John Buttrick writes from his Vermont Rocker in his Concord home: Minds Crossing. He can be reached at johndbuttrick@gmail.com.

Outside my window is a view of pine trees, some scrub oaks, and a few red maples. Cones and seeds drop to the ground from their branches. They give life to squirrels who bury them, chipmunks who store them in their underground burrows, and birds that peck away at this winter food. Some of the seeds are destined to survive and sprout in the spring to grow into new trees. And thus, the drop of a cone gives life for generations to come.

However, unlike the trees dropping life-giving cones on the ground around my home, the country is prepared to drop life-ending rockets and bombs and employs 11 combatant commands from Pentagon headquarters (The Hill). The U.S. is contributing lethal weapons for use by Ukrainian forces in response to Russian actions such as a strike destroying an apartment building in Dnipro, Ukraine, killing at least 21 people. President Joe Biden has signed the Fiscal 2023 National Defense Authorization Act into law that drops $816.7 billion into the Defense Department coffers.

Also, Secretary of Defense, Lloyd J. Austin III, drops on us National Defense Strategy goals for the next decade that includes, “seizing new strategic opportunities.” “Seizing new strategic opportunities” can easily be interpreted as a euphemism for seizing offensive war strategies. It gives homage to the old cliché “the best defense is a good offense.” Defensive wars, defensive football, defensive chess-playing are never winning strategies. This observation is the catalyst for morphing from “defensive” to “offensive” weapons of war.

The contemporary meaning of “national defense” has become “national offense.” However, the word “defense” continues to be used as a more acceptable concept for people’s moral sensibilities. “Defense” is the name, but “offense” is the game.

Here’s where the parable of the pinecones comes in. The natural inclination to provide nourishment and welfare for a life-enhancing future has been exchanged for a deadly future of weapons and war materials to overpower nations and cultures — fewer falling pinecones, many falling bombs. General Eisenhower warned against the military industrial complex. Unheeded, the military complex now thrives in every state, promising high profits in manufacturing military weapons and all the components for the war machine.

The profits are sustained by winning military contracts from the government. Members of Congress compete for those contracts to be awarded to industries in their state. They argue, more military contracts mean more jobs for their citizens, more company profits, and more state income through taxes on companies and wage earners.

However, there is a logical fallacy in this theory of increased wealth for the country and its citizens. A military industrial nation manufactures products designed to destroy or to be destroyed. Bombs and rockets explode. Instruments of destruction wound and kill and demolish buildings and infrastructures. All the $816 billion military budget goes up in smoke. There is nothing left to invest in people, goods, and services that would grow the economy.

For example, when a farm tractor is manufactured, its value is transferred to the food produced on the farm. The sale of the food generates more income. The people purchasing the food pass on its value through income from their work and the goods and services they provide. And so, it continues. The original value of the tractor is passed on to benefit many people, increasing in value with each exchange, like the ripple effect of a stone dropped into a pond. The value of destructive military weapons ends with their use. Nothing is passed on but debt for the nation and its people. Falling bombs do not promise new life. Claiming that manufacturing military weapons and hardware is good for the economy is a fantasy.

Blinded by this illogical fantasy, political leaders seek other ways to compensate for the ignored source of military debt: exploding rockets, bombs and moral injury to combatants. Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas) recently wrote, “spending cuts should focus on NON-DEFENSE discretionary spending” for healthcare, education, environmental programs, and more. So, the reality is exposed. A war economy, merging together defensive weapons and offensive weapons, robs money and resources from the foundations of a healthy democracy.

A better way is to go on the offense. Increase supports for life-enhancing efforts such as health, education, and environmental concerns. Let defense be cutting the “defense” budget, weakening the war economy, and protecting human life and the life of the earth. Looking out my window on this sunny winter day, I choose fallen pinecones over dropped bombs.

]]>