Latest news with #CostsofWarProject
Scroll.in
27-07-2025
- Politics
- Scroll.in
Starvation in Gaza: How Israel is attempting to hide the truth of its brutal war
On October 7, 2023, hours after Palestine group Hamas led unprecedented incursions into southern Israel, killing 1,195 people and taking about 250 hostage, Palestinian photojournalist Mohammad al-Salhi was shot dead while reporting on Tel Aviv's reprisal on Gaza. The 29-year-old al-Salhi had been wearing his press vest and helmet. He had grown up in the Bureij refugee camp, near a fence separating Gaza from Israel. This barricade, a 'symbol of division and apartheid' became a 'recurring theme in his work', said one online tribute to him. The same day, at least two more Palestinian journalists were killed in the course of work. The deaths were roundly condemned. The Unesco director-general noted that 'media workers provide verified news in times of conflict and must therefore be protected against all forms of attack'. The Israelis ignored the advisory. By the end of the fortnight, 24 journalists were among the 6,000 Palestinians killed by the Israelis in Gaza. As Israel's attacks continued and casualties mounted, 141 media workers were dead by December 2024 – and the toll in the territory had risen to 46,376. Estimates of the number of media workers killed since Israel began its war on Gaza vary from 186 (according to the Committee to Protect Journalists) to 232 (according to the Costs of War Project run by the Watson Institute for International and Public Affairs). During those 21 months, Israel has flattened large portions of Gaza. At least 92% of all homes have been destroyed or damaged, the United Nations says, as have 70% of all structures – schools, universities, hospitals, administrative buildings and businesses. More than 90% of Gaza's population has been displaced, some as many as 10 times. The majority of Gazans have little access to regular supplies of food, water or adequate healthcare. Since October 2023, the territory's population is estimated to have fallen by 6% – about 100,000 residents have fled, while almost 60,000 have died. Because Israel has tightly controlled foreign journalists visiting Gaza, the world has relied on Palestinian media workers to report on the horror being visited on the territory. The killings of these journalists is not a coincidence. Israel's stranglehold on the media is part of its strategy to project its ruthless attacks on Gaza as a just war. Tel Aviv has acknowledged that it has assassinated some journalists, claiming that they were 'terrorists' who were aiding Hamas. Other journalists, say their colleagues, have been deliberately targeted. As Palestinian journalist Ibrahim Abu Ghazaleh told The Intercept after an Israeli strike on a cafe where reporters gathered to work, 'In Gaza, a camera is a threat. When you witness the truth, you become a target.' Earlier this week, as the effects of Israel's tight control of food convoys into Gaza intensified the spectre of starvation, four Western news organisations issued an alarming joint statement. 'We are desperately concerned for our journalists in Gaza, who are increasingly unable to feed themselves and their families,' said The Associated Press, AFP, BBC News and Reuters. 'For many months, these independent journalists have been the world's eyes and ears on the ground in Gaza. They are now facing the same dire circumstances as those they are covering.' As a result of the courageous reporting from Gaza, there is evidence that the conscience of some world leaders is finally being pricked. This week, France became the first G7 nation to announce that it would recognise the state of Palestine. In the United Kingdom, 221 members of parliament signed a letter asking their prime minister to follow suit. On the street, millions of people across the Western world have participated in marches demanding justice for Palestine. None of this is likely to move Israel to end its occupation of Palestine. As it persists with its campaign to starve Gaza, Tel Aviv knows that starving Palestinian journalists helps it build a barricade that hides from the world the full extent of its crimes against humanity. Here is a summary of the week's top stories. Dhankhar's exit. The Election Commission on Wednesday started preparations to conduct the election for a new vice president, two days after Jagdeep Dhankar resigned from the post. Dhankhar had cited medical reasons for stepping down with immediate effect on Monday, which was the first day of the Monsoon Session of Parliament. A day after Dhankhar resigned, Prime Minister Narendra Modi wished him good health and said that the Rajya Sabha chairperson had 'got many opportunities to serve our country in various capacities'. Several Opposition leaders raised questions about the timing of Dhankhar's