Militarism and Women's Health

By Women’s Action for New Directions (WAND)
Fully half of all the money that the U.S. Congress allocates for the federal budget goes to the Pentagon, and the amount is rising, leaving less money for other crucial programs. The negative effects of the U.S.’s overzealous promotion of the military (called militarism) go beyond out-of-kilter funding, however, and include environmental degradation and threats to women’s safety. In this special issue, Women’s Action for New Directions (WAND) discusses militarism’s effects on women’s health.
This article discusses what federal spending on the military indicates about our priorities as a nation, explores the problems of sexual violence for military women, and describes the threats to the environment from military operations. At the end of the article we have included information about joining WAND. We hope you’ll want to work with us to build consensus around a better way to invest in America.
Where Does All the Money Go?
The federal budget is more than a lot of numbers: it determines how our tax dollars will be spent. The budget is really a blueprint of what the nation prioritizes (by funding) and what it doesn’t. President Bush’s proposed federal budget for fiscal year (FY) 2006 reveals a lot about his priorities, and the news isn’t good. There’s less money for programs for the most vulnerable: those who are low income, elderly, or in poor health. Over 150 programs to help people have been cut. Meanwhile, there’s more money for military spending on new nuclear weapons and missile defense. And, tax cuts continue to favor the wealthiest Americans.
In his FY06 budget, President Bush requested $438.8 billion for defense spending; that’s $13,914 spent each second, but does not include funds for Iraq and Afghanistan. The Iraq War has been financed entirely by supplemental requests, outside the regular budget. The Pentagon’s FY05 request was $421 billion but, by the time Congress passed supplemental war funding, the Pentagon received over half a trillion dollars.
The military consumes 52 percent of the ‘discretionary’ federal budget, the part of the budget that’s not dedicated to specific, on-going programs like Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare. In fact, the U.S. spends more on its military than all other nations combined.1 Yet, only about 10 percent of the military budget is directly related to homeland security. 
Money is less available for non-mil-itary programs. Federal spending on health (e.g., mental health programs, CDC, FDA, food inspection) receives just six percent of the discretionary budget. Education, training, employment and social services (e.g., PBS, special education, training services) receive nine percent. Environment, science, agriculture and energy (e.g., forest service, nuclear waste programs, farm subsidies), receive seven percent. Plus, we spend ‘less than a penny of each tax dollar to promote diplomacy, international cooperation, humanitarian and development aid, and efforts to peacefully prevent deadly conflicts.’1 For an explanation of militarism in the federal budget (and one that involves Oreo cookies, no less), see http://go.truemajority.org/oreotrans.html.
The most recent budget proposes to cut many domestic programs. For example, Head Start would be cut by $177 million and the Women, Infants and Children (WIC) low-income nutrition program by $122 million. Despite concerns about potentially devastating diseases such as SARS and HIV/AIDS, the 2004 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s non-bioterrorism budget is slashed by $340 million (including $57 million from chronic disease prevention and health promotion, and $10 million from infectious disease control).
The trend will continue. According to the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP), the proposed 2006 budget includes heavy cuts to domestic spending that will extend far into the future. To meet the White House goal of cutting $196 billion from the FY07-10 budgets, spending on domestic programs like health and the environment will be slashed by as much as 23 percent.2
It’s not like there’s less need. According to the Census Bureau, the number of Americans living in poverty has been increasing since 2000; over 35 million Americans now live in poverty.3 William Gale, former Senior Staff Economist for the President’s Council of Economic Advisers, commented that the FY03 budget ‘financ[es] the war on terrorism on the backs of those who are low and middle income’, in the form of cuts in social programs.4
What could we do with all this money, if we moved part of it out of the Pentagon budget and applied it to helping Americans live better lives? Universal health care? High-quality schools for all? Affordable housing? Job training for the unemployed? The rationale has always been that there is no money for such programs; but dollars are readily available for missile defense programs, which receive more funding than any other weapons program in the Pentagon’s budget.
