In an age when U.S. power can be projected through private mercenary armies and unmanned Predator drones, the U.S. military need no longer rely on massive, conventional ground forces to pursue its imperial agenda, a fact President Barack Obama is now acknowledging. But make no mistake: while the tactics may be changing, the U.S. taxpayer – and poor foreigners abroad – will still be saddled with overblown military budgets and militaristic policies.

Speaking January 5 alongside his Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, the president announced a shift in strategy for the American military, one that emphasizes aerial campaigns and proxy wars as opposed to “long-term nation-building with large military footprints.” This, to some pundits and politicians, is considered a tectonic shift.

Indeed, the way some on the left tell it, the strategy marks a radical departure from the imperial status quo. “Obama just repudiated the past decade of forever war policy,” gushed Rolling Stone reporter Michael Hastings, calling the new strategy a “[s]lap in the face to the generals.”

Conservative hawks, meanwhile, predictably declared that the sky is falling. “This is a lead from behind strategy for a left-behind America,” cried hyperventilating California Republican Buck McKeon, chairman the House Armed Services Committee. “This strategy ensures American decline in exchange for more failed domestic programs.” In McKeon’s world, feeding the war machine is preferable to feeding poor people.

Unfortunately, though, rather than renouncing empire and endless war, Obama’s stated strategy for the military going forward just reaffirms the U.S. commitment to both. Rather than renouncing the last decade of war, it states that the bloody and disastrous occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan – gently termed “extended operations” – were pursued “to bring stability to those countries.”

And Leon Panetta assured the American public that even with the changes, the U.S. would still be able to fight two major wars at the same time—and win. And Obama assured America’s military contractors and coffin makers that their lifeline – U.S. taxpayers’ money – would still be funneled their way in obscene bucket loads.

“Over the next 10 years, the growth in the defense budget will slow,” the president told reporters, “but the fact of the matter is this: It will still grow.” In fact, he added with a touch of pride, it “will still be larger than it was toward the end of the Bush administration,” totaling more than $700 billion a year and accounting for about half of the average American’s income tax. So much for the Pentagon’s budget being slashed – like we were promised – the way lawmakers are trying to cut those “failed domestic programs.”

The U.S. could cut its military spending in half tomorrow and still spend more than three times as much as its next nearest rival, China. That’s because China, instead of waging wars of choice around the world, prefers projecting its might by investing in its own country. On the other hand, the U.S. under the leadership of Obama is beefing up its military presence in China’s backyard, more interested in projecting its dwindling power than rebuilding its economy.

President Dwight D. Eisenhower once noted that every dollar going to the military is a dollar that can’t be used to provide food and shelter for those in need. Today’s obscene amount of military spending isn’t necessary if the administration wished to pursue the quaint goal of simply defending the country from invasion. Maintaining “the best-trained, best-equipped military in history,” as Obama says is his goal? That’s a different story – for a different purpose. Indeed, as Madeline Albright observed, possessing that kind of military might is no fun if you don’t get to use it, as Obama has with gusto in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, Libya and Uganda.

The truth is that the Obama administration’s “new” strategy is more of the same—a reaffirmation of the U.S. government’s commitment to militarism for the all the usual reasons: to promote American hegemony and, by extension, the interests of politically connected capital. And U.S. officials aren’t shy about that.

Indeed, throughout the strategy document the ostensible purpose for having a military — to provide national security — repeatedly takes a backseat to promoting the economic interests of the U.S. elite that profits from empire. Repositioning U.S. forces “toward the Asia-Pacific region,” for instance – including the stationing of American soldiers in that hotbed of violent extremism, Australia – is cast not just as a means of ensuring peace and stability, but guaranteeing “the free flow of commerce.” Maintaining a global empire of bases from Europe to Okinawa isn’t necessary for self-defense, but according to Obama, ensuring – with guns – “the prosperity that flows from an open and free international economic system.”

Of course, that economic considerations shape U.S. foreign policy is nothing new. More than 25 years ago, President Jimmy Carter – that Jimmy Carter – declared in a State of the Union address that U.S. military force would be employed in the Persian Gulf, not for the cause of peace, freedom and apple pie, but to ensure “the free movement of Middle East oil.” And so it goes.

Far from affecting change, Obama is ensuring continuity. “U.S. policy will emphasize Gulf security,” states his new military strategy, in order to “prevent Iran’s development of a nuclear weapon capability and counter its destabilizing policies” — as if it’s Iran that has been destabilizing the region. And as Obama publicly proclaims his support for “political and economic reform” in the Middle East, just like every other U.S. president he not-so-privately backs their oppressors from Bahrain to Yemen and signs off on the biggest weapons deal in history to that bastion of democracy, Saudi Arabia.

