WASTEFUL AND DANGEROUS MILITARY EXPENDITURES

A SHORT HISTORY OF MILITARY SPENDING (cont.)

In 1984, a program for the development of a new fleet of long-range strategic bombers at a further projected cost of Fourteen Billion Dollars (over Thirty Billion in 2011 Dollars) was launched in the United States.  Our deficit had by now risen from $78.9 Billion to $221 Billion ($477 Billion), making us the greatest debtor nation in the history of mankind.  It has been described as the purchase of "artificial [or unusable] strength at the expense of real strength--the viability and integrity of the American economic system."  (David Halbersatam, The Next Century) 

Another costly military affair during this period was the long war between Iran and Iraq, which had consumed over Four Hundred Billion ($836 Billion) Dollars in the funds of those nations by 1985.

Moreover, by this time, total world military expenditures had increased to almost a full Trillion
(over Two Trillion) Dollars.  Half of this was attributable to the United States and the Soviet Union, the undisputed world champions of military extravagance.

It continued into the late 1980s.  Our "Stealth" project was launched in 1988.  It consisted of the acquisition of 132 bombers having an "averaged" cost of close to Three hundred Million Dollars ($570 Million) each.  The total Bill for this endeavor was therefore projected to amount to approximately Thirty Six Billion ($68 Billion) Dollars.

In 1989, issues began to arise concerning cleanup of nuclear waste that our activities thus far had created.  It was estimated that the cost of such a cleanup would amount to $92 Billion ($166 Billion) or so.

1991  saw the United States and a few of its allies' entry into the first Gulf War.  Short though it was, it required an expenditure of over Sixty Billion ($99 Billion) Dollars for the military effort; and total eventual cost to both sides and the surrounding region in the sum of $676 Billion ($1,115 Billion).

On Christmas Day in 1991, Russia's Mikhail Gorbachev declared personal jpoy at the fact that the Cold War, and the consequent arms race which had crippled his nation's economy, was over.

Nevertheless, by 1995, it was estimated that global military spending since World War II had reached the fantastic total sum of Thirty to Thirty five Trillion ($44 to 51 Trillion) Dollars)!

The coming of the Twenty first century has brought no relief. Consider, for example, the fact that our participation in the second Iraq War has thus far cost the United States well over a Trillion Dollars.  And there are estimates out there warning that the eventual price tag--when you count our efforts in Afghanistan and Pakistan, plus various postwar and other ancillary costs--might reach as high as Ten Trillion.  It is truly mind-boggling to imagine how much good could have been adccomplished for mankind and the world, had theae mammoth sums been applied toward poeaqceful and constructive purposes.

                                                         * * * * *

WASTEFUL AND DANGEROUS MILITARY EXPENDITURES

A SHORT HISTORY OF MILITARY SPENDING (cont.)


France suffered a huge financial strain, and enormous budget deficits during the 1950s, caused in large part by its military efforts in what would become its former colonies in Indochina and Africa.  In fact, it is reported that during the years 1954 to 1960, twenty eight percent of its national budget was expended upon warfare against guerillas in its African territories.  And by 1954, the U.S. had itself spend close to a billion dollars to aid the French in their efforts to resist the communist insurgency taking place in Vietnam.

By 1954 as well, single projects began to be undertaken at vast public expense.  For example, a mammoth aircraft carrier, the "Forrestal," was launched by the U.S. Navy, at a cost to our citizens of almost Two Hundred Million Dollars (over a Billion and a half, in 2011 Dollars).  The U.S. government thus began to regularly award multi-billion dollar defense contracts to companies such as Lockheed.  Moreover, by 1959, we were budgeting over Five Billion Dollars (almost Thirty nine Billion Dollars in 2011 funds) for missile development.

President Eisenhower began to express concern over the apparent dominance of what he termed the "military-industrial complex."  Composed of our Defense Department ands a number of leading defense contractors, it was feared that too much power was accumulating in the hands of a few, to the resultant detriment to other programs, and the welfare of our people as well.

