The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewTom Engelhardt Archive
A Truthout Progressive Pick Interview with Tom Engelhardt
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information


Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

Mark Karlin: How much money has gone to the U.S. war on terror and what has been the impact of this expenditure?

Tom Engelhardt: The best figure I’ve seen on this comes from the Watson Institute’s Costs of War Project at Brown University and it’s a staggering $5.6 trillion, including certain future costs to care for this country’s war vets. President Trump himself, with his usual sense of accuracy, has inflated that number even more, regularly speaking of $7 trillion being lost somewhere in our never-ending wars in the Greater Middle East. One of these days, he’s going to turn out to be right.

As for the impact of such an expenditure in the regions where these wars continue to be fought, largely nonstop, since they were launched against a tiny group of jihadis just after September 11, 2001, it would certainly include: the spread of terror outfits across the Middle East, parts of Asia, and Africa; the creation — in a region previously autocratic but relatively calm — of a striking range of failed or failing states, of major cities that have been turned into absolute rubble (with no money in sight for serious reconstruction), of internally displaced people and waves of refugees at levels that now match the moment after World War II, when significant parts of the planet were in ruins; and that’s just to start down a list of the true costs of our wars.

At home, in a far quieter way, the impact has been similar. Just imagine, for instance, what our American world would have been like if any significant part of the funds that went into our fruitless, still spreading, now nameless conflicts had been spent on America’s crumbling infrastructure, instead of on the rise of the national security state as the unofficial fourth branch of government. (At TomDispatch, Pentagon expert William Hartung has estimated that approximately $1 trillion annually goes into that security state and, in the age of Trump, that figure is again on the rise.)

Part of the trouble assessing the “impact” here in the U.S. is that, in this era of public demobilization in terms of our wars, people are encouraged not to think about them at all and they’ve gotten remarkably little attention. So sorting out exactly how they’ve come home — other than completely obvious developments like the militarization of the police, the flying of surveillance drones in our airspace, and so on — is hard. Most people, for instance, don’t grasp something I’ve long written about at TomDispatch: that Donald Trump would have been inconceivable as president without those disastrous wars, those trillions squandered on them and on the military that’s fought them, and that certainly qualifies as “impact” enough.

What makes the U.S. pretension to empire different from previous empires?

As a start, it’s worth mentioning that Americans generally don’t even think of ourselves as an “empire.” Yes, since the Soviet Union imploded in 1991, our politicians and pundits have proudly called this country the “last” or “lone” superpower and the world’s most “exceptional” or “indispensable” nation, but an empire? No. You need to go someplace off the mainstream grid — Truthout or TomDispatch, for instance — to find anyone talking about us in those terms.

That said, I think that two things have made us different, imperially speaking. The first was that post-1991 sense of ourselves as the ultimate winner of a vast imperial contest, a kind of arms race of many that had gone on since European ships armed with cannon had first broken into the world in perhaps the fifteenth century and began to conquer much of it. In that post-Soviet moment of triumphalism, of what seemed to the top dogs in Washington like the ultimate win, a forever victory, there was indeed a sense that there had never been and never would be a power like us. That inflated sense of our imperial self was what sent the geopolitical dreamers of the George W. Bush administration off to, in essence, create a Pax Americana first in the Greater Middle East and then perhaps the world in a fashion never before imagined, one that, they were convinced, would put the Roman and British imperial moments to shame. And we all know, with the invasion of Iraq, just where that’s ended up.

In the years since they launched that ultimate imperial venture in a cloud of hubris, the most striking difference I can see with previous empires is that never has a great power still in something close to its imperial prime proven quite so incapable of applying its military and political might in a way that would successfully advance its aims. It has instead found itself overmatched by underwhelming enemy forces and incapable of producing any results other than destruction and further fragmentation across staggeringly large parts of the planet.

Finally, of course, there’s climate change — that is, for the first time in the history of empires, the very well-being of the planet itself is at stake. The game has, so to speak, changed, even if relatively few here have noticed.

Why do you refer to the U.S. as an “empire of chaos”?


This answer follows directly from the last two. The United States is now visibly a force for chaos across significant parts of the planet. Just look, for instance, at the cities — from Marawi in the Philippines to Mosul and Ramadi in Iraq, Raqqa and Aleppo in Syria, Sirte in Libya, and so on — that have literally been — a word I want to bring into the language — rubblized, largely by American bombing (though with a helping hand recently from the bomb makers of the Islamic State). Historically, in the imperial ages that preceded this one, such power, while regularly applied brutally and devastatingly, could also be a way of imposing a grim version of order on conquered and colonized areas. No longer, it seems. We’re now on a planet that simply doesn’t accept military-first conquest and occupation, no matter the guise under which it arrives (including the spread of “democracy”). So beware the unleashing modern military power. It turns out to contain within it striking disintegrative forces on a planet that can ill afford such chaos.