Obama can talk all he wants about turning the page on a decade of war and occupation, but so long as he continues to fight wars and military occupy countries on the other side of the globe, talk is all it is. The facts, sadly, are this: since taking office Obama doubled the number of troops in Afghanistan; he fought to extend the U.S. occupation in Iraq– and partially succeeded; he dramatically expanded the use of killer drones from Pakistan to Somalia; and he requested military budgets that would make George W. Bush blush. If you want to see what his military strategy really is, forget what’s said at press conferences and in turgidly written Pentagon press releases. Just look at the record.

Charles Davis has covered Capitol Hill for public radio and the international news wire Inter Press Service. More of his work may be found on his website.

Medea Benjamin is cofounder of CODEPINK: Women for Peace and GlobalExchange.

Former Vice President Dick Cheney manages to stay in the news defending torture and insisting the intelligence to invade Iraq was correct. He has praised President Obama’s use of targeted assassination and felt the White House should apologize to former Bush administration officials for criticizing enhanced interrogation. President Obama has increased drone attacks, killing supposed enemies without trial or due process. In these attacks innocent civilians including women and children have perished. The drone industry continues to receive a surplus of funds from the government to continue to operate while much needed programs in the country are being cut. CODEPINK cofounders Medea Benjamin and Jodie Evans speak out against manufacturer General Atomics, maker of the killer Predator and Reaper drones.

Donald Rumsfeld continues on the speaking circuit across the globe. He received a real patriotic welcoming from members of Veterans for Peace and CODEPINK while in Boston. Rumsfeld helped craft the invasion of Iraq and lied the country into war.

Rumsfeld found himself going toe-to-toe with Al-Jazeera news. If you recall, while working as cameraman with Al-Jazeera news, Sami al-Hajj was detained in Pakistan and wrongfully held for six years at the U.S. detention facility at Guantanamo.

Former President George W. Bush is expected to receive an un-welcoming from the city of Surrey in Canada later in the month. Amnesty International and other human right groups are urging the government of Canada to arrest the former president when he enters the country. Even though there has been a public outcry against Bush traveling to Canada, former Guantanamo detainee Moazzam Begg has been denied entry into the maple leaf country. Begg who has traveled throughout Europe, Northern Africa, Middle East and Central Asia speaking out against his wrongful detainment, flew into Montreal and was taken into custody and denied entry.

Karl Rove was the latest politician to get “glitter-bombed” by gay rights advocates in Minneapolis. Rove and former President Bush are opposed to same-sex marriage. Rove does not regret his or Bush’s stance on this issue.

The controversial media-mogul Rupert Murdoch whose company News of the World faced allegations of hacking the phone numbers of private citizens was speaking at an education conference in San Francisco. In true San Francisco spirit, Morduch was greeted by demonstrators from Occupy Sesame Street and US Uncut, an organization holding corporations accountable through creative actions.

As the 10^th anniversary of the US-led invasion of Afghanistan approaches, and as the deficit-cutting debate heats up, the rich and powerful in the US have taken an opportunity to throw themselves a massive pity party. Jon Stewart of The Daily Show has documented a small fragment of their grievances here. Something that he didn’t mention is that war profiteers, also known as “defense contractors,” have some grievances of their own: the so-called congressional super-committee, which has been tasked with finding $1.5 trillion in spending cuts in order to reduce the national deficit, might not reach an agreement on what to cut. If that happens, a procedure known as sequestration could take effect, triggering $1.2 trillion in cuts across the board—including $600 billion from the Pentagon budget.

War profiteers are in a panic over the prospect of losing $600 billion in funding, and have voiced their concerns:

Here’s what Marion Blakey, president of the Aerospace Industries Association (AIA), had to say about the matter:

Defense has been cut into the bone, and we cannot have that continue. As far as defense is concerned, the cuts have been taken that could be absorbed.

This is no joke, people: if defense spending is cut any further, we might not be able to afford to keep fighting the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq—or start any new ones. And we can’t have that, can we? Just listen to this dire warning from Jim Albaugh, president and CEO of Boeing:

If we had additional cuts of $600 billion … I would question whether or not we will have a fighting force that’s capable, or an industrial base left.

In other words, the war industry needs to be given billions of US taxpayer dollars each year, so that the US can remain in a state of perpetual war. And perpetual war is precisely what is required to continue lining the pockets of war profiteers!

Don’t believe me? Just ask industry lobbyists themselves. Actually, you don’t even need to ask them; just check out the website Second To None:

American leadership in aerospace and defense is being threatened by forces in Congress and the administration. The security of our troops, our technological future and our economic stability are all at risk. We must preserve jobs across the nation that keep our nation strong. Join us and act now before it is too late.