resignation. Congress leader Jairam Ramesh said that there were 'far deeper reasons' behind Dhankhar's decision. Samajwadi Party MP Javed Ali Khan said that Dhankhar had appeared in good health on Monday and that 'it did not seem like there was a health issue'. In search of justice. The Supreme Court stayed a Bombay High Court order acquitting 12 persons accused in the 2006 Mumbai train blasts case. However, it said that those who were released following the verdict will not have to go back to jail while the matter is being heard. The case pertains to the seven bomb blasts in suburban trains on Mumbai's Western Railway line on July 11, 2006, killing 189 persons and injuring 824. Following a trial under the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, a special court had in October 2015 convicted the 12 persons. However, on Monday, the High Court acquitted all of them holding that the prosecution had 'utterly failed' in establishing their guilt. Five of the accused persons had been sentenced to death. The Maharashtra government challenged the acquittal on Tuesday. A trade deal. India and the United Kingdom have signed a Comprehensive Economic Trade Agreement. The free trade agreement will benefit Indian farmers, the micro, small and medium enterprises sector, footwear and jewellery exports, as well as the seafood and engineering goods sectors, Prime Minister Narendra Modi said. UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer said that the trade deal would help British workers in cutting-edge manufacturing, and would also benefit whiskey distillers across Scotland and the service sector in London, Manchester and Leeds. New Delhi and Britain had announced the agreement in May after more than three years and 14 rounds of negotiations. The free trade agreement was signed during Modi's visit to the UK. Also on Scroll last week
Los Angeles Times
22-07-2025
- Business
- Los Angeles Times
Billions for weapons, rather than troops, won't make us safer
The Pentagon got a whopping $150-billion increase in the budget bill passed by Congress and signed by the president July 4. That will push next year's proposed Pentagon budget to more than $1 trillion. Most of that enormous amount will go to weapons manufacturers. A new report by the Quincy Institute and the Costs of War Project at Brown University found that for the period from 2020 to 2024, more than half of the Pentagon budget — 54% — went to private companies. That figure has climbed considerably since the immediate post-Cold War period of the 1990s, when the contractor share was 41%. The surge of spending on the Pentagon and its primary weapons suppliers won't necessarily make us safer. It may just enrich military companies while subsidizing overpriced, underperforming weapons systems, even as it promotes an accelerated arms race with China. While weapons firms will fare well if the new budget goes through as planned, military personnel and the veterans who have fought in America's wars in this century will not. The Trump administration is seeking deep cuts in personnel, facilities and research at the Veterans Affairs, and tens of thousands of military families have to use food stamps, a program cut by 20% in the budget bill, to make ends meet. The $150 billion in add-ons for the Pentagon include tens of billions for the Trump administration's all-but-impossible dream of a leak-proof Golden Dome missile defense system, a goal that has been pursued for more than 40 years without success. Other big winners include the new F-47 combat aircraft, and the military shipbuilding industry, which is slated for a huge infusion of new funding. The question of how to allocate the Pentagon's orgy of weapons spending is complicated by the fact that there are now two powerful factions within the arms industry fighting over the department's budget, the traditional Big Five, composed of Lockheed Martin, RTX (formerly Raytheon), Boeing, General Dynamics and Northrop Grumman, and emerging military tech firms such as SpaceX, Palantir and Anduril. The Big Five currently get the bulk of Pentagon weapons spending, but the emerging tech firms are catching up, winning lucrative contracts for military-wide communications systems and antidrone technology. And there will be more such contracts. Even after the public falling out between Elon Musk and the president, the emerging tech firms have a decided advantage, with advocates such as Vice President JD Vance, who maintains close ties with his mentor and political supporter Peter Thiel of Palantir, and dozens of staff members from military tech firms who are now embedded in the national security and budget bureaucracies of the Trump administration. Meanwhile, the tech sector's promises of a new, revolutionary era of defense made possible by artificial-intelligence-driven weapons and other