As time marched forward, new increases in spending continued on as well.  Russia escalated its defense budget to greater heights, so as to possess and exhibit new and improved jet fighters and giant bombers.  President Kennedy's response on behalf of the United States included an increase in our military budget by almost $3.5 Billion Dollars (over $26 Billion in 2011 figures).  As a result of this, our national debt in 1962 exceeded $300 Billion (almost Seven and a half Trillion if it were 2011) for the first time.

By the mid nineteen sixties, this country's involvement in Vietnam became direct and vastly expanded.  By 1966, said participation was costing us Two Billion Dollars per month (over $14 Billion--I continue to express all sums in 2011 Dollars, using the increase in the Cost Of Living Index as a multiplier, in the parentheses following).  And by the time we left, we had expended a total sum of over Three Hundred Billion (One and a quarter Trillion) Dollasrs.  Yet, these years are described as an age of extreme arrogance.  While carrying on a financially devastating and militarily frustrating war in Vietnam, our adminstration spoke about "guns and butter," and turned, it is said, to "tricky bookkeeping"--including the borrowing of over Twenty Billion (almost $140 Billion) Dollars a year--as a means of justification, in its pursuit of popular support.  The net result developed into a massive deficit and consequent "crushing inflation." 

 During the mid to late sixties, Russia came under the Brezhnev regime; which adopted additional steps to achieve equality with the United States as regards its strategic arms and naval resources.  America's President Johnson responded in a similar manner; and the ongoing arms race simply flared up more brightly. 

During this decade, the U.S. additionally recognized a need to commit itself to a Five Billion ($32 Billion) Dollar program for the establishment of an anti-ballistic missile defense system composed of Nike and Spartan missiles.  We appeared to be operating under a delusion that we possessed a bottomless pit filled with wealth and treasure, as President Johnson presented Congress, in 1968, with a record annual budget of $168 Billion (a little over a Trillion).

By 1970, the arms race was costing the participants nore than Two Hundred Billion (almost a Trillion and a quarter) Dollars per year--$80 Billion ($463 Billion) of which was being expended by the United States.  It entailed the employment of many millions in the military; and more than twice as many in auxiliary occupations, such as the manufacture of arms and armaments.  It comprised almost half of America's federal budget.  At the same time, an even higher percentage of the Soviet Union's economy was being thus consumed.  In fact, during these years, only one fourth of the Soviets' economic output was devoted to consumer goods; the rest consisted of production of weapons and other military equipment.  In many other nations as well, extravagent military spending drained national economies, and resulted in neglect of other, more socially beneficial, and frequently clearly necessary, public programs. 

 Not long thereafter, in 1972, our next President, Richard Nixon, proposed an even more reckless budget for the United States, featuring a deficit of over 25 Billion (134 Billion) Dollars--the largest ever.  This too was in large part attribulable to military spending.

Thus, from being in possession of one of the world's strongest economies in 1964, we had travelled, within a single decade, into very serious debt.  Among the vehicles that got us there were the Vietnam conflict, and our reckless spending upon various other military and defense programs during these years.  Both Russia and the United States continued their binge of buying and building weapons, and were thus caught in the inescapable, ever-rising, spiral that constitutes an arms race.  Much of the rest of the world more or less followed suit; and by 1980, our planet's military expenditures increased to more than  a Half Trillion ($1.3 Trillion) Dollars.

President Reagsan sought to increase America's military budget by an additional 32 Billion ($79 Billion) Dollars in 1981.  And the Star Wars program proposed by him in 1983 would require still more phenomenal increases in spending.  This brought some critics to predict that our deficit could thereby one day reach the trillion dollar mark (n.b., as of today [September 17, 2012], it was $674 Billion more than a Trillion Dollars).

