I recently heard from an anti-war student I met while I was speaking at a college in northern Vermont. The e-mail included the following query:
“I told you about how I wanted to build a career around social activism and making a difference. You told me that one of the most important things was to make myself reputable and give people a reason to listen to you. I think this is some of the best advice I’ve received. My issue however is that you mentioned joining the military as a way to do this and mentioned how that is how you fell into it. … We talked extensively about all of our criticisms of the military currently and our foreign policy. … What I don’t understand is, how can you [advise] someone who wants to make a difference with the flawed system, to join that flawed system?”
The question is a valid one. Throughout my travels in the United States, where I interact with people from progressive anti-war groups, I am often confronted with the seeming contradiction of my position. I rail against the war in Iraq (and the potential of war with Iran) and yet embrace, at times enthusiastically, the notion of military service. It gets even more difficult to absorb, at least on the surface, when I simultaneously advocate counter-recruitment as well as support for those who seek to join the armed services.
The notion that the military and citizens of conscience should be at odds is a critical problem for our nation. That confrontation only exacerbates the problems of the soldier and the citizen, and must be properly understood if it is to be defeated. Let us start by constructing a framework in which my positions can be better assessed.
First and foremost, I do not view military service as an obligation of citizenship. I do view military service as an act of good citizenship, but it can under no circumstance be used as a litmus test for patriotism. There are many ways in which one can serve his or her nation; the military is but one. I am a big believer in the all-volunteer military. For one thing, the professional fighting force is far more effective and efficient than any conscript force could ever be.
There are those who argue that a draft would level the playing field, spreading the burdens and responsibilities associated with a standing military force more evenly among the population. Those citizens whose lives would be impacted through war (namely those of draft age and their immediate relatives) would presumably be less inclined to support war.
Conversely, the argument goes, with an all-volunteer professional force, the burden of sacrifice is limited to that segment of society which is engaged in the fighting, real or potential. Two points emerge: First, the majority of society not immediately impacted by the sacrifices of conflict will remain distant from the reality of war. Second, even when the costs of conflict become discernable to the withdrawn population, the fact that the sacrifice is being absorbed by those who willingly volunteered somehow lessens any moral outcry.
I will submit that these are valid observations, and indeed have been borne out in America’s response to the Iraq war tragedy. However, simply because something exists doesn’t make it right. The collective response to the Iraq war on the part of the American people is not a result of there not being a draft, but rather poor citizenship. An engaged citizenry would not only find sufficient qualified volunteers to fill the ranks of our military, but would also personally identify with all those who served so that the loss of one was felt by all. The fact that many Americans today view the all-volunteer force not so much as an extension of themselves, but more along the lines of a “legion” of professionals removed from society, illustrates the yawning gap that exists between we the people and those we ask to defend us.
Narrowing this gap is not something that can be accomplished simply through legislation. Reinstating the draft is illusory in this regard. There is a more fundamental obstacle to the reunion of our society and those who take an oath in the military to uphold and defend the Constitution. Void of this bond, the inherent differences of civilian and military life will serve to drive a wedge between the two, regardless of whether the military force is drafted or volunteer.
Lacking a common understanding of the foundational principles upon which the nation was built, a citizenry will grow to view military service as an imposition, as opposed to an obligation. Simply put, one cannot willingly defend that which one does not know and understand. The fundamental ignorance that exists in America today about the Constitution creates the conditions which foster the divide between citizen and soldier that permeates society today. America must take ownership of its military, not simply by footing the bill, but by assuming a moral responsibility for every aspect of military service. The vehicle for doing this has been well established through the Constitution: the legislative branch of government, the Congress, which serves to represent the will of the people.
Congress, especially the House of Representatives, was never conceived of as separate and distinct from the people, but rather as one with the people, directly derived from their collective will via the electoral process. Unfortunately today, few Americans identify with Congress. An “us versus them” mentality pervades. This mentality creates the crack in the moral and social contract which exists regarding a citizenry and its military. Congress is responsible for maintaining the military. Congress is the branch of government mandated with the responsibility for declaring war. When the bond is strained between the people and Congress, the bond between citizen and soldier is broken. Congress, left to its own devices, will begin to view the military not as an extension of its constituents, but rather as a commodity to be traded and used in a highly politicized fashion.
This is the reality we find ourselves in today (and indeed which has existed for some time). The 2006 midterm elections highlight this reality, where a strong anti-war sentiment upon the part of the voters resulted in a Democratic majority in both the House of Representatives and the Senate. Having assumed the mantle of legislative power, however, those who were elected on the coattails of anti-war sentiment were able to shun their anti-war constituents. They did so by taking full advantage of the reality that the anti-war movement was in fact not a movement at all, but rather a concept pushed forward by a disparate mass without much political viability.
Where anti-war sentiment did in fact cross over from the ranks of the progressive left and into the mainstream of American society, it was quickly quashed through the dishonest logic that if one truly supported the troops (as most red-blooded Americans swear they do), then one must by extension support the mission. This flawed connectivity empowered Congress to sidestep the issue of withdrawing American forces from Iraq, and enabled it to continue rubber-stamping funding for a war which long ago lost any connection, perceived or otherwise, to the general security of the American people.
And so U.S. service members continue to fight and die in Iraq, a conflict which grows more unpopular with the American people each passing day. The question thus emerges: What is the appropriate response on the part of the American citizenry? While we insulate ourselves from political duplicity, the soldiers ultimately pay the price for the cowardice of those whom we elect to represent us in higher office. This seems to be the path taken by most Americans, who have grown numbly indifferent to the incessant stream of disappointment over the continued failure of Congress to truly represent the will of the people. We have therefore built a wall which separates we the people from the one aspect of republican governance which is, by design, supposed to give us voice.
In doing so, we likewise create a buffer between citizen and soldier, as those who are constitutionally mandated to fund the care, equipping and utilization of the military now operate in ambiguity created by the vacuum of citizen apathy. Thus liberated from the moral compass provided by the people, Congress has lost its ability to defend its own role in governance, and over time has demeaned its constitutional mandate by transferring powers inherent to the legislative branch to an executive branch which has assumed the role of caretaker of the military. By vesting absolute power in the hands of the executive, Congress has all but assured that America has become a nation no longer governed by the rule of law, but rather the rule of man. This sort of tyranny is what Americans fought a revolution to free themselves from 233 years ago.
An executive that operates in accordance with a unitary theory of governance is one that views the capacity to defend the state as being in fact the capacity to defend the realm. As such, one sees a gravitation of emphasis: Rather than focusing on external threats to the collective, the realm becomes obsessed with internal threats to its ability to retain power. The Patriot Act is a clear-cut example of how a unitary executive has undermined and corrupted the legitimate law enforcement mechanisms of the land by vesting the executive with powers normally associated solely with the legislative branch. In this regard, we see the armed forces similarly abused, with the creation of military command structures (namely U.S. Northern Command) which exist not to protect the people, but rather protect the realm from the people. This is not a stated objective, but rather one inferred from the fact that, for the first time since the imposition of posse comitatus in 1876, the United States has positioned its armed forces so that they can participate in normal state law enforcement. In short, instead of serving as a force of protection for the American people from external threats, the military views the American people as the threat, “targets” which need to be investigated as potential threats to the military.
An example of just how far off track the executive branch, facilitated by an all too complicit legislative branch, has strayed when it comes to the common defense is the Pentagon’s controversial Counterintelligence Field Activity, ostensibly created in a post-9/11 world to “… protect the [Defense] department by supporting the detection and neutralization of foreign espionage.” The CFA operates under the umbrella of U.S. Northern Command, created in the aftermath of the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks to ostensibly safeguard the American homeland. A major aspect of the CFA’s work is something known as the Joint Protection Enterprise Network, or JPEN.
The JPEN network enables the Defense Department to share unverified information with civilian police departments, the FBI and other government agencies such as the National Security Agency (NSA). Originally dubbed Project Protect America, the JPEN system came into being in July 2003 with the full support of then-Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. The heart and soul of the JPEN system is the “Threat and Local Observation Notice,” or TALON report, the brainchild of then-Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz. In the conduct of its work, the CFA created and distributed thousands of TALON reports via the JPEN system on the activities of private U.S. citizens, with a particular focus of those engaged in anti-war protests.
The CFA is slated in the near future to be morphed into a larger Defense Intelligence Agency-run Counterintelligence and Human Intelligence activity. Far from limiting the scope and scale of the activities currently undertaken by the CFA, this new organization will simply increase the level of illegal and unconstitutional activities currently undertaken by the CFA against the American “target.” The fact that the U.S. military now views the American citizenry as its target, as opposed to the object of its defense, shows just how broken the circle of trust is between citizen and soldier. Additional TALON reports are being assembled on anyone deemed to be a potential threat to the U.S. military, including all who are involved in “counter-recruitment” activities designed to provide alternatives to military service for today’s youths. This myopic approach toward installation and facility security undertaken by the Pentagon is not only intellectually weak but constitutionally prohibited. The legislative branch, operating amid constituent apathy, continues to fail in its mission of upholding the rule of law.