WAND believes in a world that makes sense: a world where children attend good schools, everyone has health care, and women walk the streets safely. We believe this goal’s attainable, too. But it won’t happen unless we change how money is spent. We need to demand that the White House and Congress set new priorities: stop the war machine and cease extravagant spending on Cold War-era weapons, and instead fund programs that invest in a positive future.
Congress holds the ‘power of the purse’: it is Congress’ job to say how the discretionary budget gets spent. Isn’t it time we held Congress responsible for making better financial choices? Yet, the deafening silence of most Americans tells Congress that we accept the way our tax dollars are used. If you’re concerned about this, please consider working with WAND to tell Congress to shape up.
Militarism and Environmental Dangers
Not only does the budget have less money for health care and other vital domestic programs, militarism may even be making us sick. Modern warfare differs greatly from conflicts fought before the advent of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons. The processes of producing, testing, storing, using and dismantling modern weaponry all pose dangers to our communities and environment. The toxins that are an integral part of modern weapons include carcinogens such as trichloroethylene (TCE), ozone-destroying chlorofluorocarbons (CFC), and radioactive waste like uranium and tritium.
The environment can thus be seen as both a strategic element, and a victim, of warfare. Yet, the military is often exempted from environmental protection laws and regulatory agency enforcement. The Maine-based Military Toxics Project recently reported that ‘military exemptions from laws and lax enforcement by regulatory agencies have produced over 27,000 toxic hot spots on 8,500 military properties.’5 The U.S. military is the world’s largest polluter, and ‘generates more toxics annually than the top five chemical companies combined.’6
The Savannah River Site (SRS) is a timely, if unfortunate, case study of militarism’s long-term environmental dangers. The site was built by the U.S. Department of Energy in 1950. SRS, located near the Savannah River in Aiken, SC, made plutonium and tritium (i.e., radioactive hydrogen) for nuclear weapons, and operated without environmental regulation until 1987. SRS’ five nuclear reactors and two reprocessing ‘canyons’ produced one-third of the nation’s plutonium and all of our tritium.
Production ceased in 1990, and SRS’ emphasis shifted to clean-up and management of its huge stockpiles of nuclear waste, including 35 million gallons of highly radioactive liquid solvents (like plutonium and uranium) stored in aging, leaking, underground tanks. SRS has the largest amount of radioactive waste of any U.S. nuclear weapons site. Lack of an effective plan to manage the environmental dangers from SRS production has resulted in significant water pollution that threatens the area’s critical water resources. Radioactive chemicals from SRS have been found in Georgia’s air, rain, groundwater, drinking water, fish, milk, crops, vegetation, and deer.
Tritium (a radioactive isotope of hydrogen) is SRS’ most common water supply pollutant. Bonded with hydrogen, tritium forms radioactive water that can be incorporated into human cells; exposure to tritium increases the risk of cancer. Despite these dangers, safety testing has only been conducted on 170-pound men. It is thought that tritiated water is far more dangerous for women, children, and developing fetuses.
Research by the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research (IEER) shows that African Americans who rely on Savannah River fish for their dietary protein consume unsafe amounts of radioactively-contaminated fish. IEER estimates that eating two pounds of fish each week from the Savannah River is a health hazard.7 Yet, the Department of Energy reports that the State has not applied for funds for monitoring and clean up activities in 2005.
WAND believes that military-generated environmental damage and degradation conflict with the military’s job of protecting American citizens. The U.S. has a dangerous environmental legacy with respect to clean-up and protection efforts. WAND believes that the military should not only clean up the environmental effects of nuclear weapons production and toxic waste at all military facilities, but also work harder to prevent further contamination.
If you are concerned, please consider working with us to make active change. Join activists on August 6th and 9th to mark the anniversary of U.S. nuclear bombing of Japan and call for an end to nuclear warhead development and production. Actions will occur at four U.S. nuclear weapons sites and other locations. For more about what’ s happening near you, see http://www.abolitionnow.org/augustactions.html.