WASTEFUL AND DANGEROUS MILITARY EXPENDITURES

A SHORT HISTORY OF MILITARY SPENDING (cont.)

Being involved in a war has at times been observed as temporarily assisting a country's economy.  For it has the effect of stepping up employment and business activity, as demands for increased amounts of war materials and equipment are received and filled.  At the same time, jobs become more plentiful, as large numbers of qualified workers are called away to join the military and fight in the war itself--many of them never to return.

It has, in fact, been said that a country's economy has never achieved full employment without the stimulus of military spending.  A form of indirect evidence of this is reflected in the report that the stocks on the board at the New York Stock Exchange dropped dramatically, in 1916, following Germany's first overtures seeking peace.  And thus, based upon the same hypothesis, President Roosevelt and World War II are often jointly credited with pulling the United States out of the Great Depreswsion of 1929.

                                                         * * * * *

World War II (and the years leading up to it) was not without its own somewhat corresponding monetary costs as well.  By January of 1940, Franklin Roosevelt, in anticipation of what was to come, asked Americans for $460 Million (over $7 Billion in 2011 Dollars in new taxes, and for a total allotment, via the Military Supply Act, of $1.8 Billion (almost $29 Billion in 2011 Dollars).  By January, 1941, the U.S. Congress was asked to approve an "all out anti-Axis" defense budget totaling $10.8 Billion (over $173 Billion in 2011 Dollars). 
(The Consumer Price Index for 1940 was 14.0; it was 225 for 2011.  225 divided by 14 equqls 16.07.  I thus multiplied all of the above numbers by 16.07.)

Between July, 1940, and July, 1945, the American arms industry ran at "full steam," producing 71,000 naval vessels, 100,000 aircraft, 372,000 artillery pieces, 90,000 tanks, twenty million small arms, and 41 billion rounds of ammunition.  And sure enough, as has been previously conjectured, with the coming of war, the United States enjoyed full employment.  In fact, in order to fill gaps in the labor market, women were recruited, in some cases for the first time, to assume jobs that would have ordinarily been filled by their male counterparts.

Employment statistics were similarly favorable in other parts of the world as well.  This is attributable in part to the circumstance that millions upon millions of able-bodied males were now in the armies and navies of China, England, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Romania, Russia, etc., etc.  These numbers would eventually swell to over fifty million, as the war continued.

President Roosevelt's 1942 budget for the United States was the largest ever:  59 Billion Dollars ($814 Billion)--of which $52 Billion (over $717 Billion) was to be consumed in the war effort.
(In this, and every following instance, I have multipolied by the appropriate figure, based upon that year's Consumer Price Index, and have added the figure in 2011 Dollars, in parentheses, following each sum.)

By 1943, this was increased to $100 Billion ($1.3 Trillion) for military spending alone.  By 1943 as well, we were producing a ship a day, and an airplane every five minutes--many of which were to be inevitably sunk, or shot from the sky.

Our 1944 war budget was close to the same figure as that of 1943:  $99.7 Billion (a few Billion short of $13 Trillion).  By that year, the U.S. was producing forty percent of the world's armaments.  There was continued full employment; business prospered, and more people were said to be better off than ever before.

Russia's factories were likewise busy producing equipment for warfare.  For example, during the first half of 1944, her factories turned out 14,000 tanks, as well as 16,000 airplanes.

And what was to be our crowning World War achievement, the development of the atomic bomb, consumed a total of Two Billion Dollars (approximately $25 Billion), spent in secret, and culminating in the most dreaded instrumentality that man has ever produced.  Bringing instantaneous death to thousands, it ended the War; leaving the United States with a total national debt of $258 Billion (over $3 Trillion)--a sixfold increase over where said debt stood in 1941.

Europe also wound up in an economic, as well as physical, shambles.  England was virtually bankrupt.  Interestingly, Russia's loss of so many millions of men caused large numbers of women to necessarily come to fill the ranks of the country's professional specialists, and many other areas of employment as well.

