The Reality Behind Kamala Harris’s “Most Lethal Fighting Force” Statement

The concept of a “most lethal fighting force” has become a recurring theme in American politics, with Vice President Kamala Harris joining the ranks of politicians who boast about the strength of the U.S. military. However, this rhetoric has raised concerns among some observers who view it as overly aggressive. In reality, Harris is simply echoing the sentiments of her predecessors, who have all made similar claims about the U.S. military.

For the past two decades, presidents from both parties have engaged in a competition to outdo one another in their praise of the military. From George W. Bush to Joe Biden, each president has declared the U.S. military to be the greatest force the world has ever known. These grandiose claims are meant to overshadow the failures and shortcomings of American military interventions throughout history.

The term “lethality” has become a buzzword in Pentagon circles, representing a desire for a military that can effectively kill its enemies. However, this term often obscures the brutal reality of war and the human cost it entails. When the Pentagon talks about lethality, it is often in the context of technological advancements and strategic capabilities, rather than the devastating impact on civilian populations.

The pursuit of lethality has become a top priority for the Pentagon, with Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin emphasizing its importance in the National Defense Strategy. Former Army Chief of Staff Gen. Mark Milley also prioritized lethality in his modernization efforts, focusing not only on traditional combat weapons but also on emerging technologies like artificial intelligence and quantum computing.

Lethality has become a coveted goal within the military establishment, with everyone wanting to be a part of it. Deputy Defense Secretary Kathleen H. Hicks highlighted the importance of lethality in the 2024 Pentagon budget request, emphasizing the need for combat-ready forces. Even the Army National Guard ties lethality to retention rates, while Navy Medicine claims to support the force’s lethality through medical readiness.

However, the pursuit of lethality can also serve as a justification for excessive military spending. Senator Bernie Sanders has criticized the United States’ bloated defense budget, pointing out that it exceeds the combined spending of the next 10 nations. Sanders argues that it is possible to have a strong defense without spending trillions of dollars each year, and that the focus should be on addressing the needs of the American people instead.

If history is any indication, a Harris presidency would likely continue the trend of prioritizing lethality. This could result in further military interventions and the loss of civilian lives in countries like Libya, Somalia, and Yemen. The Intercept reached out to the Harris campaign for comment on these concerns, but did not receive a response.

In conclusion, the rhetoric of a “most lethal fighting force” has become a staple of American politics, with Vice President Kamala Harris following in the footsteps of previous presidents. While this rhetoric may appeal to some, it raises questions about the true cost and consequences of prioritizing lethality. It is important to critically examine the claims made by politicians and consider the human toll of military interventions.