In similarly deplorable fashion, the Pentagon has allowed itself to be hijacked by the radical right wing of the Republican Party. The fact that Fox News has become the channel of choice for the U.S. military speaks volumes about the mind-set which has gripped those who lead it. The military has always been a conservative institution. Yet when wearing the uniform of the United States serves more as a front for defending a political ideology (a rabid one at that) rather than upholding and defending the Constitution, the military does itself a disservice. The disconnect between those who serve in the military and those whom they are sworn to protect can be fatal when one realizes the recruiting pool no longer identifies with the military as a legitimate expression of patriotism and citizenship.
The scope of this ideological hijacking is broad, yet barely recognized. One can glimpse just how deep and nefarious this ideological shift is when one considers the extent to which evangelical Christians have infiltrated the U.S. Air Force Academy, proselytizing their heavily politicized religion to the future officers and leaders of that service. The past comments of Lt. Gen. William Boykin, a decorated Army Special Operations veteran who described America’s post-9/11 “war on terror” as a conflict between “Christian” America and “radical Islam,” are widely embraced within the U.S. military. President Bush has echoed Boykin in his speeches and statements, and the military’s favorite presidential candidate, Republican Sen. John McCain, has become the embodiment of Boykin’s philosophy. The Constitution prohibits the notion that America be defined as a Christian nation. To allow the military, sworn as it is to uphold and defend that document, to posture itself as Christian, becoming in effect the “sword of God,” is unthinkable and unforgivable.
The implications of such posturing are far-reaching, especially from the military recruitment standpoint. The all-volunteer military succeeds when it attracts to its ranks those who have a sincere desire to serve their nation. It succeeds greatly when those it attracts come from the broadest possible cross section of the American demographic. There has always been an economic aspect to the all-volunteer force; service is not slavery, and the military has always promised the security of a middle-class lifestyle to those who choose to enlist. But military service, properly motivated, has never been solely about the money. It is about defending a greater good, the people of the United States of America and their values and ideals as defined by the Constitution.
It has become increasingly difficult to motivate enough of today’s youths to serve in the armed services based upon the call of duty alone. One of the primary reasons for this shortfall is the unfortunate perception, not improperly derived, that military service is not in keeping with the concept of “doing the right thing.” This perception, born of an unpopular war and the dishonest foreign policies of successive administrations, is further exaggerated by the reality that the military not only operates as a separate and distinct part of American society (this has always been the case) but, due in large part to post-9/11 hysteria, has been positioned to view the American people as a threat. The inherent problems of the military trying to recruit from a population base which is under attack from the military are self-evident. Genuine patriotism was once a viable recruitment pitch. Now, economic incentives, false promises and pseudo-patriotism are used as the bait to lure the youths of today into America’s legions. Like the legions of the past, these new warriors march not on behalf of the citizens they are sworn to protect, but rather the emperor who commands them. This may be viewed as an overly harsh statement, but there is no other way to describe the abuses of a unitary executive who positions himself above the Constitution and Congress in a time of war.
Having described the current state of the military and military service in this manner, why would I ever encourage a citizen of military age to consider service in the armed forces? First and foremost, one needs to understand that the entire military system has not been corrupted. There are still men and women of honor who serve with dedication and pride. They are, in fact, in the majority. It takes only a few bad apples to spoil the lot, however, and our military today, thanks to a nebulous mission and lower recruiting standards, is full of bad apples. Likewise, to quote a Russian general, “a fish stinks from its head,” and nothing smells worse today than the “head” of the United States. Our commander in chief has disgraced the office he was entrusted with, and in doing so has severely damaged the foundation of American civil society as well as the institutions sworn to uphold and defend it.
The solution, however, cannot be “cut and run.” Simply identifying the problem and pointing a finger at the perpetrators will do nothing to resolve these critical issues. Our military cannot change unless we the people re-establish the link between ourselves and the legislative branch of government and rebuild the bond of trust between citizen and soldier. This cannot happen in stages, but rather must occur simultaneously. While the vast majority of America struggles to regain its moral and ethical compass through the re-establishment of the rule of law as set forth by the Constitution, we need to continue to maintain a military which is capable of defending us.
This requires good people to serve, even if the conditions of their service are not ideal. Do I want to have an intelligent, morally grounded soldier on the front line in Iraq, making the decisions about the use of force in the framework of an illegal and unjust occupation, or do I want to relinquish that job to a former felon lacking even a high school diploma? Do I want the troops of today led by Bible-wielding zealots or Constitution-wielding patriots? While we struggle to re-establish the bond between citizen and soldier, we have an absolute requirement to ensure we continue to field a military composed of citizen soldiers. The only way to prevent our military from becoming the new Roman Legion is to staff it with citizens of principle who reject such an abominable label. We are a nation at war, not just abroad, but with ourselves. Now, more than ever, we need citizens of standing to answer the call to service, not in the name of a criminal president or an illegal war, but rather in defense of the Constitution and all that it stands for, against all enemies, foreign and domestic.
Scott Ritter was a Marine Corps intelligence officer from 1984 to 1991 and a United Nations weapons inspector in Iraq from 1991 to 1998. He is the author of numerous books, including “Iraq Confidential” (Nation Books, 2005) , “Target Iran” (Nation Books, 2006) and his latest, “Waging Peace: The Art of War for the Antiwar Movement” (Nation Books, April 2007).
Copyright © 2008 Truthdig, L.L.C.
Every member of the U.S. Congress should read this article and respond personally to Scott Ritter. Every newspaper in the U.S. should carry this article on their front page. Every college and university in the U.S. should distribute this article on campus.
I’m a peace activist because my dad and brother were soldiers. I became very interested in learning why wars happen. I found out that there are many corrupt and suspect reasons why people end up throwing hot lead and chemicals at each other.
We have the ability to live in peace.
We support the troops by making sure they are only asked to sacrifice their time and lives when necessary. We can support the troops by asking questions and demanding accountability of our leaders.
War is not the best strategy.
We can win with a strategy of peace.
What Scott Ritter calls for, ‘An intelligent, morally grounded soldier on the front line in Iraq’, is a contradiction and impossibility.
One can be intelligent and morally grounded.
One can be a front line soldier in Iraq.
But to be both requires mental gymnastics that deny and suppress both intelligence and morality.
If one is intelligent, you start to question the Official Story about why one is serving in Iraq. The various outright lies of WMD’s, Saddam Hussien’s involvement in 9/11, bringing ‘democracy’ to Iraq and others DEMAND that you reject them.
If you are moral, you would question why you have invaded and occupied a sovereign nation that posed no credible military threat to you, and was in fact, a former ally in the region whose dictator DEPENDED on the American CIA and military for his very power and position.
Therefore, to be intelligent and moral as a front line soldier in Iraq you must therefore deny your own intelligence and morality to be there.
And as a side argument, why is Scott Ritter being an apologist for the very same fascists who attempted to frame him with a false charge of luring an underage girl over the internet?
Scott Ritter raises a number of excellent points, primarily with regard to the breakdown of the legislative branch of our government. To those who don’t seem to GET the connection between Christian zealotry and the infiltration of our military, Ritter laid it out.
My only problem with Scott’s article (and perspective) is the respect he has for the military, itself. Howard Zinn reminds us that most conflicts the U.S. has engaged in have been in pursuit of resources or empire-lite. What nation conceivably could attack this country? Before Bush, there were far less reasons to do so. Presently, given the pre-emptive war stance and the inexcusable loss of life for the quest of oil, no doubt some are plotting revenge right now.
As some have related in this forum, what we need is a global consciousness that works towards peaceful ends that preclude the NEED or rationale for force, as in militarism. That the US has 700 bases circling the globe, that its policymakers seem to behold the world’s resources as fruit for the picking are troublesome to the goal of a world at harmony. When we think of the amount of $ wasted on war, weapons and aggression, money that might have been invested in better GREEN causes, we see that putting our faith in even a more balanced military is like pouring water onto a desert.
EVERY thing Ritter says makes sense until he stands beholden to the idea that the military is a justified and necessary aspect of modern culture. That’s where this ENLIGHTENED warrior loses me.
Usually I like what Ritter has to say, but the start of this article really turned me off from reading more. I’m ex-navy, but don’t agree with the idea that armed service is a ‘duty’ of citizenship in any nation. There are many better ways to do good for your country that don’t depend on learning how to follow orders without question and to kill on command. Maybe it’s the fact that I’ve learned a good deal about what happens to countries that worship the warrior ethic; Japan’s Empire is a classic example, as is the Prussian Military ethic which was exploited so well by Kaiser Bill and Hitler. To bow down and say - as so many do in the states as well as in other countries at other times - that they respect the service of soldiers without questioning the why and what they do is a disservice to the real job of a soldier; which is to defend the people of their town from attack by others.
Ike was right to warn of the rise of the MIC, it produces things that have no purpose except to render the Earth uninhabitable.
I just posted the following under “…immoral war,etc.”
It fits here probably more in context of Scott’s points.
If this offends, please have patience.
