Muslim World Report

Reassessing National Security: From Militarization to Health Care

Dr. Anthony Lindsay | Apr 16, 2025 10:08 AM | 5 min read | 971 words

TL;DR: This post discusses the urgent need to shift U.S. national security priorities from military spending to investing in public health. It argues that a healthy population is essential for true national security and outlines the potential benefits of reallocating resources toward healthcare, especially in light of climate change and the lessons learned from the COVID-19 pandemic.

Is National Security a Cover for War Profiteering Over Public Health?

The discourse surrounding national security in the United States has taken a deeply concerning turn. There is a pronounced prioritization of military spending at the expense of essential public health services. This exemplifies a broader systemic issue: a plutocracy masquerading as a democracy, where the wealthy elite dictate policies that systematically erode citizens’ rights to health and safety.

Key Issues:

  • National security has become a justification for military intervention and increased policing.
  • It serves as a tool for war profiteers, conflating security spending with profit motives.
  • As global tensions escalate, particularly in regions affected by U.S. foreign policy, the consequences extend beyond American borders.

The inherent contradiction lies in recognizing that a healthy populace is crucial for national security. Without adequate healthcare, citizens’ welfare suffers, and military readiness itself is jeopardized (Taydaş & Peksen, 2012). This oversight is amplified by the urgent threat of climate change, which is often sidelined in national security discussions despite its potential to exacerbate global instability (Patz et al., 1996). The COVID-19 pandemic starkly highlighted these vulnerabilities, showing how intertwined public health and security are; epidemiological crises can destabilize societies, leading to unrest that threatens national interests.

This editorial scrutinizes the implications of this alarming trend. By reallocating resources from essential social programs to fund an expanding military-industrial complex, the U.S. inadvertently increases societal vulnerabilities instead of fortifying them.

The Real Opportunity Costs

Consider the following:

  • Military expenditures crowd out critical investments in:
    • Education
    • Healthcare
  • The consequences of these choices lead to:
    • Destabilization
    • Increased conflict
    • Diminished trust in institutions meant to protect and serve the populace

What If the U.S. Redirects Military Spending to Healthcare?

Imagine a scenario where billions allocated annually to defense, intelligence, and military engagements were instead invested in healthcare infrastructure, preventive medical services, and mental health initiatives. The U.S. spends more on its military than the next ten countries combined; reallocating just a fraction of this budget could provide universal healthcare access to millions currently lacking it (Ash́ford et al., 2020).

Potential Benefits of Reallocation:

  • Directly address immediate health crises exacerbated by the pandemic.
  • Enhance overall public health, leading to:
    • A more productive workforce
    • A more secure national environment

Why a Healthier Population Matters

  • Reduced burdens on emergency services
  • Lower rates of chronic illness
  • Increased life expectancy

Enhanced public health measures could significantly bolster military readiness, as a healthy populace is foundational to a strong defense. Such a pivot could also signal a moral and ethical reorientation for the country. As citizens witness tangible benefits from their government through improved health outcomes, faith in democratic institutions could be restored.

What If Climate Change Becomes the Central National Security Issue?

If climate change became the focal point of national security discussions, it could catalyze a significant reevaluation of priorities in both domestic and foreign policy.

Key Adaptations Needed:

  • Military and intelligence communities must adapt to challenges posed by climate change, including:
    • Resource scarcity
    • Natural disasters
    • Population displacement (Link, Scheffran, & Ide, 2016)

The Role of U.S. Government

The U.S. government would need to invest in:

  • Sustainable energy
  • Infrastructure resilience
  • Climate mitigation strategies

These investments could create new job sectors, stimulate the economy, and diminish reliance on foreign oil. U.S. engagement could pivot towards facilitating adaptation strategies with Muslim-majority nations to address environmental crises (Falkner, 2016).

Strategic Maneuvers: Possible Actions for All Players

In light of these considerations, various stakeholders must engage in strategic maneuvers to reshape the narrative around security and health.

For the U.S. government:

  • Reassess budget allocations to prioritize public health and environmental sustainability.
  • Foster transparent dialogue about these allocations with citizens and the global community (Garrett et al., 2009).

For the military-industrial complex:

  • Engage with public health officials to develop collaborative frameworks addressing healthcare concerns and long-term climate impacts.

For NGOs and social movements:

  • Advocate for policy changes by raising public awareness of the intertwined nature of health, environment, and security.

For international players, particularly Muslim-majority countries:

  • Advocate for equitable resource distribution and redefine security to prioritize human welfare over military engagement (Atkinson et al., 2011).

Conclusion

Ultimately, the path forward involves a collective reassessment of what security means in a globalized world. Shifting the conversation from military prowess to public health and environmental sustainability is a moral imperative and essential for building a resilient and equitable future for all. The current trajectory, favoring the interests of a wealthy elite, must be challenged in favor of a system prioritizing the well-being of the many over the profits of the few.

References

This editorial draws on various academic sources, including but not limited to the following:

  • Taydaş, Z., & Peksen, D. (2012). Can states buy peace? Social welfare spending and civil conflicts. Journal of Peace Research.
  • Dabelko, D. D., & McCormick, J. M. (1977). Opportunity Costs of Defense: Some Cross-National Evidence. Journal of Peace Research.
  • Apostolakis, B. E. (1992). Warfare-Welfare Expenditure Substitutions in Latin America, 1953-87. Journal of Peace Research.
  • Falkner, R. (2016). The Paris Agreement and the new logic of international climate politics. International Affairs.
  • Menkhaus, K. (2003). State collapse in Somalia: second thoughts. Review of African Political Economy.
  • Garrett, N., Sergiou, S., & Vlassenroot, K. (2009). Negotiated peace for extortion: the case of Walikale territory in eastern DR Congo. Journal of Eastern African Studies.
  • Duffy, R. (2014). Waging a war to save biodiversity: the rise of militarized conservation. International Affairs.
  • Atkinson, A. B., Piketty, T., & Saez, E. (2011). Top Incomes in the Long Run of History. Journal of Economic Literature.
← Prev Next →