‘National Security’: The Ghost Story
The unfolding political contest is a window into America’s soul. The nation is arguing with itself. The candidates embody separate impulses. As voters choose sides, a red state-blue state polarity again takes shape. Within the Democratic Party, the dispute is narrower, but still sharp. Yet in truth, each citizen carries within herself or himself the structure of the conflict: hard versus soft, experience versus change, programmed versus spontaneous, self-interest versus empathy, hope in an open future versus lessons from the past. Politics, by isolating these positions and attributing them to one candidate over against another, parodies the interior struggle of every American.
In this era, humans have been cut loose from ancient moorings of meaning and purpose. The context within which this condition is most manifest in the United States is the debate - or, more precisely, the lack thereof - over what is called “national security.” The phrase is potent because it promises something that is impossible, since the human condition is by definition insecure. When candidates vie with one another over who is most qualified to be “commander in chief,” and when they unanimously promise to strengthen military readiness, they together reinforce the dominant American myth - that an extravagant social investment of treasure and talent in armed power of the group offers members of the group escape from the existential dread that comes with life on a dangerous planet. That such investment only makes the planet more dangerous matters little, since the feeling of security, rather than actual security, is the goal of the entire project.
Military power, that is, functions in America the way state religion has functioned in other societies. The Pentagon is the temple of this religion. It has dogmas, rituals, high priesthood, saints, cults of sacrifice, sacred language, and a justifying narrative - what theologians call “salvation history.” Last week, John McCain, in his victory speech after Wisconsin, warned that his Democratic opponent would take “a holiday from history,” implying that the past is only a warning of terrible things to come. McCain, alert to “moral monsters,” sets the standard for national security discourse lately, but the Democrats must echo it. The political debate, which seems so defined by differences, actually puts on display the unquestioned orthodoxy of the deeper American consensus.
When politicians invoke the rote formulae of martial rhetoric, banging the drum of dire prediction, and promising best protection, they are only fulfilling the requirements of set rubrics, which produce in the electorate not the anxiety one would expect, but enchantment - the enchantment of the pew. Preachers warn of hellfire to offer rescue from it, which is available to those who submit. This feedback loop of damnation-salvation-submission serves the people by offering meaning, and it serves the elite by protecting the structure of power. In religion, all of this is overt. In presidential politics, it is implicit.
Thus, the entire electoral process has become centered on establishing the candidates’ “toughness,” as if the only “virtue” a leader must fully possess is unflinching willingness to declare war. Never mind the question of whether, since 1945, war makes sense. No surprise, therefore, that no presidential candidate questions the current Pentagon budget, which surpasses every record set during the Cold War. That would be apostasy - and political suicide.
This is not the candidates’ doing, but the nation’s. Barack Obama, in character as a liberal Democrat, manifests a certain skepticism toward the cult of military power, but, also true to that character, he cannot propose the elimination of the underlying ideology of power. Obama can suggest, as he did in his post-Wisconsin speech, that “it is time to write a new chapter in American history,” yet he must not revise the familiar chapters that already exist. But “history” is not a mere record of past events and choices; it is an interpretation of those events and choices. In today’s America, the “national security” interpretation is sacred.
When that consensus assumes, for example, that World War II was “good,” or that the United States arms build-up “won” the Cold War, it protects the militarized economy, the status of the military-industrial elite, the iron lock of incumbents on office. Any reinterpretation of this salvation history, it is feared, would undermine the economy, disempower the elite, unsettle politics - and deprive the citizenry of meaning in an otherwise meaningless world. Voters may want change, but not change at this level. Yet “national security” is bogus - part ghost story with which the nation scares itself at bedtime, part nightly prayer with which it then goes to sleep.
James Carroll’s column appears regularly in the Globe.
© Copyright 2008 Globe Newspaper Company
The Beast of militarism marches. No one dares stand up to it.
More and more it consumes, less and less it leaves for us.
Very well spoken.
One need only to look back at the advice and counsel of one of the greatest military minds to exist in modern times to realize the error of these ways.
President (General) Dwight D. Eisenhower warned us against allowing the current military-industrial complex from acquiring power, and most forgot or ignored the warning.
Having successfully commanded the greatest military force ever known to man, Eisenhower came away with wisdom that no one else could ever hope to match… and here is some of that wisdom:
“After my experience, I have come to hate war. War settles nothing.”
“Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. This is not a way of life at all in any true sense. Under the clouds of war, it is humanity hanging on a cross of iron.”
Dwight David Eisenhower, 1953
Amen. The Obama incremental approach of talking with foreign nations instead of demanding of them is the first step.
Carroll brings it.
“That such investment only makes the planet more dangerous matters little, since the feeling of security, rather than actual security, is the goal of the entire project.”
That’s the political goal of military spending and the way the myth of national security has been constructed and perpetuated — but it’s not the REAL meaning of “national security”.
The words “national security” should be read each time as “economic stability — for the wealthy”. One is the political title assigned to the program to secure public funding. The other is the only legitimate goal of the program, because even the perception of security of the public has been proven to be unimportant.
The current war in Iraq is an excellent example — the public does not believe the war has made us more safe. Of course, all the publically funded studies of the war also substantiate the public’s intuition.
Finally, for the men who have been given the title “Commander in Chief” the phrases “national security” and “economic security — for the wealthy” actually do mean the same thing. They are not being untrue to themselves using the one phrase in place of the other.
Peace is the best strategy for achieving security and prosperity.
Aren’t you all going to feel more secure when National Security Directive No. 51 is invoked, unleashing Infragard, Blackwater and their ilk, and heavily armed police SWAT teams directed by the Miltary command for the United Staes?
A recent article at Foreign Policy in Focus (www.fpif.org) compares Obama and Clinton by contrasting their advisors. Clinton’s tended toward militarism and Obama’s to the more reasoned and non-violent. It’s an interesting and valuable article.
Would that Eisenhower could return to straighten out the party that once was as wise as he.
Wow. Incredibly incisive. ARE YOU LISTENING MR. OBAMA??
The best national security is a just foreign policy.
Out of Iraq now, completely, no training, no Green Zone, no mercenaries, no enduring bases.
A UN/mideast consortium to rebuild Iraq.
how smart was eisenhower really? after all, he let the party saddle him (and us) with the smarmy paranoid nixon.
a turn of phrase i hear with increasing frequency is “to protect our security,” a curious formulation that seems to abstract an abstraction. is it just more garden-variety bloviating, or does it operate on a subtler level to bypass the higher centers and go straight for the reptilian-brain fight-or-flight reflex?
provoice— I can fight back with Eisenhower quotes too
“A vital element in keeping the peace is our military establishment. Our arms must be mighty, ready for instant action, so that no potential aggressor may be tempted to risk his own destruction.”… He was a true American Hero.
hamster– great idea you just signed the death warrant for alot of UN/mideast consortium types, The terrorists would eat them alive.
peace coup– Peace is great, Private First Class Peace USMC. Is a master with the M-249 SAW kills alot of terrorist.
“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it.”
– Dr. Joseph Goebbels, German Minister of Propaganda, 1933-1945
Interesting article and writing style, but the end result is little more than creative spin from yet another sharp but useless pundit !
With 761 words available, the discussion never touches on American imperialism.
While wandering in abstract circles about the cultural and political delusions surrounding “national security”, the illegal and destabilizing actions of the U.S. military representing corporate America are not addressed.
Theoretical constructs can become a diversion or sideshow concealing real historic and current events. The reader gets a nice massage, or shall we say “the media is the message”.
