The Costs of War for US Democracy

This Brown University Watson School discussion examines how US military operations and constant war preparedness have eroded American democracy. The panellists include Dr Nita Crawford (political scientist and co-founder of the Costs of War Project), Dr Linda Bilmes (budgeting and public finance expert), and Dr Jennifer Greenberg (feminist political geographer).

1. War and Democratic Backsliding

Dr Nita Crawford establishes the core argument that war and military mobilisation fundamentally undermine democracy through several mechanisms:

Historical warnings: James Madison (1795) warned that "of all the enemies of true liberty, war is perhaps the most to be dreaded" and that "no nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare."

The garrison state theory: Harold Lasswell (1944) predicted that continuous militarisation would lead to "specialists on violence" becoming the most powerful group in society, with democratic processes being sidelined even as democratic symbols remain.

Causal mechanisms linking war to democratic erosion:

Executive power concentration: War shifts power from courts and legislatures to the executive branch

Erosion of the rule of law: Continuous war normalises extrajudicial actions and reduces civil liberties

Fear-based politics: Permanent war fosters fear that justifies authoritarian measures

Economic distortion: Military spending increases wealth inequality and crowds out domestic welfare programs

Amplification of inequalities: War intensifies white supremacy, misogyny, and social divisions

2. The "Ghost Budget" - Hidden Costs of War

Dr Linda Bilmes reveals how war spending is systematically concealed from public scrutiny:

Definition: The "ghost budget" refers to war-related expenditures that are hidden, off-budget, or obscured through accounting practices, making it impossible for citizens or Congress to understand true costs.

Three main drivers of ghost budgeting:

Political convenience: Keeping war costs hidden reduces political accountability

Budgetary dysfunction: Government shutdowns and continuing resolutions create chaos that enables off-budget spending

Military preference: Flexible, unaccountable funding allows the Pentagon to maintain institutional priorities

Scale of hidden costs:

Official Pentagon budget exceeds $1 trillion for the first time

Post-9/11 wars have cost $8 trillion when including borrowing costs, veterans' care, and other hidden expenses

$11 billion in Iraq reconstruction funds simply "disappeared" with no accountability

War spending is financed through emergency supplementals and overseas contingency operations funds that bypass normal budget processes

Consequences:

Congress has lost control over the "power of the purse"

The public cannot make informed decisions about resource allocation

Military contractors gain outsized political influence (44% of the military budget goes to the private sector)

Interest on war-related debt is becoming unsustainable as interest rates rise

3. Public Beliefs About Militarism

Dr Jennifer Greenberg presents findings from ethnographic research across the United States examining how Americans think about military spending and militarism:

Dominant narratives:

Military spending is good for the economy: Widespread belief that defence spending creates jobs and prosperity, despite evidence that it's less economically beneficial than other forms of spending

The military keeps us safe: Deep-seated fear that without massive military spending, the US faces existential threats from foreign adversaries (China, North Korea, etc.)

Case study - Hawaii fuel leak: The Navy leaked 19,000 gallons of jet fuel into Oahu's primary aquifer in 2021, poisoning water for 93,000 people. Victims suffered severe health effects (neurological damage, autoimmune diseases, potential cancer risk), yet many still believed "we need some form of defence" and accepted militarisation as necessary for safety.

Contradictions and fear:

People are simultaneously harmed by military operations, yet believe they need the military for protection

Fear of foreign threats (racialised "others" like China) combined with fear of domestic threats (immigration, economic insecurity)

Narratives of US hegemony "under threat" justify ever-increasing military budgets

Barriers to change:

Abstract numbers (trillions of dollars) are incomprehensible to most people

Military spending lacks clear limits because costs are hidden

Dominant political narratives control how fear is channelled (toward immigration rather than toward economic inequality)

4. Gender, Race, and Militarism

The panellists emphasise how war and militarism reinforce and amplify existing inequalities:

Hyper-masculinity: The current administration's renaming of the Department of Defence to "Department of War," emphasis on "warrior ethos," and aggressive foreign policy rhetoric (e.g., threatening to kidnap Venezuela's president) reflect militarised masculinity that has been building for decades.

Racialised enemy-making: From post-9/11 Islamophobia to current anti-China rhetoric, war requires constructing racialised "others" as threats. This connects to domestic "white replacement theory" and exclusionary definitions of political community.

Gendered valuation: The contrast between unlimited spending on military (masculine-coded "safety") versus inadequate compensation for nurses (feminine-coded "care") illustrates how militarism distorts societal values and resource allocation.

Legal infrastructure: Surveillance and detention systems developed during post-9/11 wars are now being deployed domestically (e.g., ICE operations in American cities).

5. Erosion of Congressional Oversight

The panellists discuss how war has shifted power away from Congress:

Historical context: Congress ended the Vietnam War by cutting off funding, demonstrating the "power of the purse." Budget laws in 1974 attempted to restore Congressional authority.

Current dysfunction:

The War Powers Act allows presidents to act unilaterally for 90 days, creating "facts on the ground"

Continuous budgetary crises and short-term funding mechanisms prevent meaningful oversight

Congress has effectively ceded control over war-making decisions to the executive branch

Military independence: While senior military officers receive training in ethics and rule of law (providing some check on unlawful orders), the overall trend is toward executive dominance.

6. Hope and Resistance

Despite the sobering analysis, the panellists offer pathways forward:

Decreasing fear, increasing connection: Dr Crawford emphasises that fear narrows thinking and enables authoritarianism. Building community and fostering connection are essential antidotes.

Economic pressure points: Rising interest rates and declining international demand for US Treasury bonds may force a reckoning with unsustainable war spending.

Contested narratives: Even dominant beliefs about militarism are challenged by significant portions of the population, creating openings for change.

Research and activism: The panellists encourage younger scholars to engage with these topics, as understanding the connections between war, economy, and democracy is crucial for social change.

Peace movement strategy: Transforming everyday beliefs about militarism into more critical orientations is essential for countering fascism and authoritarianism.

The costs of war extend far beyond battlefield casualties and financial costs. Continuous war and war preparedness have fundamentally reshaped American democracy by concentrating executive power, eroding civil liberties, distorting economic priorities, amplifying racial and gender inequalities, and fostering a politics of fear. The "ghost budget" keeps these costs hidden from public view, undermining democratic accountability. Understanding these interconnected dynamics is essential for anyone concerned about democratic backsliding in the United States.