spending on defense (since we dont have the factories in our country anymore) then we will be attacked…its that simple. will a pitbull stop the attack just because the other dog has bled out…no.
Cujo 12, Charles the Great, Realist in Dartmouth: Do I love you or what? Some editorial writers might complain (reading your comments with furrowed brow), “I’m being pecked to death by minnows.” But I say, praise be, these are my very readers.
Cujo 12 your pitbull, bleed-out reference reminds me of this quotation from James Joyce’s Ulysses:
“History is a nightmare from which I am trying to awake.” http://www.sparknotes.com/lit/ulysses/quot…
By the way, Joyce also wrote in “Finnegan’s Wake”: “The West shall shake the East awake While ye have the night for morn.”
Marshall McLuhan’s gloss on this quotation in his book “Understanding Media” is highly relevant if you think of China’s rise and the ascendancy of other powers we consider eastern:
“Associated with this transformation of the real world into science fiction is the reversal now proceeding apace, by which the Western world is going Eastern, even as the East goes Western.”
If Predator drones launching Hellfire missiles over AfPak controlled through real-time computer images from the US are not the stuff of science fiction, then what is? How long before others deploy such drones and the East starts shaking the West? See: “Wired for War: The Robotics Revolution and Conflict in the 21st Century” by P.W. Singer. Just scroll down my very readers to the heading: “Explain how robotic warfare is ‘open source’ warfare”: http://news.cnet.com/8301-17912_3-10192761…
And yes, there’s poor Charles the Great talking about the military responding to natural disasters and helping our allies while Realist touts a military buildup as a way of defending our sovereignty and engaging in humanitarian missions.
Humanitarian missions? Reminds me of Haiti where Canada and her allies won’t allow the largest political party to contest so-called democratic elections. Haiti, where earthquake-ravaged misery is compounded by a Canadian-backed UN occupation that spreads cholera.
My very readers, are you real or are you Memorex?
Let me repeat here that Great Power warfare became obsolete (or so we pray) with the advent of nuclear weapons. All warfare now becomes obsolete with the advent of open-source weapons. Time to try something new.
Could we possibly learn from the Quakers? From Muriel Duckworth and Ursula Franklin? http://en.wikipedia.org
/wiki/Ursula_Franklin#Pacifism.2C_feminism_and_war
Hi Mr. Wark,
My apologies if you felt I was being snarky earlier. I am genuinely interested in this topic and would be interested in hearing well-considered views on it. Frankly, though, your arguments can be pretty insubstantial. Here’s why:
The original editorial began by discussing increases to Canadian military spending. The evidence you cite in your most recent post concerns American remote military technology and Canadian involvement in post-earthquake Haiti.
First, I take your point that military technology is changing — you cite an article discussing American-developed remote weapons. The weapons certainly do sound like they can do a lot of damage, and don’t require the soldiers operating them to deal with the blood-and-guts immediacy of killing other people. However, you don’t explain how this has anything to do with Canada. If this is where Canada’s military dollars will go, please demonstrate why you think that is the case, and explain why this is a good or bad thing.
Second, you indicate that other sorts of military spending may also be poor uses of Canadian funds. You specifically cite Canada’s humanitarian mission to Haiti, noting that there was a major cholera outbreak in Haiti traced back to UN troops. This argument would be more persuasive if cholera outbreaks, or things like them, were common to Canadian military assistance with foreign disasters. If they are, show us. The cholera outbreak was traced to Nepali troops, and it’s misleading not to indicate this — and instead to pin it on a ‘Canadian-backed UN occupation’ — as if Canada bears the exclusive responsibility, or is frequently culpable for such events. Haiti’s government asked for international assistance with logistics, services, and supplies following a severe natural disaster. The military has excellent resources and training to provide these things. To say that Canada’s efforts in Haiti are defined by a cholera outbreak, seems to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
You do provide the above cholera reason for suggesting that Canada shouldn’t be providing humanitarian assistance through the military (if I understand your argument correctly), but that argument has the limitations I outlined above. Furthermore, it’s not clear whether you’re opposed to all military spending, or what would constitute acceptable levels or areas of military spending. To do this, you need to consider the cost of humanitarian work (or whatever) within the context of the other stuff we spend military bucks on.
I think we would probably agree on much more than we’d disagree about — but it can sometimes be frustrating to read your writing.