technologies are almost certainly overstated. If past practice tells us anything, it is that new, complex high-tech weapons will not save us. The history of Pentagon procurement is littered with 'miracle weapons,' from the electronic battlefield in Vietnam to Ronald Reagan's 'impenetrable' Star Wars missile shield to networked warfare and precision-guided bombs used in the Iraq and Afghan wars. When push came to shove, these highly touted systems either failed to work as advertised, or were irrelevant to the kinds of wars they were being used in. Just one example: Despite the fact that the Pentagon spent well over $10 billion to find a system that could neutralize improvised explosive devices in Iraq and Afghanistan, only modest progress was made. Even after the new technology was deployed, 40% of could not be cleared. Technology is a tool, but it is not the decisive factor in winning wars or deterring adversaries. An effective military should be based on well-trained, well-compensated and highly motivated troops. That means taking some of that 54% of the Pentagon budget that goes to contractors and investing in supporting the people who are actually tasked with fighting America's wars. But to be truly safe, we need to fight fewer wars by adopting a more realistic strategy that emphasizes diplomacy and close cooperation with allies, and that resorts to force only when there is a major, direct threat to U.S. security. A more balanced strategy would be much less likely to put U.S. troops in high-risk situations like the nation-building efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan. Instead of letting corporate special interests distort our foreign and military policies, we need to press for an approach that puts strategic considerations first. That will mean taking steps to reduce the power of the arms makers, new and old, through steps such as stronger measures to limit the revolving door between government and industry. And we need to bring more independent voices into the Pentagon's budget discussions. Lockheed Martin, Palantir, SpaceX and other companies shouldn't have undue influence over decisions on how much to spend on our military, and what to spend it on. That's no way to make a military budget, and no way to defend a country. William D. Hartung is a senior research fellow at the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft and the co-author, with Stephen Semler, of the report 'Profits of War: Top Beneficiaries of Pentagon Spending, 2020 to 2024.'
Al-Ahram Weekly
10-04-2025
- Politics
- Al-Ahram Weekly
Trump's transformation of the US
The arrival of Donald Trump to the US presidency for the second time in 2025 marked a significant departure from the long-standing principles that had defined US domestic and foreign policy for decades such as the promotion of democracy, the protection of human rights, and adherence to multilateralism. Instead, his arrival marked the development of a new political doctrine that prioritised populism, unilateralism, and transactional diplomacy. Trump cannot be accurately classified as part of the far-right, and nor can he be placed within the traditional centre-right. A closer examination of his rhetoric and actions reveals that he does not align with the neoconservatives led by former president George W Bush and former US defence secretary Donald Rumsfeld either. His ideas do not fully correspond with old-school conservatives, such as the 19th-century US president Abraham Lincoln, despite Trump's admiration for him. Instead, Trump represents the foundation of a new right. His tenure has introduced a new era of realpolitik and ideological flexibility that has redefined the US global posture and its internal democratic values. The Trump administration is not only restructuring US institutional policies but also fundamentally altering the moral rhetoric that has traditionally underpinned US governance. Indicators that signal this transformation can be gathered under four main pillars, the first being Trump's foreign policy pivot sharply in favour of Israel and disregarding the traditional US role as a mediator in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. His first administration recognised Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and moved the US embassy in the country there, a controversial decision that sparked an international backlash in 2017. An analysis of the data related to Trump's support for Israel reveals a striking pattern. In March this year, Trump invoked emergency powers to expedite the delivery of approximately $4 billion in military aid to Israel, bypassing the traditional Congressional oversight mechanisms through emergency provisions. According to US Secretary of State Marco Rubio, since the beginning of the Trump administration, the US has approved arms deals with Israel