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

Haim Saban is a media mogul and major donor to the Democratic Party known for his hardline stance on Israel and opposition to the Iran nuclear deal.


Nikki Haley, Donald Trump’s first U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, is known for her lock-step support for Israel and is widely considered to be a future presidential candidate.


Brian Hook is the director of policy planning and senior policy advisor to Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and is the head of the Iran Action Group.


Josh Rogin is a journalist known for his support for neoconservative policies and views.


Laurence Silberman, a senior justice on the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, was a mentor to controversial Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh and has been a vocal supporter of right-wing foreign and domestic agendas, including the campaign to support the invasion of Iraq.


The People’s Mujahedin of Iran, or MEK, advocates regime change in Iran and has strong connections with a wide range of top political figures in the U.S.


Eli Lake is a columnist for Bloomberg View who has a lengthy record of advocating for aggressive U.S. foreign policies towards the Middle East.


For media inquiries,
email rightwebproject@gmail.com

From the Wires

The tragic end of Jamal Khashoggi should serve as a reminder that it’s time for the United States to move on and leave the motley crew of undesirable Middle Eastern partners, from Israel to Saudi Arabia, to their collective fate. They deserve each other.


Jobs should not be an excuse to arm a murderous regime that not only appears to be behind the assassination of a U.S. resident and respected commentator but is also responsible for thousands of civilian casualties in Yemen—the majority killed with U.S-supplied bombs, combat aircraft, and tactical assistance.


The contradictions in Donald Trump’s foreign policy create opportunities for both rivals and long-standing (if irritated) US allies to challenge American influence. But Trump’s immediate priority is political survival, and his actions in the international arena are of little concern to his domestic supporters.


While the notion that criticism of Israel is anti-Semitic is decades old, it has been bolstered in recent years, by the campaign to add to the definition of anti-Semitism any criticism that singles Israel out and doesn’t apply the same standard to other countries. The bottom line is that this entire effort is designed not to combat anti-Semitism but to silence criticism. 


Short-term thinking, expedience, and a lack of strategic caution has led Washington to train, fund, and support group after group that have turned their guns on American soldiers and civilians.


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.


RightWeb
share