                                            * * * * *

Subsequent to the Second World War, new military endeavors were to further dissipate mankind's assets.  This country's 1948 peacetime budget, as submitted to Congress by President Truman, was in the amount of $18 Billion (almost $168 Billion), the major portion of this sum being earmarked for "national defense."  By 1949, we had also committed to helping our NATO allies to rearm themselves; pledging, that year, the sum of $5.8 Billion (almost $55 Billion) for that purpose alone.

Also taking place during the late nineteen-forties was the birth of Israel.  The new nation sustained great financial burden in order to develop the military forces and air power it needed for survival as a separate country in a hostile Arab world. 

In July, 1950, our President Truman, seeking to protect our nation, sought to enlarge and extend the horrors of our new age of atomic weaponry.  He requested $260 Million (almost Two and a half Billion) for the development of a more dreadful successor to our atomic bomb, to be called the "hydrogen bomb."

At about the same time, conflict arose in Korea, in which the United States perceived an obligation to participate.  Plans for such participation included an escalation, in 1950, of our number of armed forces personnel to almost a million.  During these years, the United States spent more than Fifteen Billion Dollars (close to $140 Billion) upon its efforts in the Korean conflict.  And our military pop;ulation was eventually increased to almost three million in order to facilitate our efforts therein.

The 1950s have been termed the "Cold War" years; and in fact gave birth to a new age of military spending.  During this period, billions were expended, by many nations, upon research and development--as new and better ways to wreak havoc and destruction upon each other were sought, discovered, and perfected.  By this time, high levels of military and defense spending had become permanent fixtures in our federal budget, and in those of a number of other countries as well.  For the United States and Russia, this included further development of our nuclear arsenals; and, later, the launching of space programs, wherein each participant exerted duplicate efforts, aimed at achieving the same goal:  dominance and superiority beyond the immediate bounds of our planet.

                                                       * * * * *

WASTEFUL AND DANGEROUS MILITARY EXPENDITURES

War between nations is an expensive proposition.  It is furthermore a wasteful proposition--in terms of lives, talent, resources, and the routine of daily life as well.  Military preparedness and national defense are similarly costly.



A SHORT HISTORY OF MILITARY SPENDING

As long ago as 1799, Austria, Britain, and the Netherlands began to levy income taxes for the purpose of funding their wars against Napoleon.  And in the mid-nineteenth century, the two segments of the United States began resorting to a similar method in order to finance their respective roles in the Civil War.  In 1903, England reported that one-third of its budget was being regularly expended upon the Boer War and its military expedition in China.  And in 1910, long before the beginnings of World War I, the United States was already burdened by a defense budget of Two Billion Dollars.

By 1913, the nations that would comprise the combatants in the coming Great War had already amassed huge standing armies, millions of trained reserves, and almost a thousand ships and submarines.  Britain increased its military budget to 29 Million Pounds; France to 754 Million Francs; and Germany's Reichstag voted to furnish the equivalent of $510 Million in 1913 U.S. Dollars for its army.

Then, the dreaded event began.  Military budgets began to be consumed in earnest.  Britain issued an estimate in May, 1915, that its expenses during the first eight months of warfare had already reached the equivalent, in 1915 American funds, of Four Billion Dollars.  Europeans were said to work from dawn until dusk, on farms and in factories, to produce food and equipment for their armies.  At home, they conserved fuel and electricity so that more could be sent to the front.  They invested what leftover income they might have in Liberty Bonds, to assist in financing the warfare.  Exports of war paraphernalia issued forth prolifically from the United States.  By 1916, it was estimated that over Five Million Dollars (in 1916 Dollars) worth of munitions were shipped each day, from the port of New York alone.