worth a total of $12 billion and this within just the first three months of Trump's presidency. According to a report by the Watson Institute for International and Public Affairs at Brown University in the US titled the 'Costs of War Project,' US spending on Israeli military operations and related US military activities in the region amounted to no less than $22.76 billion from 7 October 2023 to the end of 2024. This marks a doubling of support compared to earlier periods of the former Biden administration. The figures highlight the political contradiction in US policies in this regard,since it is continuing to support Israel militarily despite the latter's documented violations of human rights and breaches of international law. Trump's support for Israeli policies includes the implicit support for the displacement of the Palestinians from their homesin a form of ethnic cleansing. By providing unconditional backing to Israel, Trump's policies have not only emboldened far-right elements within the Israeli government but have also dismantled decades of diplomatic nuance, undermining hopes for a two-state solutionin the region. The second pillar of the changes taking place within the administration has been the arbitrary dismissal of national security officials deemed 'disloyal' to Trump's agenda. The third has been the deterioration of civil liberties and democratic norms inside the United States itself. Traditional institutions, once considered pillars of American democracy, have been increasingly undermined. Freedom of speech and the right to protesthave become subject to harsh repression. A clear example of the erosion of foundational democratic principles such as freedom of expression, the right to protest, and the protection of minorities was seen earlier this year with the arrest of a student at Columbia University in New York for participating in a peaceful protest related to the Palestinian cause. The student quickly became a symbol of the growing confrontation between Trump and the student protest movement opposing Israeli policies. The last pillar signalling the transformation in the US relates to the question of whether Trump could seek a third term as president. This has sparked heated debate in legal, political, and public circles in the US. While the country's constitution clearly limits presidents to two terms in office, Trump's political rhetoric combined with the growing polarisation and institutional uncertainty in the country, has fuelled speculation about a possible challenge to this democratic norm. There are several reasons that have led Trump to adopt a unilateral approach of this sort. Firstly, he has pursued a pragmatic and transactional strategy that has allowed him to make decisions based on immediate interests rather than on an adherence to any prevailing ideological framework, reflecting his identity as a deal-maker. Secondly, he has been strongly supported and encouraged by his close advisers. Thirdly, he has sent a clear political message that he possesses the authority and willingness to take decisive action. There are several potential implications and consequences that may arise from the continued pursuit of such an approach, most notably the decline in the popularity of Trump himself, reflected in the thousands who have taken to the streets of US cities to protest against his administration's policies and express discontent over issues including restrictions on the freedom of expression. This trend has been supported by recent opinion polls in the US. A Reuters/Ipsos survey conducted recently showed that Trump's approval rating had dropped to 43 per cent, the lowest since the beginning of his second term and down from 47 per cent recorded in January. The US political system and its democratic model are currently experiencing the erosion of principles that have long defined the nation's identity. This state of flux is not limited to one branch of government or a single administration, however, since it reflects a structural shift that spans political, economic, and social norms. These dynamics are also not isolated. They are mutually reinforcing, and they are creating a feedback loop of instability that threatens American democracy. The result is a political landscape that is marked by unpredictability, distrust, and a growing perception that the US is internally fragile. While the system may not be in immediate danger of collapse, it is undoubtedly undergoing a period of profound transformation in which the risks of political instability and institutional dysfunction are becoming increasingly apparent. * A version of this article appears in print in the 10 April, 2025 edition of Al-Ahram Weekly Follow us on: Facebook Instagram Whatsapp Short link:
Forbes
08-04-2025
- Business
- Forbes
Does America Really Need a $1 Trillion Pentagon Budget?
