RSS
More Feeds












God's Politics

Beating the F-22 Fighter Jet into a Ploughshare

by Amanda Hendler-Voss 03-04-2009

“People will judge you on what you can build, not what you destroy.”
- President Obama

A longstanding theological debate has finally made it to the halls of power on Capitol Hill—how do we go about the business of beating our “swords into ploughshares?”  The current economic maelstrom has spurred renewed focus on national spending priorities.  The verdict?  A bloated Pentagon budget starves our nation of essential investments in health care, education, and energy independence. Last month, the president prefaced the release of his budget with a commitment to reform, “so that we are not paying for Cold War-era weapons systems we don’t use.”

He could have been talking about the F-22 fighter jet.  Designed for air-to-air combat with a Soviet interceptor that was never built, military experts agree the F-22 is unnecessary, expensive, and ill-adapted to the types of wars in which we are currently engaged.  Original estimates priced the jet at $35 million.  Cost-overruns, research, and development, however, have ramped up the price tag to $355 million per plane.  Dubbed “the fighter jet without a fight,” not a single F-22 mission has been flown in Iraq or Afghanistan since the start of the wars.

The U.S. already possesses 135 of these jets, with an additional 52 on the way. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates wisely believes that’s more than enough, but congressional pork-lovers disagree.  Employing a tactic called political engineering, the arms industry maximizes congressional influence by spreading jobs throughout a surprising number of districts.  In a tempestuous economy, these bedfellows have conspired to frame weapons manufacturing as a jobs program.  With production of the jet scheduled to halt in 2011, Lockheed Martin launched a PR battle claiming 95,000 jobs will be lost when the jet is discontinued.  CNN reports that many of these jobs would actually be moved to other projects.  And economists widely agree that weapons manufacturing is one of the least efficient ways to create jobs.  Re-investment in education and mass transit, for example, creates twice as many jobs as investing in the military sector.

So, what will it be, swords or ploughshares?  In a season of both hope and despair, perhaps the most important question we face as a nation is whether we want to invest in weapons designed to destroy or the rebuilding of America for our children.  Where do our priorities lie?  God said to the Hebrew people: “I call heaven and earth to witness against you today that I have set before you life and death, blessings and curses.  Choose life so that you and your descendants may live.”  As we weather an unrelenting economic storm, our essential choices remain the same.  Set before us are life and death.  Remembering the prophet Micah’s words, let’s favor national spending priorities that cut costly weapons so that we can invest in a better, more peaceful world for our children.

Rev. Amanda Hendler-Voss is the Faith Communities Educator at Women’s Action for New Directions (WAND) and the author of WAND’s Faith Seeking Peace curriculum which can be downloaded at www.faithwand.org.

Categories: War & Peace
Share or bookmark this post:
  • email
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • del.icio.us
  • Digg
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Mixx
  • NewsVine
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Technorati
  • Yahoo! Bookmarks
advertisement


Comment Code of Conduct

I will express myself with civility, courtesy, and respect for every member of the Sojourners online community, especially toward those with whom I disagree—even if I feel disrespected by them. (Romans 12:17-21)

I will express my disagreements with other community members' ideas without insulting, mocking, or slandering them personally. (Matthew 5:22)

I will not exaggerate others' beliefs nor make unfounded prejudicial assumptions based on labels, categories, or stereotypes. I will always extend the benefit of the doubt. (Ephesians 4:29)

I will hold others accountable by clicking "report" on comments that violate these principles, based not on what ideas are expressed but on how they're expressed. (2 Thessalonians 3:13-15)

I understand that comments reported as abusive are reviewed by Sojourners staff and are subject to removal. Repeat offenders will be blocked from making further comments. (Proverbs 18:7)

  • jonabark
    Good article. Modest proposal. Will Obama and the Democrats begin to put the future of north american republic ahead of the nasty military industrial complex and its imperial wars of aggression that Eisenhower, King, Jesus, Bono, Pogo, Zinn, and the other sane people warned us against ? Will they stand up and make some substantive cuts.