Duh ! We are NOT in Iraq to defend America, but to KILL Iraqis and STEAL their oil. In Afghanistan it is about oil and gas pipelines and hegemony over Asian markets for Big Oil. Taxpayers assume the endless war debt and Iraqis and Afghans are given the gift of depleted uranium radiation for the next 4 Billion years.
Most Americans remain clueless on essential issues while clever journalists wallow in rhetoric rather than present the bloody facts.
The 700+ American military bases around the world are not about defending our “security” but exist to sustain various global corporate empires. The taxpayers have been duped, used and manipulated with the idea of an external threat.
With the help of complicit or incompetent writers, 300 million American lemmings have been saddled with $9 Trillion in debt and are blissfully headed over the cliff together.
War is a deadly racket and the military is muscle for Wall Street !
RIght on Joseph Conrad!
Carroll’s article is more proof that MARS rules. Our nation is under thrall to the god of death, war and destruction, yet ironically the pack thinks it’s following Jesus. A diabolical sleight of ideological hand has rendered this pact with dark forces. If Christ was a God-realized being here to raise the mass’s awareness through the powers of love and forgiveness, HIS name is now used for everything OPPOSITE that teaching (except in those individuals who “got” the message and are HIGH enough to embody it).
Our military IS the anti-Christ for it destroys everything in its path, and the new generation of DU weapons are a scourge to future generations, a cancer upon the very banks of DNA which took eons to assemble.
“…the United States arms build-up “won” the Cold War, it protects the militarized economy, the status of the military-industrial elite, the iron lock of incumbents…”
J Conrad, The author agrees with you, clearly; what are you ranting about?
Give the guy some credit, this is revelatory stuff for the mainstream press.
Jonthenet, I see the terrorist boogeyman has got you.
The American economy is, for all intents and purposes, militarized. It’s based on “international investment and returns” (especially energy securities) “defense contracters” and “subjugation/expoitation of each country.” Though this third point is more of a consequence of the first, in order to secure an investment, the country must be controlled and stable. Massive centralized power running all this, and using the US and it’s military the tool to control the economy and wealth.
Hello SRose and thanks for the delicious words. And yes, Mr. Conrad understood the real “heart of darkness.”
“He cried in a whisper at some image, at some vision,—he cried out twice, a cry that was no more than a breath—’The horror! The horror!’”
The American death machine pretends to bring “civilization” and “freedom” while spreading the cancer of war and tyranny while setting in motion endless cycles of violence.
Right on James Carroll. You hit the nail on the head with this one. The god of elite America is the military/industrial and now religious complex. And it’s a very ugly, ruthless entity that does require infinite sacrifice from the people. One way to win over it is not to feed it. And if possible, empathize for those who are so disconnected from the rest of the universe around them that they must live from their older, lizard brains which only know black and white, fight or flight, good guy, bad guy. Must be dark in there.
If it ever dawns on the military men and women what they’re really fighting for, more specifically who they’re really fighting for i’d give a ballpark estimate of 2 days before you’d see a coup of this current government.
Yes, the whole “national security” thing with it’s ‘homeland security’ is a farce but I disagree with ‘provoice February 25th, 2008 11:33 am, who describes General Eisenhower as “one of the greatest military minds to exist in modern times” due to his command of the allies in WW11. Eisenhower was chosen because the U.S. stamped it feet like an angry child and refused to enter the conflict unless their General was Supreme allied commander. Over and over again he and the U.S. with it’s “cowboy” way of doing things would have screwed up and probably lost the war had it not been for Churchill’s manipulation of Eisenhower and the U.S. command.
Maybe Eisenhower’s farewell speech had some wisdom but he certainly doesn’t rate as a “great General”, maybe a lucky General and a “hands off-do nothing” President that spent a lot of time on the Golf Links like a lot of old retirees.
A wonderful article. There should be more analysis of surface events in terms of the underlying psychosis. We take our slogans and the labels we use to represent our fears for realities, and because we do this our bogeymen materialize in the real world and our perennial mistakes repeat themselves.
Just nitpicking, but there was one small error: “… no presidential candidate questions the current Pentagon budget.” Technically, Ralph Nader is a presidential candidate.
hamster:
Point taken, but a reader could digest this entire piece and never understand the more essential political and economic truths.
I would be very surprised if we could find even one article from the Boston Globe discussing UNOCAL/ExxonMobil and the trans-Afghan pipeline, or the “benchmarks” laid out for the Iraqi government which would give Big Oil 75% of Iraq’s oil. This elementary and critical information is missing from nearly every piece of writing published on the subject.
A lie of omission is no different than a fabricated lie.
I also think the concept of national security as “religion” is a stretch although it makes for colorful imagery and metaphor. The distortions associated with “national security” are little more than political propaganda used to control the masses. ETC.
Another example: Friday Moyers did a show last Friday and featured a human rights activist who has been in Afghanistan since we bombed our old friends the Taliban out of office. They were fairly honest about the Taliban’s gains on the ground but never once mentioned why we are there, that is, so American oil corporations can market the oil and natural gas of Central Asia via Afghan pipelines. This and may could be related to the existence of interlocking directorships involving media and Big Oil and various banks….or in other words creeping corporate fascism…etc.
Cheers !
Cynthia McKinney is also a presidential candidate. If you’ve ever seen the footage of her questioning Rumsfield about the Pentagon budget, you would know that Nader is not the only one. And there is also Mike Gravel, questioning since 1972.
Only the corporate candidates support the military industrial complex, including the golden child of so many here, Obama, who wants to increase the size of the military. With more soldiers, they can attack more countries.
opps, typo:
“This media blackout could be related to”
and another thought:
Perhaps we should give Carroll an “A” in creative writing but an “F” in journalism.
Neither the primary trail, nor the general election campaign, is a prudent time to delve comprehensively into a national debate about the role of militarism in American history, or what the talismanic phrase “national security” should really mean in a world and age genuinely threatened by global nuclear annihilation and suitcase nukes alike.
I often cringe when Barack Obama (and other political figures who surely must know better) make the mandatory genuflexes before our Commander-in-Chief’s primary duty to keep the innocent civilian citizenry safe, and the gratitude perpetually due to those in uniform who make the personal sacrifices. James Carroll is absolutely right.
But when, then, is the proper time for the long overdue discussion of Ike’s prescient warning to take place, if not during the election season?
It seems to me calendar year 2009 would be just fine - with a new president, new House, new Senate, and new Cabinet all in place. Congressional hearings, followed by a comprehensive revision of the National Security Act of 1948 could address not only the guns versus butter budget priorities of a post-Cold War world, but also the alarming extent to which soldiering itself - the taking of enemy lives on foreign soil or at home, ostensibly as a collective act of self defense - is now being farmed out to civilian CIA black ops James Bond wannabes, for profit independent US contracting firms, and/or to thugs of other nationalities.
Another part of that legislative process could involve extensive declassification of sixty years worth of historical materials (which would shed a lot of light on the economic and social cost of blowback). Also, the Act could be revised to deal with the growing influence of national intelligence estimates (NIE’s) in domestic partisan politics, and of course to redefine what really can be or should be stamped Top Secret to begin with, at what bureaucratic level of accountability.
Who knows. Even if it can’t be put it into a stump speech, revisiting the fundamentals of the 1948 National Security Act would be a healthy, bipartisan approach towards addressing the problems Mr. Carroll so aptly describes. How about some really meaningful Congressional oversight over what the military/industrial/national security complex has become?