Sixty three million men were mobilized.  And when it was over, the total gross financial cost of the War was estimated at $185 Billion, in 1914 Dollars--or more than $4 Trillion, when converted to 2011 Dollars.
 (To convert from 1914 to 2011 Dollars [figures for 2012 are not yet available], I multiplied the costs in 1914 Dollars by 22.49--because the annualized Consumer Price Index [CPI] is cited as "10.0" for 1914 [see the "Historical Consumer Price Index,"--www.InflationData.com]; and, per the same source, as "224.9" for 2011.  [$185 Billion times 22.49 equals $4,160,650,000.])

Britain owed the United States $4.6 Billion ($103.4 Billion) in war loans.  France, Italy, and Russia owed Britain $6.5 Billion ($146.1 Billion).  And Germany was notified that it owed a whopping $35 Billion ($787.1 Billion) in reparations.
(These figures are also quoted in 1914 Dollars, followed by a conversion to 2011 Dollars, pursuant to the aforesaid "Historical Consumer Price Index" in the parentheses   that follow.)  It is no wonder that Europe's position in the world economy was said to have been impaired beyond recovery.

But worse, the war cost a great deal more than that in human resources.  France sacrificed one half of its male populastion between the ages of twenty and thirty-two; and other countries involved in the war suffered similar losses.  Many who might have become leaders in government or industry during the 1920s and 1930s were dead.  Almost twenty percent of Oxford's students were killed.  Furthermore, tens of millions were wounded.  Some would eventually die; many more would be forced to endure the rest of their lives as cripples.

                                                  * * * * *

PLEASE LEAVE A COMMENT--HERE, OR VIA E-MAIL, AT oneworld@tampabay.rr.com

RE THE MILITARY

It is my position that in a united and borderless world, there would be no need for armies--because armies are primarily formed and maintained for the purpose of fighting one another, on behalf of their respective nation-states, if, as, and when circumstances should so dictate.  In a world consisting of but a single nation to begin with, it would be impossible for "nation A" to attack "nation B."

Of course, security for the populace of a place is always to be upheld, preserved, and protected.  But, domestically, this is the function of the police force.  And, in a single united and borderless world, the entire world will actually be a single domestic place.

This sort of atmosphere has actually somewhat existed, during times such as the relatively long period of peace that took place in Europe between 1815 and 1848.  During these years, it is said, the armies of Europe became "instruments of security," directed to their own respective populations--as opposed to being instruments of "international competition," directed against foreign enemies.

The military are said to have a "vested interest in armament," which is described as a "constant and powerful influence, averse to...conceptions which can...achieve genuine peace." (Clark and Sohn, Introduction to World Peace)  Therefore, other than a single worldwide police force, having sufficient personnel and equipment to preserve the peace, there should be no arms or armies.

If there were no national armies, to attack on behalf of their respective nation-states, or fight to defend and preserve said nation-states' respective sovereignties, there would be no need to train newly recruited police officers in the art of violently thrusting bayonets into dummies who represent the enemy, shouting "Kill!  Kill!"--as per a recent description of somewhat typical goings-on at a military training camp.  There would be no further need to carry on tests of germ warfare--similar to the 239 that were acknowledged to have been conducted by the United States prior to 1977.  And there would be no instances such as that which took place during 1979, when a computer error brought our military close to taking action in defense against what turned out to be a false report of an impending missile attack.

This concept of our military forces being utilized only for internal security was suggested in 1959 by Russia's Nikita Kruschev, when he proposed to the United Nations that all nations disarm down to the point whereby each shall possess and maintain only police units.  Such would obviate the necessity for the continued existence of a "military profession"--at least as regards the arts implicit in the mutual infliction of death and destruction upon people and property on one or the other side of a border line.

There will, of course, continue to be crime and criminals within society.  However, these instances would be simply regarded as lawless behavior; and their perpetrators appropriately dealt with according to then-extant provisions of duly enacted law.

