Wars and rumors of wars fill the pages of our newspapers with accounts of deaths, injuries and destruction of homes and infrastructure. For example, to review the news, in Gaza, “more than 41,000 Palestinians have been killed, and over 93,000 have been injured.” About 78% of the structures in Gaza have been damaged or destroyed. Dr. Chiara Redealli, a research fellow at the Geneva Academy of International Humanitarian Law and Human Rights, reports that today there are “more than 110 armed conflicts (worldwide) … Some have started recently, while others have lasted for more that 50 years.”
More than 45 armed conflicts are currently taking place throughout the Middle East and North Africa. Africa has more than 35 non-international armed conflicts. Asia is the theatre of 19 non-international armed conflict, involving 19 armed groups as well as two international armed groups — between respectively India and Pakistan and between India and China. Europe has 7 armed conflicts.
The conventional understanding of the motivation to maintain a war posture is to prepare for any eventuality calling for the need to defend the country, seek revenge, reclaim land, implement justice or establish freedom from strangers, tyrants and kings. Maintaining this posture comes with a high cost — the will of the citizenry to sacrifice and suffer when it’s needed. It also requires the acceptance of the high economic cost. The United States spent $874 billion on national defense in fiscal year 2024, according to the Office of Management and Budget. There is much conversation about the necessary cost to maintain a war posture or an active war.
However, I would suggest that there is a deeper, darker conversation to be had in regard to the incentive to perpetuate wars. While the costs may be high for the average citizen who must contribute taxes, contribute their young men and women to the military and endure the scarcity of a war economy, there are a few who may profit from the scourges of wars and their aftermath.
The most obvious profit takers are the companies that manufacture weapons and military supplies. There are also ancillary companies that sell medical supplies; sell food to non-profit aid organizations; sell temporary shelters, such as tents, for refugees; and sell private military contracts. Perhaps, not often thought about as a profit of war, is the rebuilding necessary after the war comes to an end. The more often there are wars, the more lucrative it is for the construction companies. For example, Nadine El Bawab reports for ABC News, “It will take about $70 billion to rebuild Gaza, according to an operational damage and needs assessment conducted jointly by the United Nations, the European Union and the World Bank.” There is a huge profit opportunity in the reconstruction of war-torn countries.
Therefore, removing the profit motive would weaken one of the supports needed to make going to war feasible, except under direr circumstances. It would take away the incentive to extend a war for more financial gain, making a few people rich while the majority pay the price. It would spread the cost to everyone. It would mean that the war machine would have to operate as a not-for-profit entity. Or an alternative might be to set aside all profits and use them for the rescue of the innocent victims of the war and to finance the reconstruction of the war-torn cities and countryside. Taking profit out of the war equation may not guarantee an end to war, but it may motivate a search for less costly alternatives. That would be a rumor of war worth spreading.
John Buttrick writes from his Vermont Folk Rocker in his Concord home, Minds
Crossing. He can be reached at johndbuttrick@gmail.com.