Bill from Saginaw
Jonthenet,
Do you know how big Al-Qaeda is — worldwide? I would readily bet you a nice sack of coin that the entire group of people affiliated with the term Al-Qaeda could fit comfortably in the halls of your high school, perhaps even in its cafeteria.
Let’s forget the fact that cells are unrelated and that the words apply more to a frame of mind than to an organization.
Find yourself a reliable source that explains the true size of the threat. Then, place that threat in a context that is appropriate to its true scale.
This is the question that I’ve asked Jonthenet a couple times before but nobody seems to answer it… Assuming that the official story of 9/11 is correct (which I doubt, but for argument sake, let’s assume that it is), 3000 some odd “Americans” died…. The US went on it’s quest for vengeance (which I also doubt is the real reason, but again, let’s assume it is). My question would be this: How many deaths is required before vengeance is completed? How many bodies does it take to pay this “blood-debt”? How much more blood to you require jonthenet?
I would like to see our military budget cut by about half just for starters. Get rid of most of our secret institutions, what good are they if you don’t even know what they are doing. What we do know is assassinations, renditions, coups on democratic governments, torture, drug running , money laundering etc. Let the light shine on they evil they have been up to.
Our military is designed mostly for attacking defenseless 3rd world countries.
When our leader’s say there will be bigger terror events is the offing we have to watch them ever closer. Because from what I have seen they are the ones doing them. Imagine that, state sponsered terrorism right here in the good old USA. If they persued their own stated goals they would have to arrest themselves.
Also there is evidence that foreign governments undually shape our policies. I would like to see a government that would work for the average citizen’s for a while.
Rock is on, feller
America is deep sleeping in the digits of naught
a feathered left- right gated nation secured by the doomsday waking clock
while white bread, black oil, liberation, manna, Mullah, non entity dogs fetch their bottom line
the flat line for us all
as the predator power pomp driven drivel
gushes up to the Venus studded few
who throw us a bone as first light
and our reflections lost in the wave of time
are there…. what’s left to ponder.
I guess what ever scares you. The HOMEGROWN TERRORISM bill, FISA, and like that scares me.
Peace
JConrad,
Thanks for your thoughtful posts.
I disagree on your harsh judgment of this article.
Agreed, he does not try to recount the monumental crimes and sins of what the military does in the real world. That information is certainly available in abundance, and it’s important. However, this article focuses on trying to cut through the psychology of fear used to keep people in a fog and submissive. (Including our Congress…!)
JConrad - I’m in complete agreement with you and your comments about this article.
No. 51 is just around the corner.
“Military power, that is, functions in America the way state religion has functioned in other societies. The Pentagon is the temple of this religion. It has dogmas, rituals, high priesthood, saints, cults of sacrifice, sacred language, and a justifying narrative - what theologians call “salvation history.”
As opposed to legitimate defense, militarism is a phallic surrogate trying to satisfy sexual urges for dysfunctional conservatives.
James Carrol, i wish i could write with your kind of eloquence, great article!
To justify a massive military budget, an enemy has to be created or fabricated. Peace on the planet would reduce the money appropriated for the death and destruction industry, so a ‘boggeyman’ or an omnipotent, omnipresent group of ‘terrorists’ (it replaced the word communist) is carefully crafted and installed as part of the daily news stories alongside the real-life acceleration of murders across America. JConrad quotes Dr. Goebbels, and that statement is as true today as was then.
Keep the people full of fear and uncertainty and the docile, willfully ignorant masses will give up life and limb for the crooks and liers in power.While we’re at it, Field Marshal Hermann Goering had his infamous quote as well. Most of you know it.
The thing is, most of the world understands American Imperialism and our ‘armed force’ approach to everything since this Crime Family took power. Alliances have formed and are preparing to not only defend themselves from the bully, but possibly ‘humble’ us in the near future.
Everyday in this once great country, more and more of our fellow citizens are losing jobs, homes, health care, their bank accounts…you name it! On the other hand, people serving in the armed forces are doing well and the “security” industry is flourishing. Oh, the new billion dollar industry is the “Manchurian Candidate” oriented Christian Fascist enterprises teaching ignorance, fear, subservience, intolerance, torture, murder, etc. Siouxrose says it much better than angry me.
Mr Carroll’s (and I’ve always liked his columns) next one could be about our ‘interests’ on the African continent.
Empires have come and gone over the eons and ours is numbered.
We have a serious cancer of scavaging parasites eating away at the fabric of what once was a healthy system in this country. That carcinogen is Washington,D.C.
I wrote a letter called “The Tyranny of National Security” and submitted it to this website. They never print my stuff.
Conrad’s most famous line could be inspiring if it were The Heart of Lightness: “The irony, the irony!” Jesus was one ironic dude, wasn;t he? This is what I see in this life; Renunciation of wealth makes one wealthy in spirit. Vows of nonviolence will eventually conquer every empire.
Therefore, the words of Jesus, “Give up your possessions and follow me,” must be hidden from the capitalist’s handbook. Yikes! Jesus was a commie!
One quick glance at the CIA world fact book, rank of national military budgets, and it is easy to see the real boogeyman.
The USA and our key allies, both economic and/or military, account for about 80% of the world’s military expenditures. We also sell most of the world’s weapons. The scary Axis of Evil represents less than 1% of the world’s military build-up.
Even armed with millions of tons of WMD, these countries wouldn’t last 5 minutes without airpower supremacy.
Fear is the friend of the military-industrial-complex.
Einstein argued that “it is impossible to simultaneously prevent and prepare for war.” What the hell is Obama planning to do with increased military spending?
Let’s be honest folks, the corporate media does a pretty good job of hiding the life stories of General Smedley Butler, Gandhi, and Nader. Reality is what they fear because reality is bad for profiteering warmongers.
Reality is the greatest irony of life. It scares the hell out of them.
A lively thread of ideas !
I think we all read differently and bringing a variety of approaches to the situation is good medicine. No doubt Carroll is a syntactically talented individual.
But, I must confess my jaded old brain was stopped cold with the clichéd statement, ” The unfolding political contest is a window into America’s soul.” How profound and perhaps pretentious !
I suppose one could argue that Jeffery Dhamer had a “soul”.
If it is possible that America has a “soul” it has been hopelessly tarnished by centuries of imperialism, racism, materialism, and environmental destruction yet has been given an artificial pulse and synthetic life via pathological levels of denial that have effectively turned crimes against man and nature into heroic nursery rhymes and psychotic national myths blessed by pervasive religious hypocrisy !
Opps…was that over the top ?
And to risk a generalization I have noticed that well-educated people can be very prone to getting lost in theoretic constructs while overlooking the obvious such as the blood and horror that keeps the ship of state afloat and the national heart of darkness alive.
If we can begin to get some of the lies out of the way, we might find some room for sanity and kindness.
Elmo I answered your question in the B-2 crash post.
By the way I can send you that picture of Elvis planting C-4 in the World Trade center. I agree with you the WTC was brought down from the inside, Booth, Oswald, Bigfoot all involved.
Politics is kabuki. A colorful and ornate dance by characters white-faced to hide their true character. The theatrical waving and dancing are a typical tool of illusionists to distract the audience from the true nefarious actions that are occurring.
Its just kabuki. Entertainment. The true owners of the play are behind the curtains loosely directing the action.
And most of the audience falls for it.
Articles like this just perpetuate the myth that it all means something.
mirf59 asked: Do you know how big Al-Qaeda is — worldwide? …. the entire group of people affiliated with the term Al-Qaeda could fit comfortably in the halls of your high school, perhaps even in its cafeteria.
I believe the pre-9/11 numbers of AQ was about 300.