Can’t travel? On August 9th many communities will remember the Bombing of Nagasaki with candlelight vigils at local City Halls. Contact Jackie Cabasso at 510.839.5877 to learn what’s going on in your area or volunteer to organize a vigil. You can also contact your Members of Congress and urge their support for legislation to require DOD installations to comply with environmental rules like other businesses, landowners, and government agencies do.
Militarism and Sexual Violence
Another effect of militarism is the prevalence of domestic violence (DV) and sexual abuse. In 2002 at North Carolina’s Fort Bragg, five military wives were brutally murdered by their husbands in a six-week period. The Fort Bragg murders illustrate the problem of violent abuse that includes rape of female soldiers and civilians, lesbian bashing, and brutal hazing rituals.8
Studies indicate that DV rates are significantly higher in the military than among the civilian population. CBS’ ‘60 Minutes’ reviewed Pentagon records found that, between 1992–1996, 50,000 military spouses were reported to be victims of DV — a figure five times higher than in the civilian population. Other research indicates that spousal abuse (including emotional abuse and neglect without physical violence)occurs in about two of every 100 active duty military families.9 A sample of active duty military women found that almost 30 percent reported being physically and/or sexually assaulted by a current or former partner.10 The Army has the highest DV rates, followed by the Marines, Navy, and Air Force.11
Several factors underlie the military’s high DV rates. Military families face many difficulties, including separations up to 10 months annually, stress, low pay, isolation, and infidelity.11 Combat experience is one factor: one study found that veterans with combat experience were more than four times as likely to engage in DV.12
Military wives and girlfriends are vulnerable because they are both geographically isolated from family and friends and socially isolated within military culture. They are often financially dependent upon their partners. The women may hesitate to report DV because of concerns about confidentiality, financial worries, and the shortage of support services. Some wives complain that base commanders pressure them not to bring DV charges.12
The immediate pre- and post-deployment periods are the most dangerous for women; possibly due to men’s loss of control when they leave and reassertion of control upon their return. The Miles Foundation, which advocates for victims of violence, says it can tell when units are being deployed due to the call volume it receives from given bases.11
Although the problem has been clear for decades, the Department of Defense (DOD) has failed to respond to Congressional directives to address DV. In 1988, DOD was told to report soldiers’ DV crimes to the FBI — it has not yet complied, and relatively few personnel are prosecuted or sanctioned for DV. In 2002, the Army reported 1,213 cases of DV, of which only 29 resulted in court-martial or civilian court prosecution.11
The dangers do not come only from male partners, however. Studies suggest that 25 percent of active female service members experience sexual assault. A recent survey of female veterans found that 30 percent had been the victim of rape or attempted rape during active duty. Thirty-seven percent of women who reported an assault had been raped more than once; 14 percent had been gang-raped. Yet, 75 percent had not reported the incident to a ranking officer; one-third did not know how to do so, and a stunning one-fifth believed rape was ‘to be expected’ in the military.13 Female service members stationed in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Kuwait have reported more than 100 cases of sexual misconduct by male soldiers since those military operations began.14
Sadly, the military does not have a uniform definition of rape or sexual harassment, and commanding officers are not trained to handle assaults by service members. The military offers counseling and treatment for abusers and their victims that includes intervention, shelter, support groups, and counseling. The Family Advocacy Program aids victims and helps abusers. Some bases offer programs to help families through the pre- and post-deployment periods. Many more programs and interventions are needed, however.
WAND believes that women connected with the military must be both protected from victimization and aided when they are harmed. Americans can show their support for troops by lobbying Congress to force DOD to more fully address this problem. If we have enough money for the military to build state-of-the-art weaponry, we should have enough funds to protect military women from sexual assault and DV, and ensure that perpetrators are stopped and held accountable.
WAND believes that the military should provide professional education and training to both civilian advocates and military personnel; conduct and support research on preventing DV and assault; and ensure that DOD policies are constructive and consistently implemented. All reports should be investigated, and abusers and other offenders prosecuted. DOD should guarantee that soldiers get counseling before and after service, and expand victims’ programs. One small step would be to put an advocate on every base to support women and help them access legal and social services.