————————————————————
Do you think Kennedy was assassinated for including the following in a speech in June 1963:
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1963kennedy-peacestrat.html
“Towards a Strategy of Peace, June 10, 1963″
“..What kind of peace do I mean? What kind of peace do we seek? Not a Pax Americana enforced on the world by American weapons of war. Not the peace of the grave or the security of the slave. I am talking about genuine peace, the kind of peace that makes life on earth worth living, the kind that enables men and nations to grow and to hope and to build a better life for their children-not merely peace for Americans but peace for all men and women, not merely peace in our time but peace for all time. .
First: Let us examine our attitude toward peace itself. Too many of us think it is impossible. Too many think it unreal. But that is a dangerous, defeatist belief. It leads to the conclusion that war is inevitable, that mankind is doomed, that we are gripped by forces we cannot control.
We need not accept that view. Our problems are manmade; therefore they can be solved by man. And man can be as big as be wants. No problem of human destiny is beyond human beings. Man’s reason and spirit have often solved the seemingly unsolvable, and we believe they can do it again.”
blah-blah-blah . Shoulda , coulda , woulda . This occupation will end and future occupations will not start when soldiers refuse to take up arms unless America is invaded .
This occupation will end …when American civilians support the soldiers’ decision above.
Read your damned nstitution : NO STANDING , PERMANENT ARMY
I want to address one part of Ritter’s piece.
One of his important assumptions is that the Constitution is alive and well– or, if not,– will be alive and well with the completion of this year’s election cycle. That depends on what legal school you subscribe to. From the tone of his writing, I infer that Ritter subscribes to a more classical or formal understanding of our constitution. I do not.
I believe in that school that argues that the law is made by the players and for the players. It has numerous effects. For starters, it’s why there remains a dominant two-party system which elects a world leader based on about 28% of the eligible voters. It’s why presidential candidates can make trivial personality quirks into “electability” issues while avoiding debate on real policy matters. (The other players in the system support them in this nonsense– no matter how well-meaning a candidate may be at the start of his or her campaign.)
The Bush administration is not the first to have usurped the constitution; however, it seems to have done it with nearly full support of the other “players”, especially the Congress and the Courts, political animals first, public servants second– and all to the detriment of our constitutional contract.
Statements made from our leading candidates do not persuade me that they will administer laws anymore faithfully than does George Bush. Indeed, Bush has pointed the way for them to choose the circumstances under which they may disobey the wishes of Congress. All they need do is alter the “facts on the ground”, which can be effected with a manipulative media campaign.
The major player who has uncovered the gaping holes in our constitution is surely Dick Cheney. It will not matter whether the next president subscribes to the unitary theory of the presidency. It is already here. The president has made it so, and the presidential contenders are not going to reduce that power once in office. I’ve recently wondered, what sort of constitution did Dick Cheney swear to defend and protect, or did he see his oath-taking as mere ceremony?
Getting back to the classical sense of the constitution will take either a thorough rewriting or a revolution. For my money, I would settle for a simple cut-and-paste of the Bill of Rights between the Preamble and Article I. That would once and for all ASSERT who “we the people” ARE, and exoise that “unitary executive” theory for the petty academic quirk it is.
Skippyagogo41-
“the start of this article really turned me off from reading more. I… don’t agree with the idea that armed service is a ‘duty’ of citizenship in any nation. There are many better ways to do good for your country that don’t depend on learning how to follow orders without question and to kill on command.”
You should really give the article a shot. In many ways you & Scott are saying the same thing.
If nobody joins the armed service out of a sense of civic duty, then our entire military consists of people who joined for financial reasons, i.e., the military offered their best hope to get out of poverty. This means they’re less likely to think critically and easier to brainwash.
Although I find Scott Ritter very intelligent and informed, I don’t always agree with him. I didn’t agree with another recent article where he made the case against impeachment. He got his wish. There won’t be any impeachment this late in the game.
As for this article, I agree that military service could be an admirable undertaking and that many of today’s military had noble intentions. However, by this point, there is no reason to think the US will use its military judiciously.
Mr. Ritter, thanks. More please on how to rein in the avaricious lovers of war.
Mr. Curmudgeon, Kennedy did OK with the $2.00 bill; that was just a curiosity; and, didn’t make the FED owners feel threatened — he overstepped when he had the fin printed up as the currency of the People.
The lovers of war will not love it any more if it comes crashing into their homes and country clubs.
With the exception of WWI and WWII, if you look at the conflicts that have been carried out by our military during the past 100+ years, what you find is that most were not wars of defense but wars of aggression, Viet-Nam, South and Central America, Granada, the Philippines, China, the Middle-east, and the list goes on. All were sold to the American people as a conflict or police action, (whatever that means) to protect the peoples of a nation from communism, drug lords, despots, tyrants, or whatever our government felt was evil at the time.
I don’t know of any conflict, other than the 2 world wars, that was carried out by our military that did actually protect citizens of the invaded country. In the case of the Americas we simply followed and archaic law (the Monroe Doctrine) and used it as an excuse to control some countries and protect U.S. interests (translates to Big Business). The U.S. put down citizens that protested U.S. interference in several other countries as well.
To suggest that it is possible to change a large extablished system from within is an unrealistic. In order to change the system a solider must rise to the level of overall command, which is usually not possible for an agent of change. Even if that solider rises to that level, he’s still controlled by the elected official, the President, and can be fired at the whim of the president. Several cases recently have shown that going against the president can get you fired. It would be nice to have an Army of constitutional wrapped solders, but realistically, all of that is useless when you get sent to serve in unjust wars, you’re still required to go. Your only option is to leave the military, after your contract expires, or desertion. Placed in a situation where you are forced to kill unjustly, many develop serious emotional problems. Those that don’t develop emotional problems may rationalize their actions by marginalizing the people that they fight, or by justifying the conflict as being right, opposite of their beliefs. As a person develops defense mechanisms to justify his actions, the further from an ‘agent of change’ that person gets.
I have the greatest respect for those military persons that are true heros, bravely protecting their fellow solders, others, or losing limbs because they were sent somewhere they didn’t want to go.
But for the following reason alone;’the history of how our Military was used, and how important ‘following orders’ is’, I don’t believe that serving in the Military is a good career choice. I can understand however, why many young people do enter the military; as a means for education, training, a job when nothing else exists for them, an escape from a life of despair, a feeling that they owe something to the country, and for many other reasons.
The Military is nothing more than an arm of an elected political official, and as such can be used in ways that are not in accord of a person’s beliefs. Is a person better off following his beliefs or being forced down a path that may be against his beliefs?
I just googled Scott Ritter’s date of birth to see if I could locate WHY he’s so pro-military. Each of us is a cosmic “Kodach moment,” and by that I mean we become a crystalization of the celestial factors at play when we take our first breath. I didn’t even have to get to the chart as an entity as I also use a numerological hybrid to assess “character.”
Scott’s imprint, his date of birth translated into its Chinese I Ching equivalent, is 39: Conflict. He truly sees the world through the prism of inevitable conflict. One may argue that given history’s voice (taken as evidence) conflict IS inevitable. Perhaps. Or it’s the inevitable result of programing humans to think in terms of loss, competition and lack.
Spiritual technologies like the I ching relate inviolate truths about the human condition. That Bush is our 43rd president when the I ching teaching for kua/hexagram 43 is all about the impotence of fighting evil sure speaks about the higher concordance among things thought unrelated.
The most interesting point of this article is the growing and now gaping disparity between military and citizenry, and between citizenry and government. The high schoolesque cliques in this country are nauseating at best and lethal at their worst; lethal to our soldiers, our economy, and our constitution. I just hope enough of us have been awakened so that we can turn the tides back into the favor of ‘we the people’ before the “rich popular crowd” destroys every last morsel of what this country is supposed to stand for. “OMFG!”
I appreciate Scott Ritter’s efforts to bring truth forward and differ strongly on one particular point, as did the Founding Fathers. A volunteer army will never be a cross section of our country, but by design staffed in the main by those whose choices are limited. If it is important to have a strong military, I belive that it should consist of people from all strata of our culture. Then perhaps, our leaders will not feel so free to spend their lives…or at least will have the general citizenship of our country more interested in bringing accountablity.
More on the Pentagon:
Pentagon Backs Plan to Build US “Zone Of Influence” of Hotels and Resorts in Baghdad
By Satyam Khanna
ThinkProgress.org
Monday 05 May 2008
The White House has repeatedly insisted that the United States has “no desire for permanent bases” in Iraq. Nevertheless, the Bush administration is seeking to leave its footprint on Iraq through other means. The AP reports that the Pentagon is backing a $5 billion dollar plan to “transform the U.S.-protected Green Zone” into a “centerpiece for Baghdad’s future,” resulting in “big paydays for early investors”:
For Washington, the driving motivation is to create a “zone of influence” around the new $700 million U.S. Embassy to serve as a kind of high-end buffer for the compound, whose total price tag will reach about $1 billion after all the workers and offices are relocated over the next year.
“When you have $1 billion hanging out there and 1,000 employees lying around, you kind of want to know who your neighbors are. You want to influence what happens in your neighborhood over time,” said Navy Capt. Thomas Karnowski, who led the team that created the development plan.
An incentive for the project, which would include hotels, resorts, and commercial development in the Green Zone, appears to be lining the pockets of investors and allies rather than re-building Iraq’s economy. In fact, Karnowski acknowledged that American officials would vet potential investors because of a “vested interest” - mirroring the cronyism of Saddam’s Hussein’s regime.