You also refer to Washington D.C. as a “permanent war capital” with the generals in ascension under Trump. What does that represent for the war footing of the U.S.?

Well, it’s obvious in a way. Washington is now indeed a war capital because the Bush administration launched not just a local response to a relatively small group of jihadis in the wake of the 9/11 attacks, but what its top officials called a “Global War on Terror” — creating possibly the worst acronym in history: GWOT. And then they instantly began insisting that it could be applied to at least 60 countries supposedly harboring terror groups. That was 2001 and, of course, though the name and acronym were dropped, the war they launched has never ended. In those years, the military, the country’s (count ‘em) 17 major intelligence agencies, and the warrior corporations of the military-industrial complex have achieved a kind of clout never before seen in the nation’s capital. Their rise has really been a bipartisan affair in a city otherwise riven by politics as each party tries to outdo the other in promoting the financing of the national security state. At a moment when putting money into just about anything else that would provide security to Americans (think health care) is always a desperate struggle, funding the Pentagon and the rest of the national security state continues to be a given. That’s what it means to be in a “permanent war capital.”

In addition, with Donald Trump, the generals of America’s losing wars have gained a kind of prominence in Washington that was unknown in a previously civilian capital. The head of the Defense Department, the White House chief of staff, and (until recently when he was succeeded by an even more militaristic civilian) the national security advisor were all generals of those wars — positions that, in the past, with rare exceptions, were considered civilian ones. In this sense, Donald Trump was less making history with the men he liked to refer to as “my generals” than channeling it.

What is the role of bombing in the U.S. war-making machine?

It’s worth remembering, as I’ve written in the past, that from the beginning the war on terror has been, above all (and despite full-scale invasions and occupations using hundreds of thousands of U.S. ground troops), an air war. It started that way. On September 11, 2001, after all, al-Qaeda sent its air force (four hijacked passenger jets) and its precision weaponry (19 suicidal hijackers) against a set of iconic buildings in the U.S. Those strikes — only one of them failed when the passengers on a single jet fought back and it crashed in a field in Pennsylvania — may represent the most successful use of strategic bombing (that is, air power aimed at the civilian population of, and morale in, an enemy country) in history. At the cost of a mere $400,000 to $500,000, Osama bin Laden began an air war of provocation that has never ended.

The U.S. has been bombing, missiling, and drone-assassinating ever since. Last year, for instance, U.S. planes dropped an estimated 20,000 bombs just on the Syrian city of Raqqa, the former “capital” of the Islamic State, leaving next to nothing standing. Since the first American planes began dropping bombs (and cluster munitions) in Afghanistan in October 2001, the U.S. Air Force has been in the skies ceaselessly — skies by the way over countries and groups that lack any defenses against air attacks whatsoever. And, of course, it’s been a kind of rolling disaster of destruction that has left the equivalent of World Trade Center tower after tower of dead civilians in those lands. In other words, though no one in Washington would ever say such a thing, U.S. air power has functionally been doing Osama bin Laden’s job for him, conducting not so much a war on terror as a strange kind of war for terror, one that only promotes the conditions in which it thrives best.

What role did the end of the draft play in enabling an unrestrained U.S. empire of war?

It may have been the crucial moment in the whole process. It was, of course, the decision of then-president Richard Nixon in January 1973, in response to a country swept by a powerful antiwar movement and a military in near rebellion as the Vietnam War began to wind down. The draft was ended, the all-volunteer military begun, and the American people were largely separated from the wars being fought in their name. They were, as I said above, demobilized. Though at the time, the U.S. military high command was doubtful about the move, it proved highly successful in freeing them to fight the endless wars of the twenty-first century, now being referred to by some in the Pentagon (according to the Washington Post) not as “permanent wars” or even, as General David Petraeus put it, a “generational struggle,” but as “infinite war.”

I’ve lived through two periods of public war mobilization in my lifetime: the World War II era, in which I was born and in which the American people mobilized to support a global war against fascism in every way imaginable, and the Vietnam War, in which Americans (like me as a young man) mobilized against an American war. But who in those years ever imagined that Americans might fight their wars (unsuccessfully) to the end of time without most citizens paying the slightest attention? That’s why I’ve called the losing generals of our endless war on terror (and, in a sense, the rest of us as well) “Nixon’s children.”