Another segment of contemporary society which has a "vested interest" in conflict and warfare, and even in the mere threat thereof, is the armaments industry.  The need for such products would be greatly reduced, both in the quantity as well as in the nature and potential deadliness of the equipment still needed by a worldwide police force.  For it is obvious that a police department does not require thousands upon thousands of bombs, and airplanes to drop them; nor tanks, battleships, or other such devices to rain death and devastation upon entire populations.  This change would have a great impact upon the jobs of thousands of armament workers, and the correspoonding profits now being reaped by their employers.

The result would probably be a measure of resistance on the part of many of these interests to the establishment of that which I propose.  This is understandable.  But it is submitted that the end to organized wholesale murder and mayhem that my proposals can effect is reasonable justification for the loss of a certain amount of jobs or profits.  It is, moreover, likely that many of these industries, and their employees, will be readily adaptable to producing and rendering other, more beneficial, goods and services; thus keeping actual loss of jobs and profits to a minimum.

                                                        * * * * *

There have been numerous instances when seemingly knowledgeable persons have expressed opinions that the keeping of large armies and/or many armaments actually serves to promote and preserve peace.  In 1923, General Kenichi Oshimi of Japan voiced this view, saying: ""The height of folly is to imnagine that the cutting of armaments would assure world peace.  World peace is best maintained when nations are armed to the hilt."  In 1945, General George Marshall of the United States expressed a similar position, warning that if the U.S. were to lay down its arms, disaster worse than World War II would occur.  It was perhaps for these sorts of reasons that American General Patton recommended that our schoolchildren should study military and nursing arts in order to prepare foer the next war.  (Parenthetically, he is best remembered for the newspaper account of his slapping a hospitalized soldier for something that he called "cowardice.")

In 1949, Secretary of State Dean Acheson said the same thing in a different way.  In words of endorsement for the formation of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, a collective defense organization composed of a number of Western European nations and the United States, Secretary Acheson recxommended that only strength will preserve peace.  In that same year, American General Carl Spaetz cited the atomic bomb and the B-36 airplane as the greatest forces for the preservation of worldwide tranquility.

A couple of years later, General Eisenhower counseled congress that the best way to "keep the Cold War from turning hot" was to send unlimited numbers of American troops and military supplies to Europe.  Later, as President, he remarked that "a soldier's pack is not so heavy a burden as a prisoner's chains."  And he ridiculed Adlai Stevenson's proposed plan for a ban on hydrogen bombs as an idealistic "cheap and easy" way to achieve peace.

In 1964, Senator Barry Goldwater of Arizona, during his unsuccessful campaign for the presidency, referred to military power as the key to peace.  And in 1983, President Reagan, speaking about the nuclear arms race, stated that we had to "find peace through strength [provided through nuclear weaponry])." 

Nevertheless, and notwithstanding the above, it must be pointeed out that these statements and remarks were all made in the context of the existence of a number of individual nation-states that might interact, compete, or experience conflict with one another.  In a unified world, guided by a single governing entity, there would no longer exist a need for each memnber of a group of nations to keep a supply of soldiers and weapons on hand, in preparation for potential warfare with one another.  Instead, mankind could and should work together, in worthwhile endeavor toward the solution of our many remaining real needs and problems.

                                                 * * * * *

PLEASE leave a comment--here, or via E-mail at oneworld@tampabay.rr.com







 

RE THE MILITARY

Connections between the military and the powers that be have been prevalent in a number of places, including Central America.  Examples can be cited describing situations where the ultimate source of power within the government of a Central American nation has been the armed forces.

One such case in point would be the happenings in Nicaragua beginning in the 1930s. Power was already  primarily in the hands of the National Guard, a military organization fostered and supported by the United States.  Its chief leader, General Anastasio Somoza, eventually installed himself as president in 1937; and ruled the country with an iron hand until his assassination in 1956.  Cirruption, self-dealing, and repression of the poor were widespread and commonplace under Somoza, as well as under the subsequent rules of his sons Luis and Anastasio, Jr., until 1979.  In that year, after a decade or more of armed revolt, by a leftist oppostion group known as the "Sandanistas," control, via military action, was wrested from the Somoza regime.