Some Iraqi leaders even have drawn parallels to the U.S.-backed development plan and what Saddam Hussein did in the area - known by its Iraqi name of Tashri during his regime. Hussein stocked the neighborhood with family and tribal allies, political loyalists and members of his elite Republican Guard. Karnowski called the accusation “partially true.”
Many U.S. embassy officials have called the plan “unrealistic.” One added that Iraqis, a majority of whom oppose the U.S. presence, are unlikely to want the U.S. to “turn this area into downtown Kansas City.” “The Iraqi government wants to limit U.S. power in the Green Zone,” a top adviser to Prime Minister Maliki said.
But the permanent U.S. footprint in Iraq is already making inroads. In addition to construction of the U.S. embassy in Baghdad, the largest in the world, the Los Angeles-based company that developed Disneyland is developing a “massive American-style amusement park” in Baghdad “that will feature a skateboard park, rides, a concert theatre and a museum.” That project has the support of Gen. David Petraeus.
“If you talk to people at the State Department, they still believe a hotel isn’t going up. But it is a done deal,” Karnowski said of the Marriott project. Another “possible $1 billion investment could come from MBI International, a conglomerate that focuses on hotels and resorts and is led by Saudi Sheikh Mohamed Bin Issa Al Jaber.”
I heard Mr. Ritter speak yesterday at the 38th annual commemoration of the May 4 shootings at Kent State. He gave a very powerful and thought provoking speech about the duties of citizenship and how it’s our obligation to not only read and learn our Constitution, but to stand up for it and defend it. I told him that I work in a library and have a copy of said document on my desk at all times in case my job requires me to defend it.
I can say in all honesty that he is an excellent speaker and if you haven’t had a chance to hear him, do so. It’s well worth your time.
A couple of comments on this latest rumination from Scott Ritter, whom I greatly respect and most often agree with.
Disclosure: I was a very, very unwilling draftee, conscripted between college and graduate school into the US Army at the height of the Vietnam War. I served by bit overseas on the South Korean DMZ, leaving with an honorable discharge at the end of my two year stint (fortunately, with no actual combat). While on active duty, I took part in public and clandestine antiwar activivism (in the American Servicemens Union). Later on in civilian life I’ve opposed war and militarism through Veterans for Peace and other peace groups.
First, I think Scott’s approach to the basic question - can one morally and intelligently take part in military service today? - should draw a distinction between being an enlisted person or an officer, a cog or a wheel. I’m all in favor of good, moral, intelligent young people volunteering for the officer corps or seeking slots at West Point or Annapolis. I despise the cult of the mindless warrior, and (like Andrew Bacevich) believe that there is an enormous danger to democracy in abandoning the ideal of citizen soldiers in favor of raw professional elitism.
That said, I think it is rather naive to believe that people enlisting today into the lower (enlisted) ranks of the military can, in fact, effectuate any sort of positive influence upon the Pentagon war machine from within, while within. I find it as hard to envision being a “moral and intelligent” private in the army of occupation of Iraq as it was to be a “moral and intelligent” grunt going out on search and destroy missions 30 years ago in Vietnam. It simply becomes oxymoronic to volunteer to serve under the terms of engagement known to exist, and try to call it the discharge of a civic duty.
Second, when I have interracted with returning all-volunteer military veterans on today’s college campuses, I am struck by the frequency with which they point out that the incredible post 9-11, Iraq war run-up propaganda hype stateside alters the moral equation in their eyes: you (meaning the adult world) called upon me to do this, I answered your call and done my duty, so don’t you dare now try to turn your back on me, or blame me for the mission’s failure.
I think these are civics points well taken. This is particularly true when you then find out your enlistment contract is as malleable and open-ended as your credit cards’ terms.
Third, the Boykinization of military duty as a sort of religious calling goes hand in hand with the conscious partisan politization of the military cultivated by the Bush regime. The true wedge, in my opinion, is not so much between the electorate and Congress or the Congress and the troops as it is between those who deliberately inject active duty soldiers into the civilian policymaking debates, and those who would preserve the historic separation between soldier and civilian.
Where was the public outcry in “respectable” media circles when George Bush absolved himself from political accountability for his occupation policies by putting Rumsfeld out to pasture and then delegating all his executive branch authority over troop levels to General Petraeus? Why weren’t there calls to reprimand General Mixon when he ran psy-ops in the NY Times, whining on cue that Congressional debate over setting a withdrawal time line was undermining his troops’ morale (as though he actually had his finger on their collective barracks pulse)?
If you know that part and parcel of answering the call to arms today is likely to include sweeping up and softening up detainees, or justifying collateral civilian damage in an army of neo-colonial occupation caught up in somebody else’s civil war, then I don’t see how you can justify volunteering unless your goal is to help reform (rather than to aggrandize) the US military from its top down.
Bill from Saginaw
This is both a brilliant article and a seriously flawed article. It’s brilliantly written and is for the most part correct in its analysis, but it’s seriously flawed in one very important area:
No one should join today’s military. No one at all.
Unless of course killing innocent strangers and risking your life and your country’s reputation, for relatively low wages, in order to make oil companies, weapons manufacturers and politicians richer seems like a good idea to you.
everyone does public service for two years. and we dump the Hessian ‘volunteer’ thing.
abolishing the draft was the biggest mistake the left has ever made.
Galen,
I think I will subscribe to Ritter’s point of view since he has been there and done that. You, on the other hand, are speculating.
The most critical part of this entire argument, in my opinion, is the implied assumption that the U.S. should have a large standing military, not ignorance that “creates the conditions which foster the divide between citizen and soldier that permeates society today.”
In the early years of the Republic there was much concern about having such a military that would be used for aggressive, rather than defensive, purposes. The Hamiltonians seem to have won out.
As it has turned out, by having “military like those of Europe”, has continually engaged in adventurism (from killing native-Americans to the Spanish-American War).
The real problem isn’t as Ritter states, but the fact that studying war is not “good citizenship” (except perhaps in the case of defense) when talents and energies of the person are wasted on war.
Militarism is exactly the “sort of tyranny is what Americans fought a revolution to free themselves from 233 years ago.”
Charlie Jackson
Texans for Peace
I think that to talk about life in terms of war or peace is like talking about life as if
it is black or white. In a world with a population aiming for 9 billion by mid-century,
i think you can give up on the idea that life is going to be without strife. I think we
should aim for something more achievable - universal justice - and the peace will
follow.
The real reason it’s so difficult to maintain an all-volunteer military today is more a side effect of Acute American Greedism than anything else.
“Can’t get rich diggin a ditch” as the song goes, and today’s 18-34 yo demographic was raised by Generation Me, the ones who’ve spent the last 8 years or so stealing and hoarding as much wealth as possible. Generation Me Too is even more selfish, more greedy and more out of touch with “reality.”
$30,000 a year to be a twice stop-lossed bullet magnet the VA ignores or mistreats upon return? Compared to the average - that’s average - Wall Street salary of $146,120 a year? Hell, I pay my deli manager over $50,000 - and there is virtually no chance of him receiving a Traumatic Brain Injury.
Generation Me Too sees the military as a “dead end job” - like Wal Mart cashier, but with shrapnel. It has nothing to do with Congress or citizenship or national service - it’s simply about the fantasy of being a multi-anything-aire in a country that prizes obscene wealth above all else.
The militarism of society is the ONLY problem.
If that is what everyone is being told makes someone credible (paticipation in an artificial social construct, a completely unnatural society that is grounded in the most absurd fallacies)… no real answers will ever be possible to implement… which is unquestionably the present state of affairs in this world-wide corporate/military order.
New metrics MUST be embraced based upon a person’s acquaintance with natural law and what it can reveal about human and ecological potential, behavioral boundaries, etc.
Unquestionably, the emergence of ‘cult of the warrior’ (based upon one of the first ‘artificial reality’ scripts is the ancient root of our break/disassociation with nature and the absurd notion that ‘natural’ was antithetical (even inimical) to ‘civil society’ and ‘human progress’.
These gargantuan fallacies upon which our present militaristic society rests must be understood.
Scott Ritter is an imbecile!
And over-population is just another contrived reality (put them behind fences — removing all access to resources outside corporate/monetary control— until over-crowding is evident and call it over-population…)
Genocide apologists one and all!!!
Let us not forget that Saddam was the CIA’s proxy in the Iran/Iraq ‘war’ (read: genocide). And while the CIA ran the war from Iraq… its German counterparts were running the war behind the scenes in Iran.
More than a standing military being viewed as a threat for its tendency to adventurism, a standing military was viewed as perhaps the primary threat liberty.
“A standing military force, with an overgrown Executive will not long be safe companions to liberty. The means of defence against foreign danger, have been always the instruments of tyranny at home. Among the Romans it was a standing maxim to excite a war, whenever a revolt was apprehended. Throughout all Europe, the armies kept up under the pretext of defending, have enslaved the people.”
– James Madison … to the delegates of the Constitutional Convention.
http://www.fff.org/freedom/fd0612d.asp
If you get universal justice, then the drive to increase the population would lessen.
