Now we're back where we've begun....

The War Department (what some call the "Defense" Department) has decided not to ask Congress for the necessary funding to halt production of the F-22 Raptor. The reasons for this are purely political. The Raptor is the most advanced, and most expensive, fighter jet ever built. Each individual plane has cost (based on the total amount of money spent during it's entire development and procurement phase) roughly 360 million dollars. The United States is involved in two wars and yet the Raptor has never flown a combat sortie in either. The only excuse for this monumental waste of taxpayer dollars is that the project employs people in 40 states. No politician is likely to lose an election by calling for increased spending on war. Few could ever hope, however, to hold on to their positions in Congress by calling for a reduced military budget.

War lobbyists, like all lobbyists, aren't concerned with who is in power. In fact one of the most ardent opponents of the Iraq war, John Murtha of Pennsylvania, is a major recipient of campaign contributions from, and a major advocate for, the war industry. Back in October, it was reported that Hillary Clinton had received more contributions from weapons companies' employees than any other candidate. Hillary was definitely the winner, Barack Obama and John Edwards have also recieved big chunks of war money. This is how Washington works of course. Those who lobby recognize where the political wind is blowing, and begin making contributions in that direction. And this is precisely the reason that things will not change in this city for a very long time.

Hmm.... "Change."

That's a big word these days. Everybody wants it, and it seems to have become the keyword of the 2008 Presidential Election. But what do people mean when they say it? I'm not sure what the Republicans want to change. They are the embodiment of the selfish paternalism and corporatism of the past 20 years. They function pretty blatantly as a tool for the ultra-rich. They claim to want small government, but spend insanely. They claim to protect free markets, yet openly facilitate no-bid contracting. I can go on, but do I have to?

And Democrats? Change? Well they definitely want it. But instead of truly looking at what needs to change for the future, most of the party faithful are holding on to visions of their past. Liberals, if one observes the primary campaigns of their leading candidates, desperately want to feel good about their government again. Both of the major Democratic contenders are where they are because they are marketed as throwbacks to our supposedly glorious past. Hillary Clinton's candidacy is a result of her base's positive memories of the her husband's administration, and Obama has been compared to JFK and Lincoln so many times (and yes, Lincoln was a Republican but it seems Democrats claim his legacy as their own anyway) that I forget what year I'm in.

These comparisons to the past are convenient for the campaigns. They illicit immediate positive emotional responses: Our past was good, we should look back to that. This mentality, however, totally ignores the real lesson we should be taking from our past, which is how not repeat all the mistakes we’ve made.

I’m not sure why progressives attach themselves to JFK. His foreign policy was rather disastrous. Apart from beginning our direct military involvement in Vietnam, the man, through the CIA, approved of the training of foreign mercenaries to overthrow the government of Cuba. His legacy was “saved” when he faced down the Soviets a year later in the Cuban missile crisis, but would a reluctant Khrushchev have made such a provocative move had Kennedy not provided him with clear evidence that the United States intended to invade the only Soviet ally in the western hemisphere?

And what of Bill Clinton, the real reason most of Hillary’s supporters think she should be President? He pulled UN inspectors out of Iraq in 1998 and bombed the hell out of it, even though there was no evidence then that Iraq was producing WMD’s. He, like Bush, was absolutely convinced that Saddam was the next Hitler. Though Clinton didn’t invade the country outright, he did with the help of the UN and Tony Blair impose a sanctions regime on the country that was beyond draconian. Iraq was prohibited from purchasing everything from water-purification systems to pencils. A UN report in 1996 estimated that 500,000 Iraqis had died since 1991 as a result of chronic shortages in food and medicine. In 1999, When then Secretary of State Madeleine Albright was asked by a reporter if the deaths of all those people worth keeping Saddam in check, she answered yes.

When you look at it historically, the actions of these leaders provided a historical precedent for the actions of the Bush Administration. If we as a country really want to change the direction that we're going in, we need to start analyzing our history in a critical and honest way. But beyond that, we must also dismantle the structures of power that will not allow for new ideas to take hold and prevent the disasters of the past.

As long as the United States government is employing people in 40 states to produce weapons, there will be no political incentive for politicians to make peace instead of war. As long as weapons manufacturers make billions off of long-term contracts, they will be able to dole out campaign contributions in amounts far exceeding the anti-war movements coffers, thus keeping things as they are. Until this structure can be dismantled our government will be controlled by these manufacturers, who profit from the killing of the world's poorest. Remember, you can't build a bomb without using it, and you can't build one without spending money that could otherwise go to feed the hungry, clothe the needy, and cure the sick.