Well, thanks for the reminder, Second to None! If it hadn’t been for your slick website, I might have forgotten that terrorists want to destroy America, and that lining the pockets of war profiteers is the only thing standing between the United States of America and another 9/11.  It’s a good thing you’re not being too subtle about it, or else Congress might reduce your funding back to the level it was at in 2007!

Or not. Here’s what Senator Jon Kyl (R-AZ) had to say about the prospect of these horrific threats to war industry profit margins:

When we had our first meeting the chairman asked, “Well, what do we think about defense spending?” and I said, “I’m off of the committee if we’re gonna talk about further defense spending [cuts].”

Well, that’s a relief! Now that we know both parties on the super-committee have strong ties to the “defense” industry, you can definitely rest assured that you’ll still be able to profit from war, greed, and corruption, while the rest of us—you know, the American people you’re so passionate about “defending”—are suffering.

That is, unless the people come together to defend their healthcare, education, infrastructure, and job opportunities from devastating cuts, stand up to corporate greed, and demand that the super-committee bring our war dollars home!

What’s your definition of “waste”?

A recent bipartisan report revealed, among other things, that the amount of money wasted on war contracts in Afghanistan and Iraq amounted to at least $31 billion and as much as $60 billion. That is quite a lot of money. However, if your definition of “waste” is anything like mine, then the total amount of wasted money would be closer to $1 trillion—the total cost of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq as of this post.

Given that this particular report focused on wartime contracts, $60 billion is still too low an estimate for the total amount of wasted money. A total of over $206 billion has been outsourced to private contractors in Afghanistan and Iraq. The amount of money spent on no-bid contracts—the type most likely to lead to abuse and corruption—has tripled in the past decade: the Pentagon spent $50 billion on no-bid contracts in 2001, and over $140 billion in 2010.

The cozy relationship between the US government and defense contracting corporations is well-established, and by now, well-documented. This is especially true when we consider Dick Cheney’s role in securing government contracts for his company, Halliburton.

Halliburton’s annual report for 2002 openly admitted that the corporation considered the “war on terror” to be a “growth opportunity.” In other words, more wars equal more money, at least for Halliburton and other war profiteers. The prospect of less money from the Pentagon is causing an industry-wide panic, with several “traditional defense contractors” buying up companies that outsource administrative tasks in the health care industry, as a way to boost their profits. For these companies, peace is simply not profitable.

For the rest of us, however, peace is profitable. What would the world look like today if that $1 trillion in war spending had gone towards education, jobs, infrastructure, the environment, or health care?

Dr. King is of course best known for his work to realize a dream where his children would be judged by their character rather than by the color of their skin. He did not live to see an African-American First Family in the White House. As we now know, Dr. King was assassinated after years of FBI surveillance and harassment. His death followed an historic speech at the Ebenezer Baptist Church on April 30, 1967 on “Why I Am Opposed To The War In Vietnam.”

There is…a very obvious and almost facile connection between the war in Vietnam and the struggle I and others have been waging in America. A few years ago there was a shining moment in that struggle. It seemed that there was a real promise of hope for the poor, both black and white, through the Poverty Program. There were experiments, hopes, and new beginnings. Then came the build-up in Vietnam. And I watched the program broken as if it was some idle political plaything of a society gone mad on war. And I knew that America would never invest the necessary funds or energies in rehabilitation of its poor so long as adventures like Vietnam continued to draw men and skills and money, like some demonic, destructive suction tube.

“Money for war, but can’t feed the poor” is a slogan still chanted in the streets of U.S. cities devastated by recession, high unemployment, police brutality, and failure to invest in public education. The victims of a Congress that allocates over 50% of its discretionary budget to military expenditures are disproportionately Black, Latino and indigenous people. A recent study of women’s net worth found the median for white women was $41,000 as compared with $100 (yup, that’s one hundred dollars) for African-Americans and $120 for Latinas. When the U.S. Conference of Mayors met this summer in Baltimore – a city with 24% of residents receiving SNAP (food stamps) – they sent a  message to Washington DC: stop funding wars and bring the money home to provide urban areas with essential services and infrastructure.

But Washington doesn’t appear to be listening. President Obama is golfing in Martha’s Vineyard, and  eighty-one members of Congress are being wined and dined in Israel by an AIPAC affiliate. A so-called “Super Committee” of twelve legislators is tasked with making budget decisions on behalf of our elected representatives, but all twelve are deep in the pockets of corporations who profit from military contracts. Indications are that Obama will rely more heavily on Wall St. financing for his re-election campaign. What happened to government of, by, and for the people?