Think about it this way. If its every dog for itself, or every pack of dogs for itself, then it makes no sense for me to limit my personal population growth. In fact just the opposite. I want more people for my family, clan, tribe or whatever as that gives us an edge in fighting the other families, clans, tribes, etc.
On the other hand, if we all realize we are in this world together. And if there’s some basic agreement on this notion of ‘universal justice’, then it is much more logical for me to accept having fewer people in my family, clan, tribe or whatever as its clearly better for all of us as a whole.
Ie, if we keep up with this constant competition between all the monkeys, we’ll have no choice but to push the system to populations that can’t be supported, and thus have the sure-to-follow crash.
But, if we treat all men as brothers, and accept we are all in this together and reach some sort accommodation as to this notion of ‘justice’ for all, then we can reach a solution that can work.
If we keep with the constant competition and strife, we will create hell on this earth. If we treat all people as our brothers and sisters and work together, we can create paradise on this earth.
Get rid of the military order (with its trained terrorists and its secret policing units)… and watch nature’s harmony including human social sanity resume!
Wars, chaos, terrorism, totalitarianism, poverty, hunger and disease all are products of a totalitarian order… and that is what military society is all about… a tiny group of megalomaniacs… using every trick in the book to justify to the masses their ridiculous and totally unnatural positions.
Scott Ritter is an imbecile!
My advice? Try doing the right thing… not for reasons of vanity… not for reasons of influence… but just because it is needed and in the process, new discoveries will be made… things that have long been forgotten in the eons since man first became consumed by the life-destroying militaristic social orders.
http://allinharmony.org
This was an excellent and reasoned article. Many good points. The best pointing out that the soldier is a citizen, they are us.
Stephen V. Riley May 5th
peace coup May 5th
I agree and thank you for your observations.
skippyagogo41 May 5th
I think you misread him there, he said it was NOT a civic duty to serve in the military.
Siouxrose May 5th, 2008 12:58 pm
You make some excellent points. Especially the wasted $$$….
“the idea that the military is a justified and necessary aspect of modern culture. That’s where this ENLIGHTENED warrior loses me.”
I would suggest to you he is correct and the reason is he has seen what happens when there is no restraining force. Until a large change comes it is a justified and necessary aspect of modern culture. There are people that just don’t care what your philosophy is, they would just remove you.
I would mention the National Guard, don’t you think they do valuable work in emergencies? And the Corp delivers food and help in Catastrophes too, so don’t think too badly of the Marines.
At least you are reasonable in your opposition to a military. Its one of the things that makes me pay attention when you express your thoughts.
To many of you others, thanks for some very good thoughts and some excellent points derived from Ritters article.
Breaking:
http://www.pubrecord.org
Report May Have Motivated Destruction of Torture Tapes
“…the yawning gap that exists between we the people and those we ask to defend us.”
Major Ritter, with all respect, when was the last time the US armed forces actually did that? It wasn’t in my lifetime, I know that…
Any old timers out there who served in
the Universal Military Experimental Training Unit in Fort Knox KY in 1947? Try me…
Hijacked is just a mild statment.
Try this one,
Reported Dec 2006
Ex-Stasi Spy Chief Markus Wolf Hired By Homeland Security?
“Wolf is the man that effectively built the East German state intelligence operation’s internal directorate,” Martin continues. “He turned half the population into informants. That is his specialty, is taking a population, constructing the various state divisions, mechanisms of control, in order to organize informants within the population. That is his real specialty. And that is precisely, as Primakov has intimated, why Wolf is being brought in. The regime knows that once all of Patriot II is in law and they begin working on Patriot III, they will then begin to establish the internal mechanism to coordinate, as an official function of state, a system of informants. Wolf’s speciality was to turn East Germany into the greatest and most efficient informant state ever created.”
Do the right wing religeous wack jobs that support this admistration really think this stasi wack job gives a hoot about freedom of organized religon or our constitution?
“Forgieve them Father for they know not what they do”
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/december2004/061204wolfhired.htm
The depth and scope of the right wing take over is huge, we need to end this war and can all the spy programs ASAP.
The Constitution is in Danger, and we will all loose if we don’t act now.
Enemys Foriegn and Domestic are hard at work to destroy America.
I was at a neighboring college in 1970 and knew people at Kent State. I’m far away now, but I remember. And young people have asked me about those times recently and I talk about them. I agree with a commenter above that 1968 changed us. Until then, we thought the system could be reformed. The deaths of MLK and Bobby Kennedy showed us that nothing was really happening up front.
The only wrong note in Scott’s rant was about the troops. It’s time we abandoned giving them a pass. It’s time folks were held accountable for signing up. It’s time we expected more of people, that they inform themselves, that they seek help, that their families won’t permit it.
Yes someone with a Brain
Damned right, Rose just above! The wars will stop when young men take responsibility for themselves—we should have learned that 30 years ago from Vietnam. Instead I see PBS running “Carrier” like it’s a boys’ club for white guys who crave to pack a pistol, who crave to get outright revenge for the death of a friend (killed in his own share of occupying Iraq) by dropping bombs from their so-cool jet fighters—guys who themselves admit they just “like it” having all these power-toys and haven’t had two consecutive thoughts on what they’re doing with them, to whom, for whom…. THAT is how they keep finding themselves crippled and killed, THEN they want the reason and find out there was none….If you don’t stand up for yourself there is no end or bottom to the ways in which you’ll be used/abused by others….
There is no country to defend against, and yet we spend more on our military than the rest of the world combined. Our military serves no moral purpose, but serves in the interest of corporate greed.
I would like to pay tribute to some American Heroes:-
* Ehrin Watada
* Kevin Benderman
* All those who said NO:-
“No, I will not kill people in far away places for the benefit of oil barons, or for any other unworthy cause.”
Impeach, then enlist.
“Our military cannot change unless we the people re-establish the link between ourselves and the legislative branch of government and rebuild the bond of trust between citizen and soldier.” - Ritter
Impeachment hearings, not conviction, not hanging Bush/Cheney by their testicles, impeachment hearings will “re-establish the link”. Impeachment - it’s in the Constitution Mr. Ritter - for circumstances just like We find ourselves in today.
Impeach, then enlist.
Siouxrose,
I disagree with Scott Ritter in this article. However, I believe Scott
Ritter is honest, and I respect him, because he tells truth as he knows
it. It is his honesty that led him to speak out and tell the world that
Saddam had no WMD.
In fact, Scott’s article is so honest, you can just about read him like
a book:-
* He was born into a military family. So the young man’s mind was no
doubt filled with thoughts of military and honour. You cant wash that
our of a mans psyche. Also, Unlike Dubya, he has led a distinguished
military career. You wont wash that out of him also:-
From Wikipedia:-
“Ritter was born into a military family in 1961. He graduated from
Franklin and Marshall College in Lancaster, Pennsylvania, with a
Bachelor of Arts in the history of the Soviet Union and departmental
honors. In 1980 he served in the U.S. Army as a Private. Then in May of
1984 he was commissioned as an intelligence officer in the United States
Marine Corps. He served in this capacity for twelve years. He initially
served as the lead analyst for the Marine Corps Rapid Deployment Force
concerning the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and the Iran-Iraq War.
During Desert Storm, he served as a ballistic missile advisor to General
Norman Schwarzkopf.”
* So having told aspiring peaceniks how important is the army, he gets
feedback and that feedback has disturbing undeniable truth. This causes
internal conflict. All his background, and his gut feelings tell him
that military service is good. And all his logic is telling him
something else.
* This article, I think, is an attempt by Scott to have his logic
justify his deeply ingrained convictions, an attempt to resolve his
internal conflict.
“Now, more than ever, we need citizens of standing to answer the call to service, not in the name of a criminal president or an illegal war, but rather in defense of the Constitution and all that it stands for, against all enemies, foreign and domestic.”
Scott, are you advocating that the military defend the constitution against our criminal presidency/unitary executive/seriously flawed CIC, and stop this insanity before it gets worse? How does one go about this at this time when impeachemnt is off the table?
I think people who care about social justice should get educated and informed and then get involved with whatever they are most interested and most passionate about. We need more good people in all fields, issues, occupations, and struggles.
That said, I don’t recommend people joining the military, especially under such an odious leader and especially during an immoral and illegal wartime.
There are many good ways to work for peace and justice. Everybody who cares about these progressive issues should do something, anything, everyday to protest war, violence, imperialism, and injustice and to fight for a better world.
Speak out, write, call, demonstrate, vote, organize, wear a pin, sign a petition, make a sign, donate money and/or time, support progressive orgs, support the non-corp media… do whatever it takes and keep doing it!
THOMAS MORE: I guess I’d prefer to see the military become a constructive corps of some kind. A while back I had this idea that the military during peace time go into the inner city ghetto and teach the unemployed teens building skills. If they learned how to regenerate their living zones, perhaps these citizens would take pride in them. Rather than toss $ for welfare motels and the like, asking corporations for donations for building materials makes more sense especially if each city block thus renovated carried the LOGO of the corporation that sponsored it on the brownstone corner edifice.
