EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
The American Empire According to TomDispatch
The Essential, Undistractable Tom Engelhardt
The mainstream media have always been easily distracted and beguiled
-- but never more than now, when the next diversion is always just one
click away.
This makes us particularly fortunate to have a few relentless souls like Tom Engelhardt around, using the Internet not to chase the latest chatter but to tenaciously chronicle, explore and illuminate the unspoken realities that shape our political discourse.
Foremost among those realities is the extraordinary militarization of this nation in the post-9/11 era, and the skewing of public debate such that options that don't involve massive uses of force are essentially disregarded -- actually dismissed as dangerous, when in fact it is war that is dangerous. This goes a long way to explaining so many of the poor decisions made by our leaders that individually, but only briefly, get the attention of the mass media.
Engelhardt, a longtime book editor, is the creator and editor of the Tomdispatch.com website, a project of The Nation Institute. He is the finder and cultivator of important progressive voices, and contributors to his site include Bill McKibben, Mike Davis, Karen Greenberg, Chalmers Johnson, Michael Klare, Adam Hochschild and Elizabeth de la Vega.
But at the heart of Tomdispatch.com is Englehardt's own work and his relentless thesis that America is a modern empire that has become addicted to the wars that are hastening its decline.
His new book, a seamlessly edited collection of his writings for the website, is entitled "The American Way of War; How Bush's Wars Became Obama's" and establishes him as one of the grand chroniclers of the post-9/11 era.
The conclusion I reached after reading Engelhardt's book is that, as much as I hate to admit it, the supposedly discredited neocons have actually prevailed. These cold-blooded warmongers who think the exertion of American power is the answer to every problem have won -- not by winning any wars, mind you, but by setting the terms of the debate.
Neither Iraq nor Afghanistan could possibly be mistaken for successes, and yet the neocons have succeeded in creating a political climate in which, as Engelhardt explains, war and security are somehow seen as being synonymous. As a result, any alternative to war has become tantamount to diminishing our security -- and is therefore politically untenable. Alternatives to war get no serious hearing in modern Washington. And while the mainstream media apparently doesn't find this the least bit strange, Engelhardt does.
He asks good questions about it. "What does it mean," he writes, "when the most military-obsessed administration in our history, which, year after year, submitted ever more bloated Pentagon budgets to Congress, is succeeded by one headed by a president who ran, at least partially, on an antiwar platform, and who then submitted an even larger Pentagon budget?"
Indeed, it would appear that unless things change dramatically, we are condemned to enduring war, in the form of a Global War on Terror (GWOT) that never ends. At least now you know why.
Engelhardt devotes some time to chronicling the nation's massive, insatiable war machine -- and our country's role as arms supplier to the world. (When's the last time you saw anything in the news about that?)
He exposes what he calls the "garrisoning of the planet" by literally countless U.S. military bases around the globe -- bases that drain our treasury while angering our allies and energizing our enemies.
"Basing is generally considered here either a topic not worth writing about or an arcane policy matter best left to the inside pages for the policy wonks and news junkies," Engelhardt writes. "This is in part because we Americans -- and by extension our journalists -- don't imagine us as garrisoning or occupying the world; and certainly not as having anything faintly approaching a military empire."
He chronicles the extraordinary barbarity of the air war and the "collateral damage" it wreaks; an enterprise now made even more soulless as death is unleashed from drones operated by pilots hundreds or thousands of miles away.
Rather than look away as most of us do, Engelhardt faces right up to the greatest, most horrible irony of the post 9/11 period: that we did to ourselves "what al-Qaeda's crew never could have done. Blinding ourselves via the GWOT, we released American hubris and fear upon the world, in the process making almost every situation we touched progressively worse for this country."
And he expresses the appropriate amount of awe at the extraordinary gall
of leaders who are keener on bringing good government to Afghanistan
than they are to Washington.