Nicaragua continued to be a battleground, and was the scene of another ten or more years of repression and military conflict.  Fierce and frequent fighting raged on between leftist-leaning Sandanistas, who received aid from Russia, and exiled remnants of the prior National Guard, now known as "Contras," who were given assistance in the form of military supplies from the United States.

Thus, until the region was permnitted to arrive at peaceful solutions to its problems in the late 1980s, Nicaragua was an arena of armed opposing military and semi-military forces.  In addition, this chronic state of conflict that prevailed for decades resulted in conditions of economic devastation and widespread unemployment for most of the country's hapless citizens.

Another example would be Honduras, where after a bloody military coup that took place in 1963, power resided in the military.  This was favored, once more, by American investment interests, who owned most of the banana industry there--as well as most everything else in the country--so as to guarantee stability and continuation of the status quo.  Since 1981, after restoration of a "civilian" government, a "constitutional facade" greets the unaccustomed eye--but real power continues to actually abide in the hands of the army.

In Guatemala, a series of military leaders, or "caudillos," have run the country on and off--but mostly "on"--for generations; and power has for the most part continuously resided within the army.  In the 1980s, military leaders had even stooped to fighting amongst themselves over the spoils that were available for the taking.  Here too, as per the varied but similar situations within Central America, the contrast between the Mayan underprivileged and the white Spanish-speaking coffee-growing elite is marked and pathetic.  Attempts at reform were met with death to 65,000 at the hands of "security forces" between the 1960s and 1980s; as well as to another 120,000 during a civil war which took place in 1982.  Once again, we learn that the U.S. investment sector, as well as American fears of the installation of a communist regime, prompted United States support for the Guatemalan military as a means of strict control, and conservation of the status quo.

In El Salvador, similar vast contrasts between the great peasant majority and the forty or so economically dominant families who owned the coffee plantations, banking institutions, and most of the rest of the country, precipitated attempts at reform, tens of thousands of murders by right-wing death squads, and a civil war in the early 1990s that claimed at least 70,000 lives.  Moreover, any hope for democracy was doomed as a result of alliances between these wealthy oligarchs and the military, whose actions were primarily directed toward their benefit.  Here again, the United States' fear of communist infiltration caused American support for the military; and the army was frequently "a law unto itself."

Panama was controlled by military people for many years.  In 1968, General Omar Torrijos became president, and imposed a harsh form of authoritarian leadership upon his people.  After his death in 1981, his successor, General Manuel Noriega, governed even more brutally and unscrupulously, garnering huge profits from illegal drug activities, until his arrest and imprisonment by American invasionary forces in 1990.

Within this frequently embattled region, only Costa Rica can be credited with doing something along the lines of one of the themes of these paragraphs:  it abolished its army in the late 1940s.  The country apparently maintains only a police force for the purpose of maintaining internal security.  Sgtrangely, Costa Rica has been basically spared from civil war; and enjoys the highest per capita income of all the Central American countries.

These few examples, pertaining to a small sector of our world, portray the role, power, and frequent ruthlessness of military and semi-military entities, wherever they are permitted to acquire and maintain political power.

                                                 * * * * *

On this eleventh anniversary of a national tragedy that had worldwide significance and effect, it should be realized that anger and hatred, by members of any national, racial, religious, cultural, or other faction, should not be permitted to surface and be acted upn so as to result in that which took place on that dark day in 2001.

Instead, we must begin to annihilate any and all factionalism, wherever it exists; and to recognize our common traits, and our common basic needs and desires.

We must each begin to do anything we can personally do to promote peace and happiness within our immediate environs--so that it can all eventually unite and blossom into a just and beneficent result for all of civilization, mankind, life, and the world.