“I believe the pre-9/11 numbers of AQ was about 300″.
WTF, where did you get this, please?
The politics of hope not fear!
Bill from Saganaw: Well said! It’s all about the framing and how we can learn from history to revisit past mistakes and go into a more informed future.
Speaking of framing-Raygun told Gorbachov to “tear down this wall”. The all the politicians promised a “peace dividend”. So where is my f**king dividend? Where is the peace they all promised now that the Communist boogey man was dead?
Oh, yeah, I forgot, “they” just keep coming up with “new” boogy men. Since the “war on Terror” thing seems to be running out of steam, now these damn neocons are poking the Bear in the eyes with threats of putting missles and radar stations in Putin’s back yard. And shooting satalites to smithereens in outer space! So, I guess the reasoning goes, if you didn’t like the old arms race, you’re gonna LOVE this one! I can remember the Cuban missle crisis like it happened yesterday. Want to talk about a scared population? Jez, this is just another reinactment. Only worse. Amerika now believes that nuclear holocost is a viable solution to our insecurities.
It an insane world.
Oh, and by the way, I still want my gawd dam peace dividend. I earned it with all those stupid drills every Monday at noon when I was told to “duck and cover” under my desk and stay out of the way of flying glass from the school windows. I grew up with a government induced fear that was so palpable that everyone was putting up bomb shelters in their back yards. Something akin to Ridge’s duct tape and plastic. Only it lasted for about 20 years.
So, I guess I will just start planning for that spring garden. And hope for the best. Enjoy family and friends. Vote. Make my Congress critter insane because I won’t shut up. Visit with folks here at CD. Work for Relocalization and Community Sovereignty and hope we are all better prepared for a very uncertain future. But, I have to admit that it’s pretty diffecult getting up every morning knowing that the picture for the human race and my grandchildren is getting dimmer by the day. Somehow I almost wish I was dumber and less informed. There is some advantage I suppose in the ostrich posture.
Oh, I almost forgot….thanks for the hot dogs. They were great as long as I didn’t know what was in ‘em……
curmudgeon99
No matter how loud the bell is rung, heads will remain buried in the sand
I hear ya Rebel Farmer. Our peace dividend evaporated. Makes me wonder if we can ever have peace under capitalism.
everyone read House of War by the author of this article. NOW!
If anybody is interested in another point of view about our illustrious government protecting us from the boogeyman, go to: www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va+aid=8165
and scroll down to the globalresearch.ca site and see the article titled
‘False Flag Prospects 2008-Top Three US Target Cities’
and see what you think.
“Impeachment is off the table” may someday be added to the lexicon of American sayings along with, “go west young man”, “frankly my dear, I don’t give a damn”, “I coulda been a contender,” “you talkin’ to me”, and “you can’t handle the truth.”
“Truth this stranger than fiction.”
No story about anything could possibly be complete without yet another meaningless quote from Obama… “it is time to write a new chapter in American history.”
But it’s really the same as the previous chapter, where a “political sociopath” rides meaningless slogans all the way into the Oval Office.
Compassionate Conservatism, Change We Can Believe In…
Let’s elect new sloganeer, just like the old sloganeer…
Obama-Bush, 2000-2016!
To an observer from outside, the militarism of America seems to be rapidly increasing. Maybe I didn’t hear it previously, but at least one of the candidates this time has used the phrase “I am best equipped to be commander in chief”. Has that been said before so baldly in previous presidential contests? When I heard (was it McCain?) I thought just a minute you guys, I thought you were electing a PRESIDENT, one of whose many functions is to be “commander in chief” of the armed forces. But who has a range of other tasks and responsibilities in health and education and the environment and so on. Have you really become so militarized that you think what you are doing is electing a commander in chief who may do a few other jobs in his or her spare time? I can’t think of many societies for which this has been true - Soviet Russia, Nazi Germany, perhaps ancient Sparta, ancient Rome. Is this really what the American Declaration of Independence has evolved into - a military state electing its commander?
Someday, probably in the desperate wake of some unspeakable war-born catastrophe worse than we’ve ever seen, we are going to realize what Carroll almost gets right—that history emerges AS the story of trying war as an answer to human problems, that history IS the laboratory proving that war is no answer, the worst possible, least justifiable and worse-than-unsuccessful answer….Historians (those in the pay of the war machine) have tried to tell us that our longest, most peaceful and successful period of progress (Minoan Crete) came to an end because that society did not prepare for life as war. Correction: That is why they lasted longer than ANYbody else including Greece, Israel and Rome. The Mycenean, “Homeric” Greeks who conquered Crete were the ones who gave us war as a way of life first—and they fell apart TEN TIMES FASTER than their peaceful predecessors. No utopia. Just the facts, folks. War was a complete SCAM invented by males to make themselves important at home by demonizing the folks just over the hill. Period. That was why even the king-hating ancient Israelites chose their first king, the lunatic Saul—to make war on their neighbors for a control of “promised land” already inhabited. Didn’t work, never will. And when you feel like anchoring Progressivism in something real and demonstrable rather than pure hope, you’ll start to find this out. http://ancientgreece-earlyamerica.com
Some questions for Jack37:
Do you really believe that most progressives don’t get the political use of demonization for the purposes of fomenting war after 8 years of Shrublette? What is the “something real and demonstrable” that you suggest progressivism should be anchored in? Do you believe progressivism is now anchored only in pure hope or has always been?
Demonstrably speaking, unless enough of the American middle class has been directly threatened by a major crisis it has seldom been open to truly progressive change. There are now 3 simultaneous perfect storms that present opportunities for such change or, conversely, for an escalation in “foreign” and domestic wars: Pending economic collapse in Bush’s “Amurka,” the related failure of the current Big Weapons At Huge Cost to Steal Big Oil paradigm that has shattered the tiny smidgeon of restraint and even competence (from the Establishment’s POV) left of what passes as our foreign policy, and Global Warming Plus Biosphere Collapse that is already pitting regional over-populations and over-consumptive economies against each other.
Demonization isn’t the only factor driving war in the 21st century: The blunt force fact is there are too many humans competing with too few scruples for too few finite resources. As cheap oil, arable land and clean water supplies run out the survival pressure to fight over what is left will increase exponentially past a certain environmental tipping point. Scientists familiar with the data give various estimates in the range of 20 to 50 years.
Dr. James Lovelock estimates that BILLIONS of humans may perish from desertification and its related struggles. He thinks this die-off could begin within 40 years. Before you scoff, consider how you would react towards your fellow Amurkans if a new Great Depression were compounded by lack of food, affordable fuel for your cars and the winter cold, and clean water. Consider the mechanisms of a Police State already in place to “manage” this situation.
Lastly, regarding Jonthenet: The young brainwashed Right-wing “Amurkans” who still buy Bush’s excrement regarding the GWOT–who went over, all trigger-happy, into an illegal occupation and received and eagerly carried out brutality that continues to this day–will be the ones Americans should most fear if complete domestic martial law in the U.S. is actually implemented. We already live under partial martial law under a de facto military tyrant who routinely ignores the Constitution. These war-damaged chickens are coming home to roost. Several hundred thousand of them. They have been indoctrinated in the violent oppression and murder of civilians with a “kill them all and let God sort them out” mindset demonstrated at road checkpoints and Faluja and the torture prisons and Haditha and hundreds of other places never covered in the mainstream “news.” They believe torture of civilians is effective in obtaining useful intelligence and that it is morally justified. Massive private mercenary armies like Blackwater may be their only economic opportunity back in the U.S. now that the bipartisan “free trade” regime has gutted our manufacturing jobs. It might soon be their job to help gut most of what’s left of the middle class. If Jonthenet thinks Americans won’t be suspicious and wary of these brutalized and brutal pro-war vets he is either too rich or too young to remember how America treated its Vietnam vets and how many ended up unemployed and homeless. America loves to cheer the military parade on its way to war, but it doesn’t give a George Duhhbya Bush about them when they come back.
elmysterio -
You pose the question about how many deaths are required to avenge 9/11.