As I think I’ve demonstrated, you do not prove how your evidence is directly connected to Canadian military spending. And you do not discuss the implications of any of this evidence for our spending of for our nation. Since you began your original editorial by indicating that Canada has vastly increased its military budget in recent years, I am interested in what the rest of your discussion has to do with Canadian military spending. As I indicated earlier, you may want to answer the following three questions, and support your answers with direct evidence: 1) What does Canada spend our military budget on? 2) Are the things we spend our military budget on good or bad for Canada? (Or even for the world more broadly..) 3) Why?
As it stands, your editorial and posts are a collection of assertions and evidence that are only vaguely connected to one another by the theme of ‘military’. A logical argument would be easier to read, and would reenforce the fact that you have a well-considered opinion to impart to others. I’m getting interested in this topic, so I would definitely be excited to read a well-structured and persuasive argument.
Thanks again for your time.
Best,
D.
If you’re looking for places to find evidence, I would recommend the following sources:
1) the Hansard parliamentary debate record:
http://www2.parl.gc.ca/housechamberbusines…
2) social science or humanities research:
http://muse.jhu.edu/login?uri=/journals/un…
3) policy papers:
http://www.policyalternatives.ca/publicati…
4) and government sources like these:
http://www.admfincs-smafinsm.forces.gc.ca/…
http://www.fin.gc.ca/access/budinfo-eng.as…
5) You seem to be pretty tops at tracking down expert opinions. It would make your argument easier to follow, if you explained their direct relevance to your specific point, though. I find myself sometimes unable to follow how you are using these opinions to support your argument — or even, sometimes, what your specific argument is.
Bruce you are a insult to our troops
That’s his mission statement Charles. Quoting tired old ideologues like Muriel Duckworth and Ursula Franklin simply demonstrates that it isn’t just generals who prepare for the last war; lefty peaceniks are just as guilty.
Who would you want in front of you if you are being attacked, Muriel, the Quakers, and Ursula or the PPCLI. Peace is wonderful, however, you have to be able to ensure it. Until bad people stop doing heinous things, then the military and police are needed and need to be properly equipped and trained.
Hello Dubbo: I appreciate your thoughtful post and I accept your statement that you are “genuinely interested in this topic and would be interested in hearing well-considered views on it.” I will suggest a number of books that you might read. They include:
1. “Imperialist Canada” by Todd Gordon.
2. Damming The Flood: Haiti, Aristide, and the Politics of Containment” by Peter Hallward.
3. “The Black Book of Canadian Foreign Policy” by Yves Engler.
4. “Propaganda” by Jacques Ellul.
5. “The Real World of Technology” and “The Ursula Franklin Reader” by Ursula Franklin.
If you read those books, you’ll know where I’m coming from. For a quick overview, you could navigate to Wikipedia entries that I worked on extensively:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harold_Innis and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ursula_Frankl…
Wow! Bruce Wikipedia(not a source) ? and why are all of them far leftest you are using as cites. Again you are a insult to our troops and the people who FLIGHT so you can say your trash
Also Bruce why does everyone of those books come from rabble.ca? Most of the people on that site are usually Marxist or Communists
Wow!
All of those sources are people hate everything about Democracy and Capitalism
Again Bruce, you are Bias and Still a Insult to our troops
Yes Maybe he’ll come up with a link that Blames Israel, West or Harper for all the world’s problems or maybe still think we “occupies” Haiti when we are there to help the people recover after a earthquake or say Canada had a earthquake machine I know Hugo Chavez still thinks that was the cause. LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL
Charles, I know where you are coming from but in The Wankster’s circle of jerks denigrating our troops isn’t merely a duty, it’s a pleasure.
Disclaimer Dubbo: Mini-Chomsky’s reading list is simply a left-wing version of Jesse Ventura’s primary sources. Instead of Bilderburgers, the Tri-lateral Commission, 7 foot tall lizards and Jews substitute the Military-Industrial Complex, The IMF, every American president since Fillmore and, well, the folks who live in Israel.
I encourage everyone who seems so inclined to support the military and capitalism to view these documentaries based on factual data:
http://www.truththeory.org/our-system-our-…
http://www.truththeory.org/the-end-of-pove…
The military is a branch of our government and just like any other branch its expenditures should be open to scrutiny and public debate without folks tossing around the ridiculous idea that to question military spending is akin to not supporting our troops.