Fall term is essentially over for the Strike for Peace Campaign at University of Oregon, and the grades are excellent. Camped across from the administration building, Strike for Peace began the term hoping to persuade faculty senate members that an examination of ties between schools and military funding is warranted because of the obscurity and extreme lethality of the ever-increasing military industry under our current national leadership.

Our campaign proceeded cautiously, and caution proved to be the key. On November 30, University of Oregon senate members unanimously passed a motion to hold special hearings to closely examine the issue of military funding. These hearings will be relevant not just to our school, but all schools.

Many if not most Americans recognize that something is dangerously wrong in Washington DC. Faculty members, especially those involved with the democratic process of a senate, recognize a weakened democracy. Strike for Peace met with nearly two-dozen senate members to discuss the extreme nature of the Pentagon’s Future Combat Systems program, the heart of our National Defense Strategy and the primary beneficiary of all military-funded research. No members were averse to the notion of investigation. As one speaker asked in session, “How could any senate not look into this?”

In previous weeks, the reaction from researchers and practically everyone else on campus was similar. Most were unaware that weapons has been America’s top industry since the Cold War began, that the greater share of our taxes pay for an excessively worrisome high-tech force (i.e. one designed for offense rather than defense), and that some 350 colleges are under contract with the Department of Defense. Researchers said they’d be happier knowing their funding did not lead to more efficient warfare. Students said they’d be happier knowing their school had nothing whatsoever to do with weapons development. Human prosperity outranks weapons profit, they said. America is a people-first nation, they thought. And we told them that these are still possible, if we do more than talk.

University of Oregon has set a precedent and sparked a national debate. Our schools should ask why an institution such as the Association of American Universities lobbies the Pentagon for research funds to build “the best fighting force in the world” when it should seek funds to build a nation with the best healthcare system, the best education system, the best transportation infrastructure, the best prepared domestic disaster response network-or simply a nation very good at a few or all of these. If an institution such as the AAU is held accountable, which now becomes a distinct possibility, the post-Cold War battle to demilitarize our schools will be near an end.

That our leaders are using the United States military for global resource domination is undeniable and poses an extreme threat to our future. Their intent is abundantly clear because they do not attempt to hide their neo-Manifest Destinarianism (see below). To correct our nation’s course and protect our military personnel, Americans must investigate those commanding our military and seek change that goes beyond administrations to the laws that govern, and too often obscure, how our taxes are spent.

So, let’s make a New Year’s resolution to discuss this far and wide, and then deliver a peaceful, simple, and coherent demand to our servants in Washington: Change our country’s top industry from weapons to human prosperity-a change this world cannot live without.

Here’s how top public servants with too much privacy plan to “defend” America:

(These quotes from the National Defense Strategy of the United States of America were authored not by military personnel, but by Donald Rumsfeld and other founders of the extremist think tank Project for the New American Century.)

The National Defense Strategy (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/dod/nds-usa_mar2005.htm) emphasizes the importance of “influencing events before challenges become more dangerous,” and providing a “forward defense of freedom” and “global defense posture.”

A protective defense? “We will promote the security, prosperity and freedom of action of the United States and its partners by securing access to key regions, lines of communication, and the global commons (oceans, airspace, space, cyberspace).”

Or a profitable arms race? “We will work to dissuade potential adversaries from adopting threatening capabilities, methods, and ambitions-particularly by developing our own key military advantages.”

On building peace: “The United States cannot influence that which it cannot reach. To deny sanctuary requires a number of capabilities, including persistent surveillance and precision strike; operational maneuver from strategic distances; sustained joint combat operations in and from austere locations, at significant operational depths; and stability operations to assist in the establishment of effective and responsible control over ungoverned territory.”

On international cooperation: “Our ability to cooperate with others in the world depends on having a harmony of views on the challenges that confront us and our strategy for meeting those challenges.”

On harmony: “Our posture also includes the many military activities in which we engage around the world…demonstrating the will to resolve conflicts decisively on favorable terms.”

On advancing our technology: “Leveraging reachback (remote control) capabilities reduces our footprint abroad and strengthens our military effectiveness.” (For more on reachback and our schools and soldiers, see: http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=8819)

On “problem states” (are we one?): “These states are hostile to US principles. They commonly squander their resources to benefit ruling elites, their armed forces, or extremist clients. They often disregard international law and violate international agreements.”

On Ameriworld: “The end of the Cold War and our capacity to influence global events open the prospect for a new and peaceful state system in the world.”

“All this necessitates an ‘active defense’.” (Just say it: Offense.)

But, let’s practice this one: “It is unacceptable for regimes to use the principle of sovereignty as a shield behind which they claim to be free to engage in activities that pose enormous threats to their citizens, neighbors, or the rest of the international community.”

Note the early whispers of reachback, the heart of our National Defense Strategy, on page 60 of Project for the New American Century’s report of September 2000, “Rebuilding America’s Defenses: Strategy, Forces, and Resources for a New Century” (newamericancentury.org):

“(In time) the art of warfare on air, land, and sea will be vastly different than it is today, and combat likely will take place in new dimensions: in space, “Cyber-space,” and perhaps the world of microbes. Air warfare may no longer be fought by pilots manning tactical fighter aircraft sweeping the skies of opposing fighters, but a regime dominated by long-range, stealthy unmanned craft. On land, the clash of massive, combined-arms armored forces may be replaced by the dashes of much lighter, stealthier and information-intensive forces, augmented by fleets of robots, some small enough to fit in soldiers pockets. Space itself will become a theater of war, as nations gain access to space capabilities and come to rely on them; further, the distinction between military and commercial space systems-combatants and noncombatants-will become blurred. And advanced forms of biological warfare that can target specific genotypes may transform biological warfare from the realm of terror to a politically useful tool.”

The authors of that September 2000 report, which included I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby, Paul Wolfowitz, Eliot Cohen, and Stephen Cambone, stated that this process of transformation “is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event-like a new Pearl Harbor.”

At the end of the Cold War, Norman Podhoretz explained that neoconservatives would need to be led by young, energetic people like Paul Wolfowitz to win a cultural war; to persuade the American people that conflict is good. Behind closed doors, the 1990s were the planning stage for that war. And then came the September 2000 report, and then came the Bush administration, and then came 9-11, and then came the permanent war on terror.

“Indeed, it is a matter of public record that the US government and military intelligence apparatus has in the past deliberately provoked or permitted attacks on US symbols of power in order to justify US military action.” (Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed, “The War on Truth.” See also “Imperial Designs,” by Gary Dorrien.)

Even buried beneath lies, the truth for Americans never dies: If we do not unite to advance our founding vision for peace, we will perish by advancing our technology for war.

Brian Bogart is University of Oregon’s only student in Peace Studies. Strike for Peace is badly in need of funds. Please consider a contribution via Help Us at strikeforpeace.org

---