My immediate thought was not about vengence, it was about prevention.
The better question is, “How do we stop this from happening again?”
Regardless of political persuation or influance, there is a real and rational need for self-defense. How much is subject to debate, but history has proven to us many times that unilateral disarmament leads to hastened defeat. This is not conceptual, but factual.
I honestly believe in peaceful conflict resolution. On my own personal level, I strive to maintain peaceful relations with my neighbors, avoid conflict with all, and promote cooperation and mutual benefit with everyone I deal with. I beleive this to be good personal policy, and I believe this to be good governmental policy.
But at the same time, I keep a baseball bat near my front door.
I never want to use it, I would see it as a failure on many different levels if I was to have to resort to a cro-magnon stance and physically beat somebody, but I have to respond to the reality of my personal situation. Bad things do happen to good people, and it’s really up to each of us to protect ourselves and our families. Mazlow had a point when he talked about Safety and Security needs. When we evolve to the utopian point where everybody on the planet is peacefully co-dependant, enlightened, satisfied and self-actualized ~ perhaps that bat can be used only on the baseball field. Until that time, it’s where it is.
Expand this same concept to include our society and our planet, and I think you’ll agree that we must maintain that bat and keep it ready. To do otherwise is inviting aggression.
There is a type of person who maintains control over others through the use of “perpetrator, victim, rescuer” tactics. I’ve had a great deal of experience in my life with one of those, and it turned out to be an amazingly effective method of control.
The US government, and the Bush Administration in particular uses this approach on a very large scale. There is always an enemy (the perpetrator), the American people (the victims), and the US military (the rescuer). This really keeps people in line. Many Americans often like to think of themselves as being strong, resilient, and independent, but far too many have bought into the notion that we are constantly in danger and in need of our government to protect us.
Life, by its very nature is dangerous, of course. There are natural disasters, illnesses, loss of jobs, accidents, violent criminals, deranged family members, and greedy business practices that threaten thousands of people every day. Some of the reasons foreign terrorists and “those who wish us harm” have somehow percolated to the top of that list of hazards are that it is highly profitable to large corporations, it is a way of maintaining power for those who prey on insecurity, and jingoism has always had its adherents.
Wouldn’t it be great to have a viable candidate who stood up to say, “Hey! There are all kinds of threats in life. But we don’t have to give up our freedoms, our lifestyles, our economic stability, or our dignity in order to protect ourselves from just one of those threats.” (Yes, there was Kucinich - my favorite, and now we have Nader, but neither was truly viable.) Pigs might still fly. Pandora’s box had hope at the bottom.
METAL: Excellent argument, but yours is a segue to the posting by JACK 37 in that Jack suggested how the behavior of war began. Over time it’s been socialized to a strong degree into societies. This in no way removes the triggers for war, which include the coveting of thy neighbor’s assets, and/or religious or nationalistic zealotry. The ancient prototypes (or mythological/astrological archetypes) suggest a basis for neutralizing the warrior impulses. This is done through the circle where all 12 tribes (archetypal energies) freely express. The basis for a congress, a representative voice of diverse public interests I believe derives from this idea of heaven’s central theater, a masterpiece of democratic expression. One can make a case that Venus (art, diplomacy, values that support a balanced society) is the natural counterpart to Mars. To the extent any society invests in Mars (war, propaganda in pursuit of war, deveopment of weapons, aggressive media & team sports to cultivate the us versus them attitudes that war depends upon) results in a deficit to Venus.
The deficit to Venus is expressing everywhere. How many people really have loving relationships? Why is porn so prolific? Why are so many people angry or fat or depressed? Lives are out of balance. A posting on yesterday’s CD about obesity to me is a metaphor suggesting the vast emptiness of American society and culture. People eat more than they should because they GET no NOURISHMENT or satisfaction from what they eat. The same emptiness leads to compulsive buying of unnecessary products, and the gargantuan abuse of nature in the form of driving those awfully inflated vehicles at a time when nature is so evidently BURNING.
Most tragic of all to me is the quest for education and that the lessons revealed by OTHER societies have been lost on our own. I suppose it’s the power of PR, national anthem and such, that the myth of American exceptionalism to the rules of gravity, law and karma has overwhelmed reason. But of course in a nation that can’t reconcile evolution and that believes in an angry sky god (my model sees in the heavens a mystical projection that emanates from a source beyond our cogntion, thus the varied archetypes taken together suggest something about the nature of cosmos and ourselves) TRUTH may be lost to a great many. And it is the TRUTH that would set them free.
Provoice: excellent post but you stated that Eisenhower:
“Having successfully commanded the greatest military force ever known to man….”
That is wrong. The greatest military force know to man was on the Eastern Front, and commanded by Zhukov.
In conclusion, the military are killing us, and the Republicans (Democrats to a slightly lesser extent) hate the American people so much, that they are throwing all the nation’s surplus income into the military and R and D, and leaving nothing for human needs.
The military mindset extends to fitness programs at your local gym where “fitness boot camps” are offered. Almost weekly about here about “boot camps” for this and “boot camps” for that. Here in Texas (probably the most militarist state in the union)a recent scandal highlighted abuse of youths who had been enrolled (if that is the right word)in a boot camp because of behavioral or drug problems.
It is interesting to note that even McCain is feeling the heat, when this morning he ramarked that we would be out of Iraq soon. Still Hillary is as tone deaf as Nixon was:
“To bolster her case (on national security) at the George Washington speech, Mrs. Clinton stood on stage with a half-dozen retired military officials, including Gen. Wesley K. Clark, who introduced her. “I’m convinced that when the going gets tough, Hillary Clinton will never let America down,” General Clark said.”
From today’s NY Times.
The world done passed her by, recognizing the disaster of unbriddled militarism while she is still trying to outswagger dimwit.
pdf - 100% prevention of terror attacks is impossible. It would be like preventing all automobile accidents or errors in computer programs or program hackers. These problems need to be managed and policed, not bombed or aggravated by eroding human rights near and far.
To illustrate my point, terror attacks are normally done by crazed individuals. Timothy McVeigh was a wack-job in the militia. He killed as many people as the 911 hijackers if you multiply McVeigh’s death toll by 19 (hijackers on 911). To stop all future wacky militia members from future attacks, is it necessary to outlaw all militia’s or bomb every American town that is “hiding out” militia members?
Probably, all similar “preventative measures” would be counterproductive. Bombing the towns where militia members live or purposely making life very difficult for their kind would likely inspire many more terror attacks.
Case in point: Iraq had very few IEDs before we invaded and suicide bombers were even more rare. I heard that there have been over 80,000 IED and suicide attacks on US troops in Iraq since 2003. Wow! There’s proof that violent prevention of terror inspires much more terror.
The solution to terror is winning the hearts and minds of as many people, WORLDWIDE, as possible while policing and investigating likely threats within reasonable means (must maintain the utmost respect for inidividual rights).
ALSO-
Provoice: quoting anyone out of context proves nothing.
The fact that Eisenhower said in his farewell address AT THE END OF HIS HUGE CAREER that the military-industrial-complex was killing humanity is far more powerful than some militaristic blathering quote about “how proud the commander claims to be of his troops.”