WAND works to prevent violence against all women and is a staunch supporter of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA). VAWA funds programs to stop violence against women in homes, the streets, campuses, the military, and elsewhere. Since passage in 2000, VAWA has helped reduce rates of DV, sexual assault, dating violence, and stalking. But VAWA expires in 2005 unless Congress reauthorizes it this year. Tell your Congressperson to reauthorize VAWA and continue successful efforts to make U.S. women safer.
Work with WAND For Change
 WAND’s mission is to empower women to act politically to reduce violence and militarism and to redirect excessive military resources to unmet human and environmental needs. WAND leverages its membership and networks to lobby Congress on federal spending and nuclear weapons. To join WAND, send $35 membership fee to: 691 Massachusetts Ave, Arlington, MA. 02476, or visit www.wand.org. We look forward to working with you to effect positive change!
REFERENCES 
1. Friends Committee on National Legislation (FCNL). Act Now on Where Your Federal Tax Dollars Go. FCNL: Washington, DC. June 10, 2005. Available online at http://www.fcnl.org/issues/item.php?item_id=1314&issue_id=18
2. Parrott S, Horney J, Shapiro I, et. al. Where Would the Cuts be made under the President’s Budget? An Analysis of Reductions in Education, Human Services, Environment, and Community Development Programs. Washington, DC: The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. February, 2005. http://www.cbpp.org/2-22-05bud.htm.
3. U.S. Census Bureau, Housing and Economic Statistics Division, available online at http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/poverty03/pov03hi.html.
4. Women’s Action for Nuclear Disarmament (WAND). WAND Fact Sheet: FY03 Federal Budget. Arlington, MA: WAND. 2004. Available online at http://www.wand.org/getfacts/index/03-budget.html
5. Knickerbocker, Brad. ‘Military Readiness vs. the Environment,’ Christian Science Monitor. October 4, 2001. Available online at http://www.csmonitor.com/2001/1004/p13s1-usmi.html
6. Student Environmental Action Coalition (SEAC). Militarism and the Environment: What’s the Connection? What’s the Consequences? Philadelphia: SEAC. No date. Available online at http://www.seac.org/militarism
7. Institute for Energy and Environmental Research (IEER), Nuclear Dumps by the Riverside: Threats to the Savannah River from Radioactive Contamination at the Savannah River Site. Takoma Park, MD: IERR. 2004.
8. Vermont Network Against Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault Website. “Fort Bragg Murders: Raise Questions about Military Culture and Domestic Violence.” Vermont: Network Against Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault. Fall 2002. Available online at http://www.vtnetwork.org/newsletter/2002_09/fort_bragg_murders.html.
9. American Forces Information Service Website. “Preventing Abuse, Protecting Victims.” Washington, D.C: American Service Information Services. Oct. 12, 2000. Available online at http:www./defenselink.mil/news/Oct2000/n10122000_200010123.html
10. Family Violence Prevention Fund. The Facts on the Military and Violence Against Women. San Francisco, CA: Family Violence Prevention Fund. No date. Available online at http://endabuse.org.
11. Lutz C. “Living Room Terrorists,” Women’s Review of Books. Vol. 21: 5, February, 2004.
12. Family Violence Prevention Fund. “The Facts on the Military and Violence Against Women.” San Francisco, CA: Family Violence Prevention Fund. No date. Available online at http://endabuse.org. Gegax TT, Barry J, Scelfo J. ‘Death in the Ranks at Fort Bragg,’ Newsweek, Vol. 140. 2002.
13. The Miles Foundation Website. Interpersonal Violence Associated with the Military. The Miles Foundation. No Date. Available online at http://www.refusingtokill.net/rape/domesticviolencein%20themilitary.html.
14. World Socialist Website. “Reports Find Pervasive and Increasing Sexual Abuse in the U.S. Military.” WSW: News and Analysis. June 10, 2004. Available online at http://www.wsws.org/articles/2004/jun2004/mili-j10_prn.shtml.
15. Goldenberg S. “I Reported the Rape Within 30 Minutes -- Then Watched My Career Implode,” The Guardian. October 25, 2004.