Right Web

Tracking militarists’ efforts to influence U.S. foreign policy

‘Modernization’ Is Media Code for Military Build-Up

An effective rhetorical tool to normalize military build-ups is to characterize spending increases “modernization."

 

Foreign Policy in Focus

 

One of the most effective rhetorical tools in normalizing massive military budgets is to treat spending billions — and sometimes trillions — of dollars as something one has to do in order to be “modern.”

“Modernization” is, after all, an attractive label. Who doesn’t want to be modern? Consider just a few examples from recent reporting on military spending.

“The Department of Energy said the money was needed to modernize and restore the country’s nuclear weapons complex,” Reuters reported of a $15 billion, one-year budget request for nuke spending.

“Pentagon Budget Seeks Billions for Modernizing Nuclear Arsenal, Missile Defense,” The Hill mumbled about a related $37 billion request.

The Army, meanwhile, will get many billions more “as the service struggles to modernize while simultaneously fighting wars in current conflicts,” wrote the National Interest.

“U.S. nuclear policy is aimed at deterring Russia,” CNN explained, “through the modernization of the U.S. arsenal.”

Finally, notes a Reuters headline on the world’s most expensive (and still not operational) fighter plane, the “F-35 Fighter Modernization Could Cost $16 Billion Through 2024.”

Other variations include the verbs “overhaul” or “rebuild.” The idea is that something has fallen into disrepair and simply needs to be put back together.

How vast new expenditures on weapons that can already end civilization can be justified in either financial or moral terms is simply breezed past. A “modern” United States is self-evidently preferable to a pre-modern one, and the United States must be “modern” to “keep pace” with perennial bad guys like Russia and China.

As the media monitoring group FAIR has shown time and again, the media almost always frames the U.S. as reacting to military escalations by others.

The idea that Russia and China could themselves be responding to long-existing U.S. plans for a military buildup is never entertained. Nor is it often pointed out that the U.S. spends roughly three times as much on its military as China — whose population is more than quadruple ours — and about 10 times as much as Russia.

It’s essential, after all, that the United States — when it’s not stumbling around like a hapless giant — always be the party responding, not provoking. The “modernization” frame plays into this narrative nicely: The U.S. military is simply updating its massive arsenal, as you would your iPhone software — an inevitable and therefore not at all hostile act.

Indeed, “modernization” has been a popular framing used by the media to casually report on the United States’ constantly growing empire for over a hundred years.

Look at the New York Times alone: “Our Big Warships to Be Modernized,” a Timesheadline declared in 1922. “Alliance Plans to Modernize Armed Services,” it reported in 1953. “Air Force Seeks to Modernize and Strengthen U.S. Defense System,” was the paper’s report in 1972. In 1980, a Times story was “Navy Plans to Modernize World War II Battleships.”

Things the government is somehow never obligated to “modernize” include health care, education, and family leave policy.

Instead, the potential funds spent on bringing these programs up to the standard of other wealthy countries are framed as massive tax hikes, and those who promote such programs are challenged to “find the money.” They’re often not treated as any part of a “modern” norm for which the U.S. must strive.

But a slick, sprawling U.S. military — with all the latest toys and bombs — certainly is. And anyone suggesting otherwise, the story suggests, is clearly stuck in the past.

Share RightWeb

Featured Profiles

Update was slow, but still no lag in the editor window, and footnotes are intact.     This has been updated – Bernard Lewis, who passed away in May 2018, was a renowned British-American historian of Islam and the Middle East. A former British intelligence officer, Foreign Office staffer, and Princeton University professor, Lewis was…


Bernard Lewis was a renowned historian of Islam and the Middle East who stirred controversy with his often chauvinistic attitude towards the Muslim world and his associations with high-profile neoconservatives and foreign policy hawks.


John Bolton, the controversial former U.S. ambassador to the UN and dyed-in the-wool foreign policy hawk, is President Trump’s National Security Adviser McMaster, reflecting a sharp move to the hawkish extreme by the administration.


Michael Joyce, who passed away in 2006, was once described by neoconservative guru Irving Kristol as the “godfather of modern philanthropy.”


Mike Pompeo, the Trump administration’s second secretary of state, is a long time foreign policy hawk and has led the public charge for an aggressive policy toward Iran.


Max Boot, neoconservative military historian at the Council on Foreign Relations, on Trump and Russia: “At every turn Trump is undercutting the ‘get tough on Russia’ message because he just can’t help himself, he just loves Putin too much.”


Michael Flynn is a former Trump administration National Security Advisor who was forced to step down only weeks on the job because of his controversial contacts with Russian officials before Trump took office.


For media inquiries,
email rightwebproject@gmail.com

From the Wires

Trump is not the problem. Think of him instead as a summons to address the real problem, which in a nation ostensibly of, by, and for the people is the collective responsibility of the people themselves. For Americans to shirk that responsibility further will almost surely pave the way for more Trumps — or someone worse — to come.


The United Nations has once again turn into a battleground between the United States and Iran, which are experiencing one of the darkest moments in their bilateral relations.


In many ways, Donald Trump’s bellicosity, his militarism, his hectoring cant about American exceptionalism and national greatness, his bullying of allies—all of it makes him not an opponent of neoconservatism but its apotheosis. Trump is a logical culmination of the Bush era as consolidated by Obama.


For the past few decades the vast majority of private security companies like Blackwater and DynCorp operating internationally have come from a relatively small number of countries: the United States, Great Britain and other European countries, and Russia. But that seeming monopoly is opening up to new players, like DeWe Group, China Security and Protection Group, and Huaxin Zhongan Group. What they all have in common is that they are from China.


The Trump administration’s massive sales of tanks, helicopters, and fighter aircraft are indeed a grim wonder of the modern world and never receive the attention they truly deserve. However, a potentially deadlier aspect of the U.S. weapons trade receives even less attention than the sale of big-ticket items: the export of firearms, ammunition, and related equipment.


Soon after a Saudi-led coalition strike on a bus killed 40 children on August 9, a CENTCOM spokesperson stated to Vox, “We may never know if the munition [used] was one that the U.S. sold to them.”


The West has dominated the post-war narrative with its doctrine of liberal values, arguing that not only were they right in themselves but that economic success itself depended on their application. Two developments have challenged those claims. The first was the West’s own betrayal of its principles: on too many occasions the self interest of the powerful, and disdain for the victims of collateral damage, has showed through. The second dates from more recently: the growth of Chinese capitalism owes nothing to a democratic system of government, let alone liberal values.


RightWeb
share