WASHINGTON, DC - FEBRUARY 26: U.S. President Donald Trump delivers remarks during a Cabinet Meeting ... More at the White House on February 26, 2025 in Washington, DC. Trump is holding the first Cabinet meeting of his second term, joined by Tesla and SpaceX CEO Elon Musk, head of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). Trump was joined by Secretary of State Marco Rubio (L) and Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth. (Photo by) President Trump's announcement that he would seek a $1 trillion Department of Defense budget has dashed the hopes of those who thought his talk of finding efficiencies in the department would slow the relentless growth of Pentagon spending. What's behind the proposed surge in spending? The president argued that 'the military is something that we have to build, and we have to be strong, because you have a lot of bad forces out there now.' Analyst Roman Schweizer of TD Cowen has suggested that while there were advocates for restraining Pentagon spending within the administration and Congress, the $1 trillion proposal means 'at least for now . . . the hawks have won.' A generic fear of 'bad forces' is a weak argument for ramping up Pentagon spending. What is needed now more than ever is a realistic assessment of what military force can and cannot accomplish in an increasingly unpredictable global environment, coupled with a more balanced approach to the most pressing challenges to the security of America and its allies. The evidence of this century does not bode well for an approach that throws ever more money at the Pentagon while decimating non-military tools of statecraft, as has happened with the virtual elimination of the Agency for International Development (AID). As the Costs of War Project at Brown University has determined, America's post-9/11 wars have cost $8 trillion, led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of civilians, destabilized key regions, and resulted in physical and psychological injuries to hundreds of thousands of U.S. military personnel. This grim record should prompt second thoughts about doubling down on force and the threat of force as the primary tools of U.S. foreign policy. The Pentagon regularly asserts that its primary rival is China. The official line is that only by outpacing Beijing in the development of next generation weapons can the U.S. dissuade China from aggressive action in Asia, or, in the extreme case, win a war against it. This mindset ignores the fact that the most effective way to manage the U.S.-China relationship and preventing a potentially devastating war is to restore a common understanding on the status of Taiwan and enter into dialogue about other issues of mutual concern, from nuclear forces and AI-driven weapons to climate change, outbreaks of disease, and the precarious state of the global economy. Building more nuclear weapons, or combat ships, or an immensely costly but unproved missile defense system will do little to address America's most urgent security challenges. In fact, doing so could well make things worse by promoting a dangerous arms race that will only make war between the world's two most powerful nations more likely. And a war between the United States and China – two nuclear-armed powers – could be an unprecedented disaster for all concerned. And the notion that the administration's allies in Silicon Valley can quickly produce large numbers of nimble, affordable, and lethal next generation weapons that will give America a decisive edge should be treated with a large grain of salt. Claims that 'miracle weapons' and superior military technology will save us pop up every generation, from the electronic battlefield in Vietnam to Ronald Reagan's failed dream of an impervious missile shield to the failure of precision guided munitions and superior battlefield awareness to win the day against smaller, less technologically sophisticated adversaries in Iraq and Afghanistan, and in every case these claims failed to bear out in the face of technical limitations and complex conflicts in which motivation and knowledge of the local terrain have proven more important to the ultimate outcome than the possession of costly, complex weapons systems. In short, there is nothing in the recent record of U.S. strategy and spending to suggest that doubling down on a military-first approach to foreign policy will make America safer, and much to indicate that neglecting non-military tools of international relations will make the world a more dangerous place. Specifically, it will make the solution of non-traditional security challenges, from climate change to potential pandemics to rampant inequality increasingly difficult, if not impossible. A $1 trillion Pentagon budget sounds impressive, but pursuing it at a time when too many of our most urgent national needs are being neglected would be a colossal error. Congress and the administration need to hear that message loud and clear from their constituents if there is to be any hope of forging an effective, affordable defense strategy. Given the nature of the challenges we face – most of which do not have military solutions – pushing for a trillion dollar Pentagon budget would be a trillion dollar blunder.