Tom Engelhardt is a co-founder of the American Empire Project and the author of The United States of Fear as well as a history of the Cold War, The End of Victory Culture. He is a fellow of the Nation Institute and runs His sixth and latest book, just published, is A Nation Unmade by War (Dispatch Books).

(Republished from TomDispatch by permission of author or representative)
• Category: Foreign Policy • Tags: American Military, Military Spending 
Hide 4 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. Rational says:


    Thanks for the interesting article, Sir.

    Most of the money has been spent on wars on the Middle East. We have no interest in the Middle East and these people are no threat to the US. The only reason US is in the Middle East is to protect Israel. Almost all these wars are for Israel.

    Just the direct cost of this war on terror, say 6 trillion, to protect the 6 million Jewish Israelis comes to 1 million dollar per Israeli. If you count the Judaists wordwide (12 M), it comes to ½ million spent per Jewish person.

    Landwise, it is 1 million dollars per acre.

    This is the most expensive land in the world, paid for by US Dollars. You can buy land most places for less.

    Why don’t we just give this as cash to the Judaists so they can buy land anywhere in the world for this money, as a free gift, if they promise to never involve us in any wars ever again and stop bothering us.

    • Replies: @m___
  2. m___ says:

    Why don’t we just give this as cash to the Judaists so they can buy land anywhere in the world for this money, as a free gift, if they promise to never involve us in any wars ever again and stop bothering us. and the article as a whole, Engelhardt calls it a “piece”

    There seems to be a consensus on both sides(the author Engelhardt and yourself, as regarding historical distortion, willing confusion between money and power, and a little snip of truth here and there(creating waste lands, ecological nihilism of the long term, toxicity, and incapacitated infrastructure was accepted as enough a justification by lack of regime change and more granular engineering of order and dominance). A true. Granular became granular bombing, and when that doesn’t work, “bombing into the stone age”.

    The public globally, in the West, does not care, does not comprehend, is not an issue, then they never were over the course of history. The elites decant public funds into private wealth, by trading bombs for cheap labour, and getting rid of commerce competition. Israel, as a mercenary state and an off-shore paradise for the power elites, Gaza as a shooting range, our elites not requiring any physical courage, are happy in the short term. Coin it “military capitalism”, no financial capitalism can longer do without.

    War results have been a moving target indeed. Fascism was never the target, International Jew frustration with Hitler was the rallying factor, took the initiative, there was no desire of the American populace to put up with a war. This is an outrageous lie, well documented in the raw. Hitler was on the defensive before the “war” started.

    After the war, the US basically gifted the Bolsheviks the West of Russia belt up to Berlin, in full consent with Churchill. International Jewry created the conflict, and got the spoils. Jewish influence was later phased out by Stalin …but then Hallelujah, there was Israel and the US to move to.

    There is a global elite, it is globalist, it is intellectually no better as to copy the International Jewish idea and concepts proven through recent history, and for simplicity’s sake leaving unattended some necessary variables. As we see it, the global elites between bouts of infighting must win. It is a matter of logistics. The price? A wasteland as big as the planet, some Gaza like ‘pockets” of “terror” and some areas that might be left to shuttle to and from for the men standing.

    It would be silly to be trapped in debating conventional lies, that are so well embedded in the politically correct. Start with the above, and start weighting the infatuation of an Engelhardt from there.

  3. m___ says:

    Some slyness, and cowardice is not strange to you, Tom Engelhardt and company. You have some of the most easily debunked duds as writers to your editor’s every whim. Your sponsoring must be single sided. The bandwidth of your pages is apt for VHF.

    Gross to prevent my comment from being published. Is it “International Jew” as a term used that bothers you, or does “Hitler” in any context, miraculously turn any comment into spam?

  4. … in January 1973, in response to a country swept by a powerful antiwar movement and a military in near rebellion as the Vietnam War began to wind down. The draft was ended, the all-volunteer military begun, and the American people were largely separated from the wars being fought in their name.

    Thus began the period of Carte Blanche the DOD has enjoyed along with a blank check ever since. Meanwhile, except for the current good times blip, we have as a nation been on the downslide in every important category.  While we fuss endlessly about Russia, China eats our lunch while dining with our former allies.

Current Commenter

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone

 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments have been licensed to The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Tom Engelhardt Comments via RSS
Personal Classics
Eight Exceptional(ly Dumb) American Achievements of the Twenty-First Century
How the Security State’s Mania for Secrecy Will Create You
Delusional Thinking in the Age of the Single Superpower