    Does GP support this surge in Afghanistan, the continued Military support for Israel, 100,000 Americans to stay in Iraq? When Does GP show some spunk, stand up to these crummy policies and demand a substantial end to Imperial violence. In the bigger global war between the rich and the poor, which side is Obama really on?
  • squeaky
    CACTOLITH!
  • squeaky
    Ahh--that's the joke...
  • ad hominem. i win.
  • kevin47
    I gave it to squeaky because you are an ass.
  • OMG I gave you the last word, SHUT UP already.
  • letjusticerolldown
    In my opinion, if it doesn't get squeezed, along with the Federal bureaucracy, it is going to maintain too large of a mission, in too many places, with too many weapon systems and unsustainable. It is amazing to me that we are the world's military budget--and we are told we can't maintain a large-scale police action in Iraq, for the long term. That we are depleting personnel and equipment. We are not making priority decisions. We are not maintaining infrastructure of equipment/supplies. We are not free to engage in other actions. But we can bomb all of life into oblivion.

    My suspicion is Obama (due to fiscal constraint) will squeeze the military budget -- but it will not be matched with a strategic reworking of foreign policy, security treaties, and military strategy. We will remain with great capacity to blow things up anywhere at anytime, able to snoop at everyone's communication and movement, able to posture and make lots of threats--and beyond that with too much stuff, trying to do way too much, and burying us in debt.
  • kevin47
    YOu can have it.
  • kevin47
    Do you live in Minnesota?
  • BuckeyeDon
    Fun-filled if one is a geologist, that is. All those -liths get confusing! I suppose that's the point.
  • squeaky
    Yep! Good job with the Greek root. Cactolith--a cactus shaped rock...

    It's a bit of a geology joke--check it out on Wiki for the fun-filled actual definition.
  • BuckeyeDon
    cactolith:
    Lemmie guess--a geological term. "Lithos" means rock in Greek.

    D
  • squeaky
    No-it's MY last word! Mine! Mine!
  • Eric77
    Last word! :)
  • Maybe we can finish the conversation face to face.
  • squeaky
    I'm claiming the last word on this exchange. And that last word is...

    cactolith
  • To put it another way:

    "That's not what I insisted, and this conversation certainly won't have any substance if you insist on putting words in my mouth."

    Or is that not what you mean by that?
  • I didn't ask an idle question. The "problem" of the F-22 and the debate about its value is a shining example of the problem that an out of control M-I.C. presents. A problem that we were warned would crop up if we were not careful stewards, which we have not been. We are now faced with the problem that we have a system which refuses to be downsized and, by having all the guns, can ensure we have no means by which to downsize it. Even if the F-22 were clearly and obviously to everyone involved an utterly useless plane, the M-I.C. would still have all the trump cards to prevent us from ever removing it from the budget. I brought all this up to illustrate the larger point that the specifics of any given program are, at this point, entirely tangential. The horse is out of the barn. The system is run away and it is far, far too late to try to rein it in now.

    And you're still wrong about what you think I claimed Eisenhower said. If you were correct about what I'd said, you'd be correct that I got it wrong. But since you've completely misinterpreted it, your assertion that I have it wrong has no meaning, which is why I have no interest in attempting to refute it. So once again, you are right. If I'd said what you think I said, your refutation would be right on the money. But since that's not what I said, it has no meaning.
  • kevin47
    That's why idle questions aren't particularly conducive to conversation. If I ask "how do we eradicate women?", I can't really get upset when people make assumptions about why I'm asking the question.

    But you are still wrong about what Eisenhower said.
  • I just re-read this.

    You misunderstood my initial post, and have from that point on been demanding that I then refute your claim that something I never said is wrong, by refuting your -opinion- that I'm wrong, because you can't offer an actual -argument- to back up your -opinion- that I'm wrong, about something I never said because I won't defend something I never said against a difference of opinion. And now you're refusing to give me the last word after I've agreed that if I'd said what you thought I said, you'd be right.

    No wonder non-believers hate us.
  • good.
  • kevin47
    I do.
blog comments powered by Disqus
click here for comments tech support
advertise here
  • MOST VIEWED
  • MOST COMMENTED
  • MOST RECENT
advertise here
advertise here
advertise here
advertise here


HOME | SUBSCRIBE | DONATE | TAKE ACTION | MAGAZINE  
SOJOMAIL | BLOGS | MEDIA | EVENTS | RESOURCES | ABOUT US  
Sojourners | 3333 14th Street NW, Suite 200 | Washington, DC 20010  
Phone 202.328.8842 | Fax 202.328.8757 | sojourners@sojo.net  
Unless otherwise noted, all material © Sojourners 2008