From a Slogan to a Movement:
“Bring the War Money Home”
by Mike Prokosc
A theme is appearing on peace flyers across the country:
“Bring our war money home.”
“Money for healthcare / schools / jobs, not for war.”
We’ve seen the “cost of war” theme before. But it is appearing more regularly and it has new urgency and resonance. More and more peace activists are realizing that the Great Recession has shoved the wars off center stage. In 2006 or 2008, Iraq could make or break a national candidate. Today, people are angry about jobs and service cuts. The energy that pervaded antiwar marches and rallies a few years ago is now showing up in demonstrations targeting Wall Street and bank bailouts – and not all of those are led by progressives.
In this new context, the issue of the military budget is beginning to surface in a new way. And no wonder. War spending is rising at rates not seen since the Korean War. The Obama administration is planning to spend more on war from 2010 to 2017 than the Bush administration did from 2002 to 2009. President Obama ruled military spending cuts off the table when he called for a freeze on spending this year, and again when he set up his deficit commission.
Meanwhile our states, cities, communities, and families are in the grip of a jobless recession. Some communities of color report joblessness above 50%. State budget deficits may total $187 billion this year, forcing states to cut jobs, education and public services exactly when our communities need them most.
The moment is ripe for a movement that:
- actually tries to move the money, not just get more people on the peace bus;
- is led by working class organizations and organizations rooted in communities of color;
- has the staying power to cut hundreds of billions of dollars from the Pentagon and claw back that money for jobs and services.
A DIFFERENT KIND OF MOVEMENT
Martin Luther King made the point in his prophetic "Beyond Vietnam" speech 43 years ago: If we continue to put our money into war, we will not have economic and racial justice. This is as true today as it was in 1967. Working people can’t win the jobs and services we need unless the bloated military budget is cut and the culture of militarism that justifies it loses its grip on national policy. Likewise, peace cannot be attained unless the muscle of organized and mobilized working class and people of color communities is thrown into the antiwar fight.
King’s far-sighted address also implied a vision: a movement that would advocate a "revolution of values" and launch an across-the-board challenge to “the giant triplets of racism, extreme materialism, and militarism.” A movement like that would encompass all aspects of social life. None of us are just peace activists, community organizers, or union members; we’re people who are losing jobs, suffering budget cuts, and seeing children in our communities sign up for the military because that’s the only place they can go for a steady paycheck.
A movement based on King's unifying vision would have both moral authority and tremendous power. But right now we aren’t organized that way. We are fragmented into many different parts. And too many peace groups in particular have failed to give more than lip service to the urgent needs – as well as the potential power and leadership – of oppressed communities at home. This has to change, and conditions are favorable for making it change. An agenda that prioritizes funding jobs and services and promoting racial justice by moving money from the military can unify activists from many sectors and expand the reach of the peace-and-justice movement.
The “Fund Our Communities” campaign in eastern Massachusetts has set an initial goal: move one-quarter of all military spending – about $250 billion – into local jobs and services. Picking a definite amount signals that we actually intend to accomplish this goal. It focuses the campaign on local needs and specifies how much a city could get. It opens up the campaign to constituencies that are not part of the peace movement.
Moving 25% of total military spending means closing hundreds of military bases overseas; giving up control over the world’s oil supplies; getting the U.S. out of Iraq and Afghanistan. It starts the long process of rolling back U.S. power projection throughout the world. It is a monumental organizing task, and if we assemble the forces that accomplish a 25% cut, it’s unlikely they’ll stop there.
Peace groups can do three concrete things to launch this effort.
At the grassroots, link with economic, racial justice, immigrant rights and environmental groups and shift the initiative to people who are mobilizing for jobs, services and basic human rights.
In Washington, establish “fund jobs and services by cutting military spending” as a serious political strategy, a choice we force Congresspeople to make, and a practical way they can actually redirect money toward vital federal programs and state and city budgets that are in crisis.
In the middle, knit organizations and networks together and build unity around a "move the money" agenda.
PUSHING A 25% CUT ON ALL THREE LEVELS
In our communities: Here in Boston, organizations of color have formed a Coalition to Fund Our Communities – Cut Military Spending 25%. Twenty service, advocacy, and labor organizations are members; some are power-building organizations with a mass base. The “25% Coalition” has gotten Boston’s mayor to endorse the 25% cut proposal and has sent letters to other cities’ mayors asking them to do the same. It recently organized a rally for jobs, and individual members are starting to build links with school and library fightbacks. A neighborhood peace group is providing volunteer time and resources to community organizations that lack both.
Meanwhile, a parallel network of community peace groups – the “Fund Our Communities-Cut Military Spending 25%” Task Force of United for Justice with Peace – is organizing city by city in eastern Massachusetts. Task Force members are following up on the Coalition’s letter to other cities’ mayors and are developing the national campaign described above. The Coalition and the Task Force are independent organizations with different race and class bases that are dividing up tasks and collaborating.
In Washington: The Obama administration is requesting enormous increases for the Pentagon and the war in Afghanistan. The budget process will stretch over some six months. This provides plenty of opportunities to attach “fund jobs and services” to the war budget and if possible, actually move some money. Potential vehicles include:
- A “dear colleague” letter calling for a major shift in national priorities: reduce military spending substantially, and use the savings to create jobs and save services. This letter would provide one nationwide demand for the thousands of organizations that are mobilizing against school cuts and library closings across the country. It would also supply a local tactic: join forces and get your congressperson to sign that letter! And it would start to establish “move the money” as a serious political choice in Washington.
- Adding “cut military spending” to anti-recession legislation and thus answering the question: “How are you going to pay for this stimulus bill?”
- Attaching “move the money” demands to other initiatives like Rep. Jan Schakowsky’s resolution to expose and defund military contractors.
- Rep. Alan Grayson’s “The War Is Making You Poor Act” (HR5353). This left-right initiative shifts money from wars into tax cuts, not jobs or human needs, but it does add more voices to the “cut war spending” chorus.
- Linking “move the money” to weapons cuts while demanding “just transition” policies for workers and communities that will lose jobs and tax revenue.
Congress is a key target because that's where budget decisions actually get made. Work on Capitol Hill can't be successful unless it is linked to and driven by grassroots work at the local level. But decisions about the military budget are made at the federal level, and without an arm of our movement "on the Hill," key domestic constituencies won't take any "move the money" campaign seriously.
Across the country: We need to build links between groups conducting similar efforts across the country. For example, people in Maine are relentlessly linking war spending and savage service cuts. Cities in Maine are starting to pass resolutions and urging the state legislature to tell Maine’s Congresspeople: Bring Our War Dollars Home! We are eager to connect with groups and individuals in other places who are already doing – or want to start – similar work. Please contact us (see below for contact information) if you are doing or want to do work like this in your community, city, or state.
With a majority of the U.S. population disillusioned about Washington's ongoing Middle East wars, and with an even larger majority angry about what's happening to jobs, services and education, conditions are ripe for a "move the money" effort to gather steam. Victories will not come easy; they will take years of focused work, not a few weeks of "emergency mode" mobilization. But that's what a durable peace movement integrally connected to a larger progressive movement needs. It will take time to develop the trusting relationships we need across the barriers of class, race, and different political outlooks, and time to amass the power to defeat the powerful reactionary, racist and militarist forces arrayed against us.
The Campaign to Fund Our Communities—Cut Military Spending 25% is one of several initiatives to “move the money.” Contact us at 617-491-3333, 25percentsolution@gmail.com, or www.25percentsolution.org.
Mike Prokosch is an economics educator and activist in Boston.
|