No contest there.
LeeAnnG, Very good Thinking! Simple but profound. I believe you zeroed in on the “real axis of evil” as in The Perpetrator, The Victims, and The Rescuer. Numbers 1&3 could hardly exist without #2 the willfully ignorant majority of society. When folks permit others to do their thinking for them,the condition is set for “ThePerpetrator” to initiate a plan of action. Example;
A friend of mine who owns a small business has been worried about a decrease in sales and can’t understand why customers are not purchasing his products as in years past. He doesn’t read, and gets his news from a big corporate media radio station, which is literally no news. He uses the computer for work but not for reading articles or news stories. Plus he doesn’t read newspapers. For almost seven years my friend thinks W. is one of our greatest presidents and ridicules me in a polite way for being a leftist. When I challenge him on Bush, he can only say “we haven’t been attacked since 9/11.” My friend is what I call, willfully ignorant. I’ve offered him articles, film, CD’s DVD’s about events of the past seven years, but according to him, it’s leftish propaganda. I’m sure you and others can fill pages with similar examples.
Thank you once again for your fine analysis.
lancelotlink; You bet! Zhukov’s forces inflicted the most damage to the Whermacht.
Andrew Herman; Well presented. Very good.
Some excellent post above, the familiar great minds on CommonDreams and why I read CD every day.
Good article by the scholastic thinker and author James Carroll.
Just one comment to the article by Andrew.herman: Not all terrorists are “crazed individuals”, this is a perception our religious war mongers want you to believe.
I am sorry that I cannot recall the author and book, but he extensively interviewed 100 families of suicide bombers in Iraq and concluded that 80 out of the 100 did so more for nationalistic reasons than religious.
But of course, we do not want our nation to know that.
Makes you think how Americans would react if the roles were reversed and we were the occupied country..
WTF -
“Politics is kabuki. A colorful and ornate dance by characters white-faced to hide their true character. The theatrical waving and dancing are a typical tool of illusionists to distract the audience from the true nefarious actions that are occurring.”
From just a little more distance it is ALL kabuki. One step forward and suddenly you’re with Shakespheare and the play’s the thing. One step back and it’s all just illusion. What it is depends on where you stand.
Very interesting inputs; but I still stand by my contention that self defense is a necessity and not a option. If I take a micro-view of this issue and apply it to my own personal life, which is what I attempted to do in my first offering, I make the point that in our current sociopolitical paradigm, we have a rational and reasonable expectation of safety and security; and we should have such, but to rely on the good will and peaceful intentions of others would be a foolish and quite possibly fatal mistake.
Expanding that view on a macro level; we should present ourselves peacefully to the world in a spirit of cooperation and mutual beneficial interaction. That would be the ideal situation, and we’ve seen evidence that this has been and is possible in some situations to achieve this.
But given the historical evidence of what happens to individuals, and to countries, that do not maintain the tested ability to respond to threats both internal and external ~ one can only come to the conclusion that self-defensive means are a necessity.
I whole-heartedly agree with the winning of hearts and minds and that should always be the approach in a peaceful and mutually beneficial encounter. Always.
Examine history. How could we have won the heart and mind of Hitler? How could we have swayed Pol Pot into peaceful coexistence? Could kind words and bunches of wildflowers swayed Imperial Japan when they ravaged the East?
Personally, I’m not ready to stand down, and embrace those who threaten us and hope for the best. I do want to be ready when the best in humanity comes to the table, but I want to be prepared in case the worst shows up also.
If you want John Carroll’s full account of the problem of militarism in this nation, and all the gory details of its ugly past, including how we didn’t actually win the Cold War, and how the military/industrial complex that Ike warned about has controlled things for much longer than a century, read Carroll’s book “The House of War”. It is incredibly detailed, and fully discloses, to the extent that any individual author can, the hoary secrets of the Pentagon and how it usurps our freedom and that of the world at large.
pdf: Hitler would never have come to power without the Versailles Treaty that emasculated Germany and prevented an orderly recovery from WWI. The Imperial house in Japan would not have come to power if we and other powers had been reasonable about access to natural resources. Granted, it wasn’t all our fault, but we had a huge hand in the rise of these fascist powers, and could have prevented each of the wars you spoke of. We already have the greatest military machine the world has ever known, vastly larger and more powerful than is needed for our national defense. It is an OFFENSIVE weapon, used at will against weaker nations that pose absolutely no credible threat to this nation. Until we understand that, and rein the Pentagon in so that it is again only a defensive force, we will continue to pay the price in failure to be able to pay for needed assistance to our own people and the ability to work with other nations to peacefully resolve disputes. That is not EVER done successfully at the business end of an M-16 or cruise missile, or cluster bombs used against civilian populations, or torture and rendition. What part of that makes you feel safer, pdf?
Hawknh ~
History can be a great teacher in this case.
Perhaps if the forces allied against the aggressor would have been less compassionate, Germany would have been less able to regroup militarily under Hitler. Germany’s industry and economic potential were less affected than its European enemies, and although weakened by the war, Germany was relatively stronger than its enemies in 1919 than it had been before WWI.
So from a historical perspective, a case can be made that the allies were too lenient and too forgiving after WWI and allowed a much greater and horrific outcome years later.
I have scoured the history books, and try as I might, I have been unable to come up with a unilateral disarmament policy by a world power that went well for them in the long run. If you can provide some insight, I’d appreciate it.
Unless the idea of of a good outcome is being like the Dutch and having your culture, your government, your society and your future usurped by invited invaders? Sorry, Holland is not my benchmark for a good outcome.
Peruse my earlier submissions; and I’ll tell you what makes me feel safer. My ability to compromise and debate. My ability to reason and negotiate with others, and my ability to understand differing viewpoints than my own.
Finally, there’s my bat, sitting there gathering dust, near my front door. That makes me feel safer too.
The ghosts of all the children killed by the makers and users of cluster bombs are hiding under their beds. As soon as the makers and users develop consciences they will be able to see the ghosts and be afraid also.
mrpickwick,
We have a mess in Iraq and Afghanistan right now, so we’re going to be hearing about what a good or bad Commander-in-Chief each candidate will be. If we had less overt, large scale, and messy military activities going on right now, this role of the elected President would be receiving less attention.
Since Congress seems to have abandoned its responsibilities in declaring war and managing its funding, the role of the President as the guy who gets to fumble around the planet causing the conditions for war, and then declaring, managing, and funding the war once it begins — it’s sort of a boom area of the Executive Branch right now.
So, the role of Commander-in-Chief is really prevalent right now, like it or not.
We have a major Party in America right now that believes that the entire federal government should be nothing but a brutal military on a hair trigger. All other federal programs should be killed or shrunk until, in the words of Grover Norqvist, the whole thing is “small enough to be drowned in a bathtub.”
pdf…..The need for American defense is an absolute illusion. It is the seed for our own destruction.
American power and paranoia is the root cause of much of the blowback America faces in the world.
America is now a drunken fool, on militant steroids, thinking we can rule the world, just as long as “we the people” are hooked on fear.
It all comes from delusionary thinking and the paranyia of
Stephen V. Riley ~
The need for defense is an illusion?
Please, do explain. But be forewarned, I have history books here and I’m not afraid to use them!
No, seriously. I’d like to hear what your version of what America would be without any sort of military defense forces or capabilities. Please use historical events, conflicts with other enemy forces and your perspective on what you as Commander in Chief would do. Hmm, that begs the question if you’d actually BE a commander in chief, right?
Without a military, what are you going to use to defend your country?