I believe Americans are conditioned for war, to see it as something glorious. It’s in our national anthem, disguised in every movie or television plot that makes the macho hero seductive and his cause “always on the side of whta’s right.” I’d like to see NEW conditioning away from the concepts of enemy and revenge, along with might makes right.
“inevitable conflict. One may argue that given history’s voice (taken as evidence) conflict IS inevitable.” - Siuoxrose
I go with the inevitability of conflict, so that puts the emphasis of how conflicts are carried out. Joseph Campbell presents the adjustment made by I think the Iroquois, where this Nation’s founders looked to in part in developing the Constitution, who used the similar methods as adjusted to in America’s ghettos with poetry slams and original rap and hip hop.
There won’t be any impeachment this late in the game.
BRAITHWA: The fascinating thing about the use of esoteric systems is how they do not compete with, but often complement the more evident, mundane bases for analysis. That Scott was raised in a military family is not a fact mutually exclusive from his numerological imprint, or that being a sun-sign Cancer like Bush, Jr. he has a VERY strong personalized identification with this nation, itself (July 4) a “Cancer entity.”
In my new children’s book, an allegory of the Zodiac that utilizes 12 insects to depict the nature of the sun signs, I chose the cockroach (including the really large ones that some call “palmetto bugs”) as the symbol for Cancer. Why? You always find roaches in the nicest homes… and Cancers are very keen on expensive real estate. I did a reading for a female millionaire I met in Puerto Rico and mentioned this new book. I said, “Guess what insect I chose for Cancer?” (Her sign) I was shocked when she said, “roach.” I thought she’d be insulted. In my version the roaches act like “The Borrowers” and have all kinds of goodies stored behind the walls of homes. The roaches know that things accrue value with time, and that’s probably a mantra for the sign of Cancer. In any case, I appreciate your feedback. I have not taken the time to fully analyze Ritter’s chart… his family background is part of the pattern his soul resonated with. From a spiritual perspective, birth is not exactly an accident AND we choose our parents!
edit that statement about impeachment.Of course there can still be impeachment if the citizens can overcome their imprinting and stand with their Constitution…it was part of a post that I had meant to rip jstevens with.
PUCK TWAIN: Just as the human body has a number of integrated organ-related systems, heaven’s theater–a sophisticated celestial architecture–allows for self-interest, what we call the ego. In astrology that raw aspect of the self is configured with Mars. Everyone has an ego, and everyone has SOME Mars. The problem is when this principle is granted homage and exalted above all other equally DIVINE expressions. This is why I believe that teaching the CIRCLE, even if we substitute VALUES for the 12 signs prove a great improvement over the usual hierarchical bases for defining human status, along with a pecking order of supposedly worthy traits.
Note that anyone posturing for leadership in America has to out-macho the next person. The show of bombast, a verbal fireworks that promises to blow up some unfortunate nation is clearly indicative of the degree to which the lower aspects of human nature, what I term Mars rules, has subsumed all other worthier considerations. Strength has morphed into dark vengeance, but even the Bible which the so-called Christian nation champions makes the Truth plain, and it is: “He who conquers HIMSELF is greater than he who conquers a city.” We need leaders who have a proven track record of demmonstrable self-discipline. I’d even like to see martial arts training since at core, it demands excellence in self-mastery more than leaving one’s alleged foe in a bloody mess on the floor. We need enlightened leaders who recognize that war always extracts costs beyond measure, while peace provides a stable basis which nurtures the growth of a society and its people.
Excuse me PUCK (I had wine with dinner tonight so my circuits are a bit foggy) but my initial opening sentence was to suggest that we human beings are composed of that same stuff of cosmos, and thus are wired to a lot more than just the dark impulses of MARS. The various voices the Ancient Greeks and Romans allotted to mythological entities may well be inviolate archetypal aspects that human flesh is heir to. I see in these personae the cosmic equivalent of a form of DNA.
A society that was as infatuated with Mercury as ours is with Mars would make teaching, learning and handiwork skills its primary basis for achievement. A society that championed Venus, would have extensive arts & musical programs, not to mention peace studies and courses in diplomacy. Mars is part of who we are as mortals, but it should not command the lion’s share of our resources or own our discourse or define our role models throughout media. THERE ARE OTHER CHOICES and it takes more than Mars to sustain life, or keep our diversified world (a circle!) in balance.
Ritter’s position doesn’t seem odd to me. Eisenhower articulated it well in his famous “Cross of Iron” speech.
kendpotter: “I think I will subscribe to Ritter’s point of view since he has been there and done that. You, on the other hand, are speculating.”
So, you subscribe to the organism in the tank knowing more about their situation than the organism outside the tank providing for their survival? This is fishbowl mentality, no? When the fish start committing suicide because they can only see the futility of existing in a murky, algae encrusted prison, do we jump into save them or do we simply clean the tank?
Ritter, you so called officers & gentlemen cannot have your cake and eat it too..
unlawful orders,actions under the constitution must not be obeyed even when promotion,retirement are at stake.. uphold the constitution.. arrest, charge hold for trial those who put themselves against the republic. tTo expect young enlisted men to perform what officers will not is garbage.. you have no shame.
Congress needs to support officers in this matter.. problem, the corporations buyand sell
the politicians.. citizens whether civilian or military have no options other than wahington,patrick henry, tom paine, adams & jefferson,franklin
So itsaNaziWorldOrder thinks, “These gargantuan fallacies upon which our present militaristic society rests must be understood. Scott Ritter is an imbecile! And over-population is just another contrived reality (put them behind fences — removing all access to resources outside corporate/monetary control— until over-crowding is evident and call it over-population…)”!
So how did overpopulation get into the discussion of this article on miltary service? I think INWO has a deluded view of nature. There are limits to growth on this finite planet, with finite resources, and a carrying capacity which is also finite, especially for any high, advanced, and peaceful civilization such as we all wish to live in. See www.dieoff.org and Olduvai Theory to explain this.
It has nothing to do with militarism. Certainly we should and could help the peoples of the world in a much better fashion, and there is ultramilitarism, and corporatism. But overpopulation continues to be a real problem as well, as we try to uplift people. See the YouTube video, “Are Humans Smarter Than Yeast?” to understand that population growth will reach an ecological and psychological breaking point without rational and fair family planning.
And this raw fact has nothing to do with militarism. In fact, it fuels militarism and corporatism, as the need for resources push societies to unhappy alternatives such as war. Egypt already has a standing declaration of war against any nation that usurps the flow of the Nile for their own use. TransNationals are making a fortune on the demand for more food. And so on.
And no, Scott Ritter is not an imbecile, but a true patriot and an intelligent soldier. Because the ‘fallacies’ upon which rest the current overblown militarism actually are truisms about the human animal. There have been and always will be people like Bush and Cheney, in every age and every society. The human animal has built-in biological, evolutionary fears and desires that manifest in awful ways.
Ad to resist powers that prey upon people there must sometimes be a resort to force. But logic and rationality must be the controlling factors, not fear and desire. Scott Ritter has displayed these qualities in many ways. He has risked his life for peace when he was working in Iraq to find any WMDs. He was a voice for peace at the very beginning of the BushWars, and now a voice against attacking Iran. We need people like these to be on watch for our nation.
War is NOT the exclusive vice of America. It existed thousands of years before America was even a thought, in ALL corners of the Earth. We must be prepared to defend our country from enemies of peace, life and traquility (such as Bush and Cheney). We must keep trying to PREVENT war everywhere, not instead wage so-called PREVENTIVE war, a kind of war even Eisenhower claimed doesn’t exist. And I think Scott Ritter embodies that soldier’s credo. And I am glad he is speaking out still.
One cannot “change the system from within” when the system is inherently flawed, and is based on empire building. There comes a time when dismantling the flawed system and removing the warmongers (profit mongers, bloodlust stricken violent mentally ill so-called leaders) is not only the only way, it is the moral responsibility of the taxpayers. Anything else is appeasement and collaboration. Ritter has put himself out on a limb over and over but he is still operating within a paradigm which is more than flawed, it is by it’s own definition evil.
Mr Scott Ritter,
US army is the strongest on the planet and there is no doubt about it. So, explain to us how on earth 19 Muslim Arab Terrorists armed with boxcutters managed to shatter the impenetrable air defence shield of the USA on 9/11 and neutralize this strong army and kill 3000 while the generals were watching helplessly? And your explanation for WTC 7 free fall please?
You point to the 9/11 false flag op as a terror attack and you still want us to believe in Bush’s fairytale version of the massmurder which in reality was masterminded by NeoCons? It used to work for 2 or 3 years but not anymore. You know much better or at least as much as we all now know about the Big Lie. Let me say this : you have failed the 9/11 Litmus Test. You are a liar, a propagandist for the criminal administration; a fake.
May I remind you that 9/11 issue was settled here once for all on CD( thank you CommonDreams) not long ago and the jury’s verdict was perfectly sharp and clear : it was in insude job. A FALSE FLAG operation for fearmongering and warmongering.You seem to be out of tune or out of touch with the reality outside. As you said you have made yourself REPUTABLE all right but as a dishonest brainwashing tool of the Establishment. You have given us a reson not to listen to your drivel anymore.