Yahoo
26-03-2025
- Health
- Yahoo
Study: Long-Term Health, Environmental Consequences of War Evident in Fallujah Today
For several months in April and November 2004, U.S. troops were engaged in some of the heaviest fighting they had seen since the Vietnam War, dropping more than 300 bombs, 391 rockets and roughly 4,000 artillery rounds to support intense ground battles to reclaim the Iraqi city of Fallujah from insurgents. In 2014, Islamic State members captured the city, occupying it for more than two years until it was retaken by Iraqi forces. Today, as Fallujah slowly rebuilds, the cost of the fighting is evident in the public health of its residents, according to a new study. For the first time ever, researchers have detected uranium in the bones of living Fallujah residents, high levels of lead in residents of previously bombarded neighborhoods, and a significant number of birth defects in babies born to those in the city. Read Next: NATO Chief Says 4 US Soldiers Who Went Missing in Lithuania Died According to the authors of the study, "Lessons from Fallujah: War Returnees Face Long-Term Health Risks from Heavy Metal Exposure," there are takeaways from the research for anyone living in a former combat zone but also those who experienced short-term exposure, such as U.S. troops who fought on contaminated soil, inhaled the dust, and lived near the burn pits used to dispose of battlefield waste. "What we are finding in the environment, in the body, is the sheer permanence of war's effects," said Kali Rubaii, an assistant professor in the anthropology department at Purdue University. "In an interesting way, we measured that with numbers." According to the study, supported by Brown University's Costs of War Project, Fallujah's population has seen a 17-fold increase in birth defects and anomalies since 2003. Using a special bone scan known as X-ray fluorescence, or XRF, the researchers found uranium in the bones of 29% of study participants. And the scans also showed lead contamination in 100% of those tested, at rates 600% higher than average U.S. rates. Lead poisoning in children can harm the brain and central nervous system; cause learning, behavior, hearing and speech issues; and slow development, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. In adults, lead accumulates over time in the bones. While it largely remains locked there, with age, it can be released back into the bloodstream, especially during pregnancy or in the presence of osteoporosis or kidney disease. Although adult lead poisoning is uncommon, it can cause depression, fatigue, irritability, memory loss, impotence, and heart conditions, according to the National Organization for Rare Disorders. Regarding uranium exposure, the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, the federal agency concerned with public health risks associated with exposure to hazardous substances, said uranium can cause damage to the kidneys and respiratory tracts, but "no health effects other than kidney damage have been consistently found in humans after inhaling or ingesting uranium compounds or in soldiers with uranium metal fragments in their bodies." In the late 2010s, XRF testing conducted on 38 U.S. troops -- mainly Special Forces members -- found they had higher-than-normal bone lead levels as a result of their jobs, with four having roughly twice the expected amount. The numbers tested were small, but the soldiers in the study had struggled for years with unexplained symptoms, according to reports in The New York Times and U.S. veterans of Fallujah did not experience the long-term exposure that current residents of the city do and aren't likely to experience the health consequences that the Iraqis have had, Rubaii said. They also have access to quality nutrition and health care, factors that are key to addressing the health consequences of heavy metal exposure, she added. But that doesn't mean that there aren't steps that former service members can take to protect their health, she added. Since heavy metals are absorbed into bones, where they largely remain stable, taking precautions to limit lifetime exposure from further contaminants in water, the soil and air is recommended, she said. "It means making sure your city doesn't allow industries to pollute, advocate for air quality regulations, smog checks -- prevent the additional burden to their bodies," Rubaii said. The report also recommends that those returning to a former war zone don masks or scarves to avoid inhaling fine particles; bury trash instead of burning it; consume a diet high in calcium and vitamins C and D to protect bones; and for pregnant women, increase the amount of folate consumed to promote the healthy growth of their fetuses. Rubaii said more research should be conducted on the long-term health effects of war exposure, especially in U.S. troops, and she suggested that a database kept by the nonprofit group Burn Pits 360, which maintains a registry of medical diagnoses and treatments of U.S. service members in Iraq and Afghanistan, is fertile ground for studies. In an open letter to President Donald Trump earlier this year, the group urged the federal government to support such investigations. "Strengthen research, prevention and early screening programs," the group wrote. "Veterans deserve proactive rather than reactive care. Implementing advanced lung and cancer screenings, biomarker testing, and toxic exposure health monitoring programs will save lives by detecting diseases early." Rubaii added that her group is looking at how women who live in these environments can improve the health outcomes of future babies and generations. "The next level is to do analysis of the factors that might play a role for reproductive health outcomes, so really trying to help women understand what environmental factors they can control to affect the next generation," Rubaii said. Related: Military Medical System Not Ready for War Due to Cuts and Delayed Reforms, Experts Warn