Harsh language?
Just wondering if keeping America safe might extend to New Orleans.
I rather think keeping the world safe is a higher priority, but this would require eliminating the current regime.
The military industrial complex has an interest in keeping the world very unsafe.
And Mr Riley, it is not about the existence of a military, it is about how (and for whom) it is used. Also, what was your military doing DURING the 911 escapade? I think they were up in the air helping the Bin Ladens escape - were they not? And what did the military then do after the U.S. was attacked by Saudi Arabian terrorists? Well, firstly they blew up empty caves in Bora Bora, and then, logically, they attacked Iraq - where there were no terrorists. Perhaps they should have also attacked Denmark, where there were also no terrorists.
Herr Riley,
Das Amerika, deren Sie Traum vermutlich etwas so sein würden. Wenn der Ihr Anblick der Zukunft ist, dann bin ich nicht an Ihren Ideen interessiert. Haben Sie einen schönen Tag.
PDF.
You wrote:
“Regardless of political persuation or influance [sic], there is a real and rational need for self-defense. How much is subject to debate, but history has proven to us many times that unilateral disarmament leads to hastened defeat. This is not conceptual, but factual.”
Can you cite examples of militaristic countries that have chosen disarmament and faced disaster as a direct result?
It is certainly easy to cite the opposite – cases in which escalating militarism resulted in absolute collapse (Ancient Athens, British Empire, USSR, contemporary US [?]).
At one point, you ask us to “examine history” with the following examples:
“How could we have won the heart and mind of Hitler?” Not necessary. Stalin was getting the job done, and would have finished it if we did nothing in Europe. Economic competition with the USSR is not the same as life-or-death self-defense. If self-defense is the rationale for war, we should have stayed at home.
“How could we have swayed Pol Pot into peaceful coexistence?” Pol Pot lived in a tiny podunk nation halfway around the world and posed zero physical threat to the US. His navy of dinghies could not have made it to Krakatoa, let alone Los Angeles.
“Could kind words and bunches of wildflowers swayed Imperial Japan when they ravaged the East?” Now finally you are talking about something serious. If peaceful nations banded together to protect the peaceful order of the world, Pearl Harbor could have been prevented, and that worldwide coalition could have prevented the empire of Japan from sailing to the west coast and threatening the safety of the US mainland. There is no need for the US to have its own redundant massive Navy capable of responding to every potential threat unilaterally.
Fundamentally, our military has had little if anything to do with self-defense stretching back the entire history of the nation. Your bedside baseball bat is not in any way analogous on a small scale to the way the US military is used around the world today.
We are in the midst of an entirely elective war. The claim that it was pre-emptive has proved to be laughable at best. There was no threat to pre-empt.
Rather, the threat was not physical, but economic. Saddam as an oil supplier had become unpredictable, and had stopped following orders from OPEC and the US. The penalty is death, imposed with great fanfare and at great expense by a grand pyrotechnic display courtesy of US taxpayers.
You have been profoundly duped if you believe US military activity has anything to do with defense. If you claim some base force is required for self-defense, you have to build the case from scratch. The examples you have provided are not persuasive.
You also have to explain the tremendous success of countries like Germany, Japan, Norway, Switzerland, Singapore, South Africa, Ireland, Canada, and many others that have a measured quality of life superior to the US and have essentially zero spending on defense compared to the US.
Wonderful thread.
I thought I understood the imperial evil and global instability generated by the post-WWII American military machine.
But if you want to take a detailed look into the belly of the beast, try Chalmers Johnson’s “Blowback”, “Sorrows Of Empire”, and “Nemesis.”
For a practical economic and demographic discussion of why the militarized American Empire is in decline, give try to “After The Empire” by Emmanuel Todd.
And if there are still any doubts, just watch the economy implode day by day while the killing goes on !
Bottom line, if you do enough unjust and cruel things to other people, there will eventually be some sort of “Blowback”.
And perhaps Arundhati Roy’s 2003 prophecy is an accurate vision of our times.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/apr/02/iraq.writersoniraq
” Mesopotamia. Babylon. The Tigris and Euphrates ”
excerpt:
” The real and pressing danger, the greatest threat of all is the locomotive force that drives the political and economic engine of the US government, currently piloted by George Bush. Bush-bashing is fun, because he makes such an easy, sumptuous target. It’s true that he is a dangerous, almost suicidal pilot, but the machine he handles is far more dangerous than the man himself.
Despite the pall of gloom that hangs over us today, I’d like to file a cautious plea for hope: in times of war, one wants one’s weakest enemy at the helm of his forces. And President George W Bush is certainly that. Any other even averagely intelligent US president would have probably done the very same things, but would have managed to smoke-up the glass and confuse the opposition. Perhaps even carry the UN with him. Bush’s tactless imprudence and his brazen belief that he can run the world with his riot squad, has done the opposite. He has achieved what writers, activists and scholars have striven to achieve for decades. He has exposed the ducts. He has placed on full public view the working parts, the nuts and bolts of the apocalyptic apparatus of the American empire.
Bring on the spanners.”
Mirf 59 ~
If you would like to read my responses, and consider my viewpoints, I will gladly offer them. I appreciate the thoughtful and considerate challenge. I’m a strong proponent of debate among civilized people. Respectfully, I find your examples to be not persuasive, but admittedly I have a differing viewpoint, and that’s OK with me.
A - “It is certainly easy to cite the opposite – cases in which escalating militarism resulted in absolute collapse (Ancient Athens, British Empire, USSR, contemporary US [?]).”
In my research on the reasons for the collapse of the British Empire, I could find no direct reference to military spending being the cause for their retreat within their borders. This occurred over many years, of course and when you examine the various regions that underwent this change, you will find a variety of reasons. At it’s zenith, the British Empire was the largest empire in history: by the eve of the First World War, it spanned a quarter of the world’s total land mass. Some regions simply demanded and received the right of self-determination.
B - “Can you cite examples of militaristic countries that have chosen disarmament and faced disaster as a direct result?”
I would like to cite France as a classic example of what happens to a country when it allows itself to disarm, even in the face of growing threats.
In the months following WWI, Britain and the USA believed that Germany could be morally disarmed through concessions, while France claimed that Germany would regard any concession as a weakness. France established an elaborate system of border defenses (the Maginot Line) and alliances to offset resurgent German strength, but all but refused to bring their military up to a strength that would deter aggression. At the end of WWI, France was spending 7.2% of it’s DNP on defense/military. By 1926, that had plummetted to just over 2%. (1) Whatever the deficiencies of the Versailles settlement, France wagered it contained enough to make a new rise of Germany and a second world war “impossible”. The real problem was one of enforcement, which necessitated permanent understanding between France, Britain and the USA. Theis so called peace settlement was revised in as little as five years of its signature and the remainder ignored within two decades, leading inevitably to WWII. (2) Had France been willing and responsive to the growing German nationalist movement, the course of WWII would certainly have been different, in my considered opinion.
C - “Pol Pot lived in a tiny podunk nation halfway around the world and posed zero physical threat to the US.”
I make no claim or hold a belief that Pol Pot was a specific threat to the United States. I do cite his inhuman barbarism as a threat to humanity ~ and it would be difficult to counter that claim. Amnesty International puts his Kymer Rouge death count at 1,400,000 human beings. (3) My specific point being, how does a country defend itself in the face of such evil incarnate? I thought that point was fairly self-evident in my writings, and I meant no obfuscation.
D - “If peaceful nations banded together to protect the peaceful order of the world, Pearl Harbor could have been prevented..”