Dr. King would no doubt be appalled to see the country he fought so hard to improve galloping toward epic failure. U.S. military “Special Forces” now operate in 70 countries, we have 800+ military bases in other countries, and we’re bombing Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, Libya and occupying Iraq. We use depleted uranium weapons, and along with Israel we’re in the vanguard of using drones and other robots to kill innocent civilians.

Dr. King warned that “a nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual death.” His voice has now been silenced. It’s up to the rest of us to restore the voice of the people to the national helm. The common good must take priority over private profit, else spiritual death may be followed swiftly by environmental collapse, and the end of life on Earth. Time to repair the cracks in the nation’s foundation and rein in the military industrial complex now – before it’s too late.

In this age of austerity, all the politicians are talking about the need for spending cuts. But when it comes to shared burdens and slashed budgets, don’t expect the Pentagon to start holding bake sales, despite what you may have heard about reductions to its obscenely bloated funding.

Citing the U.S. government’s $14.3 trillion debt, lawmakers from both parties have seized the moment to try and attain long hoped-for cuts to Social Security and Medicare. But the recent deal does seem to include some good news for lovers of peace: the push for reductions would encompass the war-making part of the state. Indeed, according to a “fact sheet” released by the White House on the bipartisan compromise, the recent deal to raise the national debt ceiling “puts us on track to cut $350 billion from the defense budget over 10 years.”

Popular liberal pundits, such as The Washington Post’s Eugene Robinson and Ezra Klein, reacted by calling the supposed defense cuts “gigantic” and “unprecedented.” The White House says they’re the first spending reductions since the 1990s.

But don’t start cheering yet. As with any other major bipartisan initiative in Washington – the Iraq war and the Wall Street bailouts come time mind – there’s ample reason to be skeptical.

First, the cuts for 2012 are virtually nil. Security spending—which includes the Pentagon, State Department, Homeland Security, part of Veterans Affairs and intelligence spending—will be capped at $684 billion in 2012, a decline of merely $5 billion (less than 1 percent) from this year.

Yes, there are potentially far more drastic cuts down the road. In addition to the first $1 trillion in cuts over the next decade, a bipartisan Congressional committee must come up with an additional $1.5 trillion cuts by November — or trigger an automatic across-the-board reduction of $1.2 trillion starting in 2013, half of which would be expected to come from military spending.

However, expect this threat of deep military cuts – if cutting defense by 3 percent a year can be called “deep” when it has grown at a rate of 9 percent over the last decade – to be used as a bargaining chip by Democrats to extract concessions on tax increases from Republicans; don’t hold your breath expecting them to actually materialize. And with House Republicans already pledging to “fight on behalf of our Armed Forces,” by which they mean the military-industrial complex, don’t expect Democrats to put up much of a fight. Even were Obama so inclined, the idea that he will expend political capital on cutting military spending even as he expands the war on terror in Libya, Yemen and Somalia is doubtful, especially with an election looming.

But let’s put aside cynicism and accept the Obama administration at its word. Let’s assume the White House and Congress agree to cut military spending by $350 billion a year over 10 years. While the numbers may sound impressive out of context, that’s like draining an Olympic-sized pool with a glass from your kitchen: you’re going to be at it for awhile. The military budget has ballooned so much over the last decade that even if it was cut in half tomorrow the U.S. would still spend more than it did in 2001.

Indeed, the Obama administration’s proposed military budget for 2012 – the baseline from which future cuts are projected – is at its “highest level since World War II,” according to the non-partisan Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, “surpassing the Cold War peak” set by Ronald Reagan and a Democratic House of Representatives in 1985. Even if, instead of over a decade, the whole, entirely-subject-to-change $350 billion was cut from the defense budget in one fiscal year alone, the U.S. would still lead the globe in military spending, devoting twice as much to guns and bombs as its closest and much more populous rival, China. And that’s without factoring in the cost of any new wars.

Of course, official budget numbers don’t tell the whole story. Factoring in interest payments for past military expenditures, spending on veterans’ care and other defense-related items not included in the Pentagon budget, economist Robert Higgs estimates the yearly grand total spent on the military is $1 trillion or more, with over half of the federal income tax going to the military. And that massive national debt that’s being used to justify cuts in social spending? Nothing has contributed to it more than the dramatic rise in military spending over the last decade, a factoid you might have missed if you get your news from a television.

The tragic irony is that debt caused in large part by foreign military adventures is being used to further a class war here at home, even as the bloodshed continues in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and beyond. Too bad that, rather than denounce this morally and fiscally damaging addiction to militarism, politicians prefer to orchestrate the decline of the American empire from within.

Medea Benjamin is cofounder of Global Exchange and CODEPINK.

Charles Davis is an independent journalist. Follow him on Twitter and check out more of his work on his website.