He asks: "Why does the military of a country convinced it's becoming ungovernable think itself so capable of making another ungovernable country governable? What's the military's skill set here? What lore, what body of political knowledge, are they drawing on? Who do they think they represent, the Philadelphia of 1776 or the Washington of 2010, and if the latter, why should Americans be considered the globe's leading experts in good government anymore? And while we're at it, fill me in on one other thing: Just what has convinced American officials in Afghanistan and the nation's capital that they have the special ability to teach, prod, wheedle, bribe, or force Afghans to embark on good governance in their country if we can't do it in Washington or Sacramento?"
As the subtitle of Engelhardt's book indicates, the wars continue under Obama, barely even under new management. And the "Age of Terror" continues as well, with the combination of fear and political cowardice as potent a brew as ever. Consider, for instance, Obama's response to the failed underwear bombing attempt on Northwest Airlines Flight 253 on Christmas Day.
"It's remarkable that the sharpest president we've had in a while didn't dare get up in front of the American people after Flight 253 landed and tell everyone to calm down," Engelhardt writes. "He didn't, in fact, have a single intelligent thing to say about the event. He certainly didn't remind Americans that, whatever happened to Flight 253, they stood in far more danger heading out of their driveways behind the wheel or pulling into a bar on the way home for a beer or two. Instead, the Obama administration essentially abjectly apologized, insisted it would focus yet more effort and money on making America safe from air terrorism, widened a new front in the Global War on Terror in Yemen (speeding extra money and U.S. advisors that way), and when the din from its critics didn't end, 'pushed back,' as Peter Baker of the New York Times wrote, by claiming 'that they were handling terror suspects much as the previous administration did.' It's striking when a Democratic administration finds safety in the claim that it's acting like a Republican one, that it's following the path to the imperial presidency already cleared by George W. Bush. Fear does that to you, and the fear of terror has been institutionalized at the top as well as the bottom of society."
How is possible that this extraordinary militarization of our politics and our country has taken place, but we haven't read about it in the newspapers? Engelhardt explains this, too.
"Sometimes," he writes in an afterword, "it takes a complete outsider to see that what's in front of us all is a forest, not a random grouping of trees, or, in the case of this book, an identifiable American way of war rather than a set of disparate political and military acts full of sound and fury but signifying little."
- Posted in
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...




36 Comments so far
Show AllAnd I suggest yet yet again that we stop using the MIC term 'Global War on Terror' and call it what it is:
DAFT - Defense against Future Terrorism
And I suggest that we stop ignoring the law that started this madness, Public Law 107-40.
- what's in front of us all is a forest, not a random grouping of trees -
By law, America is trapped in the insanity of using the military to fight future enemies (to be named later, e.g. Yemen).
- the extraordinary militarization of this nation in the post-9/11 era... -
Public Law 107-40, enacted 9/18/01.
How about calling it mass terrorism against impoverished people with resources that rich people want control of? Works for me, albeit it's a bit too long.
I like your idea Elizabeth . . . though, I agree, even the acronym for that would be a bastard. : )
" "The American Way of War; How Bush's Wars Became Obama's" & "The Nation Institute": Lost me right there.
Next.
Tom Englehardt and his TomDispatch are my must read source of the dogged and detailed history in the making of our militarization and economic decline, both inextricably intertwined with one another.... as many histories of failed empires explain.
Our eyes as a nation are not on the ball. The ball is rolling off a cliff. The question is, how far away is this cliff, how steep is it and is this process of militarization preventable?
Instead of seeing these terrible wars as a distant and abstract video game we have to learn to see them as diseases that destroy our health and future as peaceful democracy.
Since 9/11 Engelhardt has been one of the leading voices of sanity in this otherwise totally insane country. I've read his site consistently for 9 years--my god, that long? And still we have a corporate media hell bent on distracting us every single day from the truths Tom conveys. Another truth teller with few peers is Chris Floyd, whose Empire Burlesque is equally invaluable. Also Joe Bageant, and the searingly critical Arthur Silber.