That’s a fairly broad and theoretical generalization, wouldn’t you say? From my review, the United States did a great deal to avoid this conflict.
The Secretary of State, on June 21, 1941, handed to the Japanese Ambassador a document containing a comprehensive statement of the attitude of the United States. This included a proposal of the following points: 1. Affirmation by both Governments that their national policies were directed toward the foundation of a lasting peace and the inauguration of a new era of reciprocal confidence and cooperation between the two peoples. 2. A suggested formula that the “Government of Japan maintains that the purpose of the Tripartite Pact was, and is, defensive and is designed to contribute to the prevention of an unprovoked extension of the European war” and that the “Government of the United States maintains that its attitude toward the European hostilities is and will continue to be determined solely and exclusively by considerations of protection and self-defense”. (5)
Japan , like Germany, saw Communism as a great evil and a threat to their respective nations. Furthermore, Japan had substantial claims to parts of Manchuria as a result of defeating Russia in the war of 1905. Both Germany and Japan wanted to avoid a war with America at almost any cost. Roosevelt was well aware of this pressure on Japan by Germany but he felt that it was necessary to protect the Soviet Union as being the best weapon against the Germans, and therefore, he wanted to prevent Japan from attacking Russia. Roosevelt began extensive provocations to cause Japan to abandon its attack on Russia and instead attack America which also served the purpose of giving Roosevelt the reason to enter the war.
As Imperial Japan held out their ambassadors as olive branches, their admirals and generals were active making plans for military attacks on the US in Hawaii and on the mainland. (6)
By what actions or inactions do you submit that Japan could have been swayed against their attacks against America, Phillipines, Burma, Borneo, Hong Kong?
______________
1 - Jari Eloranta, “External Security by Domestic Choices: Military Spending as an Impure Public Good among Eleven European States, 1920-1938,” Dissertation, European University Institute, 2002.
2 - The Moral Disarmament of France. Education, Pacifism, and Patriotism, 1914-1940. By Mona T. Siegel. (New York, N.Y.: Cambridge University Press, 2005
3 - James, Lawrence (2001). The Rise and Fall of the British Empire. Abacus, 119.
4 - Pol Pot: Anatomy of a Nightmare, page 18 1.4M
5 - U.S., Department of State, Publication 1983, Peace and War: United States Foreign Policy, 1931-1941 (Washington, D.C.: U.S., Government Printing Office, 1943), pp.118-149
6 - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attacks_on_North_America_during_World_War_II
pdf pontificates:
” I make no claim or hold a belief that Pol Pot was a specific threat to the United States. I do cite his inhuman barbarism as a threat to humanity ~ and it would be difficult to counter that claim. Amnesty International puts his Kymer Rouge death count at 1,400,000 human beings. (3) My specific point being, how does a country defend itself in the face of such evil incarnate? ”
Wow ! Just who is the “evil incarnate” in this situation ?
Somebody needs to do their homework their homework on Pol Pot before pretending the American military is out there to save the world from “evil-doers”.
Pol Pot was the direct result of the illegal American bombing of Camobdia and other covert foreign policy.
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Terrorism/UncleSam_PolPot.html
” The US not only helped create conditions that brought Cambodia’s Khmer Rouge to power in 1975, but actively supported the genocidal force, politically and financially. By January 1980, the US was secretly funding Pol Pots exiled forces on the Thai border. The extent of this support-$85 million from 1980 to 1986-was revealed six years later in correspondence between congressional lawyer Jonathan Winer, then counsel to Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and the Vietnam Veterans of America Foundation. Winer said the information had come from the Congressional Research Service (CRS).”
Do we have a clever military apologist here rationalizing yet another American war crime ?
And as Mr. Chomsky has stated:
” The only way we can put a permanent end to terrorism is to stop participating in it.”
And a little more on American “self-defense” in the “War On Terror”:
http://www.counterpunch.org/chomsky01242006.html
Oh dear…
Talk about a leap! No, I’m afraid I can’t support your completely ludicrous theory that the US created Pol Pot.
It just doesn’t fly.
A slightly less revisionist and more balanced view might be considered if we are to divine the truth:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_Party_of_Kampuchea
pdf:
Give me a F*#!?in break. A very good Ranger friend of mine was involved in covert missions in Cambodia druing the Nam conflict. He recalls the details very well as a number of his men were killed by “friendly fire” American bombing. I would like to know where your happy ass was at that time ?
There is no doubt our actions led to Pol Pot’s rise to power and we then accomodated his regime. This was all done under the pretense of “national security” as if Asian “communists” were a threat.
I suggest you read the source you have sited:
Your source:
“ Historians have also cited the U.S. intervention and bombing campaign, spanning from 1965-1973 as a significant factor leading the Cambodian peasantry to increasing support of the Khmer Rouge. Not only were the massive bombings of rural areas considered unjust by vast sections of the local population, the destruction of villages facilitated the collective agrarian reorganization of the peasantry by the CPK.”
Thus, we illegally bombed Pol Pot into power.
And then we gave aid to Pol Pot:
“ Pol Pot, fearing a Vietnamese attack, ordered a pre-emptive invasion of Vietnam. His Cambodian forces crossed the border and looted nearby villages. Despite American and Chinese aid, these Cambodian forces were repulsed by the Vietnamese.”
And in more detail:
http://www.media-criticism.com/Washington_Post_Pol_Pot_1998.html
“ According to the Encarta 98 Encyclopedia, the four-year bombing campaign, begun under Nixon’s orders in 1969, caused great destruction and upheaval in Cambodia, a land of farmers who had not known war in centuries. Code-named Operation Menu, the bombing was more intense than that carried out over Vietnam.
and:
“ the US funneled $86 million in support of Pol Pot and his followers from 1980 to 1986. In addition, the Reagan administration schemed and plotted to have Khmer Rouge representatives occupy Cambodia’s UN seat, even though the Khmer Rouge government ceased to exist in 1979. This was a sad effort to grant Pol Pot’s followers international legitimacy.”
“ Of course, it should go without saying that the Reagan and Bush administrations covertly channeled weapons to the Khmer Rouge by using Singapore as a middleman. As with “Iran-Contra,” Bush’s military aid to the Khmer Rouge violated a law passed by Congress in 1989 that expressly forbade it.
The US also used its clout in the UN to get the UN Human Rights Sub-commission to drop from its agenda a draft resolution on Cambodia that would subject former Khmer Rouge leaders to international war crimes tribunals. Henry Kissinger was an important influence in this ignoble effort.”
And from another source:
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=cambodia
“The fact is that the United States dropped three times the quantity of explosives on Cambodia between 1970 and 1973 than it had dropped on Japan for the duration of World War II.”
“ The bombing stops in August under pressure from Congress. The total number of civilians killed since the bombing began in 1969 is estimated to be 600,000 (see March 1969-1973). [Guardian, 4/25/2002; Columbia Encyclopedia, 6th ed., 2005]
“ China and the US sustain the Khmer Rouge with overt and covert aid in an effort to destabilize Cambodia’s Vietnam-backed government. With US backing, China supplies the Khmer Rouge with direct military aid. Zbigniew Brzezinski, national security adviser during the administration of President Carter, will later acknowledge, “I encouraged the Chinese to support Pol Pot…. Pol Pot was an abomination.”
Jonthenet said: “Elmo I answered your question in the B-2 crash post.”
No you didn’t… you just made a couple wise-cracks about elvis and shit.
Ah, sorry. you did answer it here (http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/02/24/7263/) but your answer was still crap. I think you need to seek professional help. Seriously dude. It’s not healthy.