The Narcotic of War

The Permanent Arms Industry and the American Addiction to War

War is the heroin of the American nation.

Because Americans are entirely reliant on the high of military triumph, similar to any addict of narcotics, they pay little attention to the sources of funding or the bloodshed and destruction caused, as long as their craving for a fix is fulfilled. We are witnessing this play out with the sending of American aircraft carriers to Iran and bombing their supposed nuclear facilities, which has attracted minimal attention from mainstream media.

Amid its euphoric military success, the U.S. will assert a desire for peace. Leaders will promote war, idolizing those involved in combat, yet discard them like waste once they are no longer needed. Simultaneously, the public will live in fear, shaped by the narratives perpetuated by a propaganda apparatus that serves an industry focused solely on profit, while decimating lives and property.

Constitutionally, it was clear that the Framers did not intend for the United States to become an imperial power. When they met in Philadelphia in the late spring of 1787, the nation had just emerged from a brutal and devastating war for independence from a similar imperial force. Having witnessed the injustices caused by such an entity, the delegates aimed to prevent history from repeating itself by incorporating strict procedures into the Constitution.

The Antifederalists opposed a national military, favoring state-run militias that would receive federal support and unite for common defense. The Federalists advocated for a national military that would be closely regulated. Ultimately, both groups reached a compromise: a national military force would be established, securely overseen by Congress and reauthorized every two years by the federal legislature. The president would serve as commander-in-chief only during wartime, thereby reducing the political use of the military. Still, his decisions would remain subject to the authority of the U.S. Supreme Court.

Since the conclusion of World War II in 1945, and specifically with the passage of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. §§ 801-940 (1950), these controls have been bypassed, transforming war into a business. Harry Truman allowed this to happen, framing the communist threat as justification. Dwight Eisenhower sought to regulate it but ultimately could not, and he cautioned us as he departed from office. John Kennedy tried to dismantle this after the Cuban Missile Crisis, yet he was assassinated for his efforts. Subsequently, under Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon, it spiraled beyond control, further fueled by Ronald Reagan and his successors from both political parties.

For more than fifty years, historians and economists like Seth Shulman, Clark Mollenhoff, Seymour Mellman, Paul Kennedy, and Gordon Adams have sounded alarms about the dangers of relentless warfare—warnings that resonate strongly today. With close to two-thirds of our national economy linked to military spending, the United States must:

1) Wage constant war to use the weapons already manufactured, as well as to generate a need for resupply;

2) Wage constant war to justify further federal budget allocations towards the military;

3) Encourage other nations to engage in armed conflict to maintain an active customer base for our armaments; and,

4) Maintain global military occupation and intervention as the means of keeping potential civilian workers out of a meager domestic job market.

And Americans have become so enamored with their military that they are willing to tolerate the apparent waste of trillions of taxpayer dollars by the Pentagon every year. Doesn't this strike you as a wholly flawed way to run a country?

These fiscal conditions have not escaped the notice of our adversaries. This situation is what has emboldened them in their anti-American rhetoric and actions. Like every empire that came before us—such as the Roman, Spanish, Dutch, Portuguese, French, and British, to name a few—extensive military occupations drained national economic resources, leading to the collapse of these once-mighty empires, a phenomenon that historian Paul Kennedy labeled as “imperial overstretch.” Therefore, history shows that the U.S. cannot simultaneously engage in or fund an extended conflict with two nations whose military production capabilities are as advanced as our own. Such a notion isn't merely flawed; it borders on madness!

Throughout our brief history, war has served as our favored escape. It is the only force that unites our fractured nation, conditioned by the absurd notion of “my country right or wrong.” This reliance on xenophobia and jingoism diverts public attention, encouraging focus on the destruction elsewhere. James Madison utilized it to guide the U.S. into a conflict that nearly jeopardized its independence. Similarly, James Polk and William McKinley advanced the American Empire's objectives through war. Now, as the nation stands on the brink of economic stagnation and sociopolitical collapse, it is entering military confrontations with two superpowers. Who among us honestly believes this will lead to a positive outcome?

Historically, war has ultimately solved nothing.

Our ongoing military actions in the Middle East can be linked to Cold War tensions. The Cold War arose when the U.S. turned against its ally, the Soviet Union, driven by an arms industry that sought justification for its existence following World War II. World War II was a consequence of unresolved issues from World War I, which stemmed from European colonization in Africa and alliances formed due to the lingering effects of the Franco-Prussian War. The Franco-Prussian War itself can be traced back to unresolved matters from the Congress of Vienna in 1814/1815, which concluded the Napoleonic Wars—these wars were a direct outcome of the French Revolution, heavily influenced by the American Revolution against Great Britain.

Over the last seventy years, the effectiveness of the U.S. military has not lived up to its claims. The Korean War is still unresolved; it withdrew from Vietnam unilaterally after more than two decades, and its actions in Iraq and Afghanistan have been largely ineffective, despite ongoing military involvement. Nevertheless, these conflicts have generated significant profits for several corporations and their shareholders. Moreover, what consequences will arise from the bombing of Iran to support Israel, a country that has conducted genocide against the Palestinian people?

Having reached our economic limits due to imperial overreach, the U.S. economy can no longer support this self-destructive habit. The only parties that will profit from these actions are weapon manufacturers, financial institutions supplying funding for returns, stockholders, and morticians. The rest will suffer losses, be it in jobs or lives. Americans need to overcome this harmful reliance on the military.

So, why do we continue to engage in military actions around the globe? Because war is the heroin of the American nation, and its citizens are hopeless addicts in need of a continuous fix. At the same time, the permanent arms industry is its ready and willing dealer.