By the way what is the purpose of having a huge army? It is for making wars . As the warmongeress Albright said to the shameless BLOT “If you have a beautiful army why don’t you use it” Yes it is to be used for wars of agression abroad against innocents. Every war of the 20th century was orchestrtated by the US government ( WWI and WWII included )with over 200 million dead, for what reason? For world domination and for plundering natural resources of the planet. The USA proper has never been and will never be in danger of being attacked. So, this huge army is nothing but an instrument of massacre of the defenceless human beings.
You see, you are confronted with the obvious contradictions of your position. You are an insider official and at the same time you pretend to be an itelectual. Well, you end up gooffing up your ideas and planting yourself in a compromised situation . You and Chomsky and Alex Cockburn and John Nichols and Justin Raimondo and Norman Solomon, you are all the alumni of the Ministry of Truth school of falsification and propaganda. You are pseudo-intellectuals in the service of the war machine. We don’t trust you and we don’t need your opinion. We have our eyes to see and to judge. Go away, go to hell, liar.
SouixRose:
I so very much appreciate your postings. I am grateful to the Universe for putting you among us. And I’d love for you to do a reading for me sometime. Your post about using the birth date with the I Ching is the first I’ve heard.
Any ideas on how we can coordinate?
Like Scott, I’m an ex-Marine officer, although infantry and of the Vietnam vintage.
Unlike Scott, I will never shed the shame of what was done in Vietnam and in subsequent conflicts to the extent that I believe military service is consistent with morality. It most certainly is not.
I instruct my children to avoid military service entirely. That’s because at it’s best the U.S. military is a cruel hoax played on susceptible young persons who at their tender ages cannot adequately distinguish between genuine patriotism and the acts of genuine patriots and the veil of patriotism that is draped over the draconian imperial U.S. military and it’s actions.
At my late stage in life, I can see this clearly and certainly much more clearly than I could as the 20 year old I was when I enlisted. My Father, also an ex-Marine officer, never attained this level of clarity of thought and ignorantly encouraged not only me but both of my two brothers to enlist.
We did. We all regretted it. I won’t repeat the mistake of my Father.
No matter how respected and esteemed Scott is today, he’s wrong about true morality being possible in the military. And, I wonder if his position on this is not a rationalization of the irreconcilable positions he held and now holds. I suggest that he ask about this connundrum from the almost 250 veterans who try to commit suicide each week (and the survivors of the 6-7 a week who succeed). I believe the majority of them commit suicide or attempt to because of precisely these irreconcilables.
There’s nothing I would not give to be the humble, amiable, intensely community-oriented young man I was before I joined the Marines. There’s nothing I would not do to be able to say that I had not served this imperial country under arms.
David W. Walters, Ph.D.
Formerly, Captain of Infantry, U.S. Marine Corps
Spring, TX
The thrust of this article is quixotic to me. Ritter seems to have a romantic view of American history. I don’t see how his admirable citizen/soldier could predominate the American military apparatus, and I don’t if a war has ever been fought to defend constitutional principles. I don’t know, but some of the soldiers I’ve seen interviewed seem like decent persons, albeit they compartmentalize their minds in such a way to carry our violent missions against innocent people. Our pscychological defense mechanisms are both wonderous and tragic in that they enable us to survive and stay sane even as they keep us in a state of delusion and denial.
Whenever the discussion of militarism gets too heated, turn to http://www.armywrong.net
It’s something even the most ardent military support can get a chuckle out of.
Whenever the discussion of militarism gets too heated, turn to http://www.armywrong.net
It’s something even the most ardent military supporter can get a chuckle out of.
“So, explain to us how on earth 19 Muslim Arab Terrorists armed with boxcutters managed to shatter the impenetrable air defence shield of the USA”
Because the planes were already inside the USA - there was no defense shield to “shatter”. And, it is not like the the hijacking of airliners is some kind of difficult feat… Back in the 1970’s it was practically a fad.
But back to the topic, Greatly condensed, Ritter seem to be recommending that we participate in a morally repulsive institution so we can have more credibility when we criticise the institution. What Nonsense! So, do I have to commit a murder in order to be a critic of murder?
The military used to carry a lot of respect with it more than it does these days. A lot of us have grown very discontented with this Administration and the superior policies they are freely exporting abroad. So, a lot of us have grown to distrust them because they are part of the current establishment we have grown to detest. The attitude seems to come from military personnel who have the imperialistic view of the world. It’s all right for us to invade a country that was no threat to us, tear it up and kill it’s people because ‘they are a subculture’ in the military’s eyes! “After all they don’t live like us”. I guess the fact that they don’t means they are not deserving to good treatment. I don’t know how many times I have heard this sort of rhetoric from military people. To justify the carnage that has been inflicted in Iraq! So, I have discouraged my Grandson from ever joining it!
Thoreau put it best: “The mass of men serve the state thus, not as men mainly, but as machines, with their bodies. They are the standing army, and the militia, jailers, constables, posse comitatus, etc. In most cases there is no free exercise whatever of the judgement or of the moral sense; but they put themselves on a level with wood and earth and stones; and wooden men can perhaps be manufactured that will serve the purpose as well. Such command no more respect than men of straw or a lump of dirt. They have the same sort of worth only as horses and dogs. Yet such as these even are commonly esteemed good citizens.”
To join the military is to make yourself a gun, for leaders to aim and shoot as they please. A soldier always has the choice to refuse orders, but doing that would ruin your career and probably get you some jail time. So there are you, put in the impossible situation of killing without good cause (true of almost every intervention) or sacrificing your freedom and prospects for success. The best choice is not to become a soldier in the first place.
The US military has, historically, been more about protecting buisness interests than the constitution. The wonderful thing about an all volunteer force is that we really do not have to support our troops since they are all doing what they voluntered to do (and in reality that has very little to do with defending this country). I find it disturbing to see the support, in this country, for actions aginst others that would be held as criminal were it happening to us.
ruthru,
What in the hell are you talking about? Fishbowls?
All I know, having served, is that everone I knew in the military were pretty much just like everybody I know now in civilian life. We all have common aspirations and desires. The job was pretty much a job. Some times thing were horrible, just like EMT’s scraping dead kids off a highway. Some of the guys suffered mental anguish from it. Just like other people in “normal” life. I know a girl who never spent any time in the military who’s life has been shattered by a rape. She suffers PTSD. I never did. Who between the two of us is normal?
Every time you start to think about the military, just remember this - They are a pretty good cross-section of our society, good and bad, and a hell of a lot more similar to you than you might think.
Ken
Ritter’s argument is founded on the proposition that war is both inevitable and necessary. I suggest that the vast war machine, called by General Dwight Eisenhower the Military-Industrial Complex, is the proper place to begin an analysis. In looking at this monster we see that it has pervaded all aspects of our society and is now in the process of completing its destruction of our constitution and consequently our freedoms. Because the monster is founded on the principle of “following orders” and not on independent conscience, community concern or democratic action it cannot be stopped by merely seeding it with intelligent citizens. It swallows them up and destroys them or incorporates them into its evil machinery. To correct and dismantle this montrous machine we first need to see its self-perpetuating underpinnings and its pervasive influence. It is run by a largely self-appointed and often secret (black budget) cabal of individuals, corporations and elected officials who do not question the mission — which is simply to perpetuate itself and expand itself in the service of a lie — called patriotism or “national security” and it provides neither. Only a relentless and thoroughgoing questioning of its mission and an insistence on bringing daylight to its secret operations through an inquiring, investigating and courageous CONGRESS can this thing be tamed and brought to heel. No aspect of the military or allied secret agencies’ budgets should be exempt from thorough review and open examination. We may already have passed the point of no return but joining this monstrous machine is not the answer Mr. Ritter. The monster will never investigate itself. That is dangererously naive.
As hard as Ritter tries to argue against reinstating the draft, his complaint that the public lack of concern with events in Iraq is a result of poor citizenship, screams out for putting an end to the all volunteer military.
Militaries have existed for thousands of years and they have never been instituted primarily for any defense of freedoms or citizen’s rights. History is fairly clear that they have primarily been used as instruments of the dominant power (and wealth)….usually in their own backyard.
The issue isn’t about whether we should have a draft, changed strategies, different tactics - but whether we should have a large military at all.
Charlie Jackson
Texans for Peace
—————-
When the discussion gets a little too serious, go to “Army Wrong” for a little relief. http://www.armywrong.net
Puck Twain: I didn’t say there couldn’t be impeachment. I sure as he!! didn’t say there shouldn’t be impeachment. I said there won’t be. Would YOU put any money on that horse with the election less than 6 months away?
“Siuoxrose…I so very much appreciate your postings….Any ideas on how we can coordinate?” - TruOrange
My sentiments exactly. I know it wasn’t for solicitation that you mentioned your book, but I have great interest there as just a few weeks ago I was able to complete for the first time a circular narrative using the “talents/powers” (Cardinal Air, Fixed Earth etc) of the 12 signs.
FYI - “I’d even like to see martial arts training since at core, it demands excellence in self-mastery more than leaving one’s alleged foe in a bloody mess on the floor.” I’m biased here, but you might check out the Feldenkais Method; Feldenkrais himself was one of the first judo black belts from the West, training with Dr. Kano and his liniage, of Japan; later developing his own methodology, which is already one of the top CEU’s for PT’s and Massage Therapists, and one day his basic principle’s will be recognized as the basis of psychological development, and is now what I call the judo of human uplift.
Siuoxrose - puck twain - evansdadop@aol.com
I’m glad I returned to this thread! (Long day teaching my grandson about the natural world.)
BRAVO! to PEGRIN (Loved the Thoreau quote), and AWAKEN.
Excellent posts: JOHN R, LONG FISHER, etc.
TRU-ORANGE: In this forum I’d be happy to give you the I ching life imprint… I just need your date of birth. Otherwise, my website is: www.siouxrose.com
PUCK TWAIN: Much obliged… didn’t know you work with The Oracles! Those of us in this forum who develop our minds, keep abreast of world events, are aligned with progressive values AND are keen on the esoteric bring a new dimension to a politics of greater humanistic inclusion. Feel free to contact via my website as noted above. I’ll keep your email. I am presently learning how to manage time with the new element of playing Mary Poppins to a very precocious and darling 2.5 year old… Grandma is his version of Montesorri! I have less time to write & participate in this forum… new things to juggle compete!
“I sure as he!! didn’t say there shouldn’t be impeachment.” - jstevens
I of course notice the two exclamation marks, and in my travels this is what I hold on to. Why? because this is what I see as truly alive in so many American Citizens: at every rally - whether the main cause be for peace, health care, jobs, housing, or environment the same statements occur - “Oh, I’m for this or that” and then, “I would Love impeachment!”
So, to answer you wager question: It depends on the trainer and the training. If Pelosi’s statement on impeachment, which has been repeated as a mantra from so many well meaning Americans, is the organizing thought form, then, no bet.
But, if I was to enter my horse “Impeachment Hearings” in the race, and the organizing principle was “yes you can”, and I fed “my Love” the best food, and found the best masseur to ease her aches and pains, and found the best Feldenkrais Practitioner to recognize “Impeachment Hearings” inherent dignity…and if you told me her support circle would be chanting and thinking, from the time my Love was saddled in the paddock to the time she entered the gate, and around each turn, and especially (especially!) down the home stretch…if these chants and thoughts were: “yes, you can Impeachment Hearings - you can do it, ‘you’ can do it, come on Impeachment Hearings - you can do it girl!…then, yes, I’ll take your wager.
And even if Big Brown were to represent no hearings and 8 Belles were to represent Impeachment Hearings, I would have bet and lived the race of life in passion and love for what is alive in me. For like Martin Luther King Jr. in Memphis, issuing his last words to America on his last night alive on earth - “…but it doesn’t really matter to me now, for I’ve been to the mountain top…I just want to do God’s will, and He’s allowed me to go up the mountain, and I’ve looked over, and I’ve seen the Promised Land, I might not get there with you, but I want you to know We as a People, will get to the Promised Land…”, like Martin I’ve seen the Promised Land of human potentiality, and I can assure you the Promised Land is not tilled with plows of defeatist attitudes, the Promised Land is tilled with the passion and Love that is alive in each human being.
So I say to you and all, live your passion, live your Love; re-watch The Champ and Seabiscuit, listen to the last words of Martin Luther King to America and the words of Robert F. Kennedy On The Menace Of Violence spoken the day after Kings death, and then pick your organizing principles and mantras:
You can do it Impeachment Hearings - yes you can! Go Impeachment Hearings - Go! The American Spirit rides on your back - go Impeachment Hearings, go - you can do it!
Ritter says: “There are many ways in which one can serve his or her nation.”
We are not here to serve the nation–that’s what Hitler, Stalin, and Kennedy all wanted their populace’s to do. If you read the Preamble to the Constitution, the federal government was convened to serve the People–to better the General Welfare. It was to serve us, not for us to serve it. Look at local government as an example–it exists to serve its citizens; its citizens don’t exist to serve it. Those citizens employed by the government work for the betterment of their fellows, not for the betterment of the government. IMO, it is this ethos that government exists for the sake of government that is at the root of the problem, and not just in the USA. Every politico and bureaucrat is out to further their career and protect their interest first and foremost, not the people they are supposed to serve. Unfortunately, this state of affairs has existed so long–since the 1820s–people think of it as normal. The above utterance by Mr Ritter shows his indoctrination is no different from most and provides the reason why the dominant class/power structure knows he’s not a threat.
Hi Ken,
What I’m refering to is the information that is coming out regarding our current situation in Iraq and Afghanistan. This article was released not too long ago.
Published on Friday, February 1, 2008 by The Times Online/UK
US Soldier Suicides Reach A Record High
by Catherine Philp
“Suicides among serving American soldiers reached a record high last year, as more troops were sent back for multiple tours of the battlefields of Iraq and Afghanistan.The US Army saw suicides among active duty troops leap 20 per cent from 2006, with 121 soldiers taking their own lives during 2007. The increase in attempted suicides and self-inflicted injuries was higher still, jumping six-fold since the war in Iraq began in 2003.”
I think we both are in agreement about the suffering involved. The article is well written and researched. I take exception to his solution to the problem.
“Do I want to have an intelligent, morally grounded soldier on the front line in Iraq, making the decisions about the use of force in the framework of an illegal and unjust occupation, or do I want to relinquish that job to a former felon lacking even a high school diploma?”
Where we might differ is whether the men and women immersed in the present crisis there are capable of making ethical decisions on the front lines of an immoral war. Even the most intelligent soldiers cannot reconcile the carnage they’re inflicting on their so-called enemy because the war has been proven to have been started under false pretenses.
Have you read about the generals who were used by the media to make an argument for war leading up to the occupation? This occupation is illegal. Our men and women should not be over there. People are dying and suffering for this robber baron administration. The soldiers over there cannot disobey their orders. They’re trapped into killing and destroying innocent people every day.
The analogy of the fishbowl is that of a voyeur observing creatures suffering such miserable conditions that they are beginning to self destruct. We bear witness to this toxic reality every day. We are on the outside looking in much like we were in Vietnam.
It would seem to me that the more intelligent a creature is, the more quickly they might see the futility of it all and resolve to end the absurdity of their situation by any means possible rather than continue to be used. This may explain my fishbowl analogy a little better.
I have really appreciated what Ritter has done in trying to prevent the attack on Iraq, and also the planned attack on Iran. I hope he will take this comment — if he should read it — as a very friendly criticism. We all have our blind spots! Much of what he says, I agree with. It’s well thought-out within the parameters of Mr. Ritter’s assumptions.
Unfortunately, however, I think he has failed to note a couple pertinent facts. Others have already raised them, but I will repeat:
1. The US military in my lifetime has not been used to defend the United States. It has been used to extend US economic dominance, to exploit other peoples and countries, to build an empire. That has been US foreign policy. The United States has no credible enemies — in the military sense. That is, neither Canada nor Mexico is likely to invade, and no other adversary is likely to attack, especially given the overwhelming military superiority of the US. That would still be true even if you decimated the military, given US technological superiority. And independent agents like al Qaeda cannot be stopped by the military. If only!
2. As noted by others, there is a fundamental contradiction between being “intelligent and morally grounded” and serving in Iraq, or serving in the US military, period.
One gets the sense that Ritter has correctly perceived the insanity of US policy starting with Iraq, but is blind to all of the same that went before. I wonder what happens for Ritter when the rest of the picture comes into focus.
If there were some way for US citizens to reassert control over Congress, as Ritter suggests, perhaps we could reign in the military and use it for truly beneficent purposes. That effort could use some “intelligent and morally grounded” foot soldiers! Sharpshooters of truth, denial demolition experts, special forces for systemic change.
LK7531 May 8th, 2008 2:44 am
“If there were some way for US citizens to reassert control over Congress”.
Exactaly! The power lies before us, but we just don’t see it.
A human conversation - no demands - human recognition - starting with protection of the Troops and recognition of the humanity of your Representative.
We can do this - recognition of humanity over the enemy image. Continue, start, the conversation for impeachment hearings for and with your loved ones and your Congressional Representatives.
You’ll enjoy it!
earthbound May 5th, 2008 8:41 pm
“Now, more than ever, we need citizens of standing to answer the call to service, not in the name of a criminal president or an illegal war, but rather in defense of the Constitution and all that it stands for, against all enemies, foreign and domestic.”
Scott, are you advocating that the military defend the constitution against our criminal presidency/unitary executive/seriously flawed CIC, and stop this insanity before it gets worse? How does one go about this at this time when impeachemnt is off the table?
Earthbound, you’ve got it! The sly Scott Ritter is sending us a message that is not obvious on first reading but is upon reflection. Scott Ritter is advocating the U.S. military to come in and make a military arrest of the traitors in the White House. Well, what else does he mean by ‘defending the U.S. Constitution’? Certainly the Bush administration has desecrated this document upon which our nation was founded. What then does it mean to ‘defend it’ other then to oust those political elites who conspire to abuse and demean it?! Ask yourself this: WHAT DOES IT MEAN TO DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION? What exactly do those words mean??