The tragedy is that so damn few Americans EVER read these guys, ever will read them or even know they exist. I wonder how many readers we're even talking about here. My bet is less than 3% of Americans ever read commentary or analysis that even comes close to Engelhardt's or Floyd's. We're as allergic to left criticism as we ever were, despite the glaring obviousness of the neocons' absolute failure to govern or direct sane policy. Which of course Obama continues as doggedly and stupidly as his idiot predecessor. Why anyone still believes Obama is Smart is one of the greatest mysteries of American political history.
Ephraim:
Thank you for mentioning Chris Floyd, Joe Bageant, and Arthur Silber, gifted writers all. In particular, and as you point out, Chris Floyd (chris-floyd.com) and Arthur Silber provide social and political commentary unmatched by nearly every other writer. While describing Arther Silber in his most recent piece, Chris Floyd compares him to an "artist" of "disillusionment" for his remarkable penchant to quickly dispel the doctrine of American superiority and goodness for the pathologically narcissistic pack of lies it is. In fact, I just got finished re-reading "Obama's Whitewash", which Silber penned in 2008 before the election. Like all of his essays, it's simply terrific. It should be required reading for all of the Obama accommodationists who refuse to see this guy and the rest of the democratic party for the corrupt shills they are. http://powerofnarrative.blogspot.com/2008/03/obamas-whitewash.html
What Tom Engelhardt fails to understand and hence address is the very nature of the global capitalist system itself. Like all idealists (as explained by Marx) he lays the blame of the problems of empire on individuals and fails to see that the problem is deeper than simple free choice of our leaders.
The advanced world capitalist system (the finance monopoly stage of capitalism) demands a hegemonic power to exist to keep the global system intact. It is this hegemonic power that must use its threat of force (terrorism) to keep all the ducks in line for the globalized economy. Any diversions away from the system, as witnessed by "renegade" nations that wish to pursue a different and independent economic system must be crushed by the hegemonic power. The peoples of this world who want to escape the insanity of global capitalism must be terrorized and kept in fear that to deviate will mean fighting the hegemonic power. It is for this reason that the system demands a US empire or if not a US one, another to replace it.
The answer to this insanity cannot be found in changing the leading actors, but rather requires the changing of the economic system itself. We cannot look to the capitalist class to make the necessary changes even though the system itself has placed this class in a situation where it cannot find solutions to the problems of the system. We have reached a historic tipping point where the only solution lies within destroying the existing system (its mode of production) and replacing it with a new system that is capable of addressing the problems of society and its assault on the natural world. Success or failure will depend on the militancy of the people of this world to overthrow the existing economic system. Failure to do so will result in the death of society and the total destruction of the world's environment. As Marx pointed out, capitalism reaches this historic point (as all systems did before it) where the mode of production comes into direct conflict with the necessary solutions to correct the contradictions and move forward. The choice before the world is simple and a massive undertaking: socialism or death.
Absolutely! Thanks for the post!
I was just about to post a question on here of where did all the intellectuals from the center/left were. Everybody keeps talking about mistakes and stupid people for some reason. Like stupid people can just come in from the cold and grab the power and then be able to get a whole country to give up its freedom, money and future just like that... There is no way I will believe that phrase "it takes a complete outsider to see that what's in front of us all is a forest, not a random grouping of trees" applies to US politics, and not the actual forrest...
Ding Ding Ding...as if "Al-Qaeda" were really an operation separate from the Military-Industrial-Complex.
How gullible can people be? "Of course, we'd love to spend these billions on domestic programs that would help Americans, but no, we must lavish it upon our corporate masters because guys with AK-47 halfway across the world threaten the greatest military power the world has ever known."
Doctors kill so many more Americans every year than "terrists" have since 1776...if the goal is to keep Americans from dying prematurely perhaps we need to bomb a few medical schools. Or, as long as we're going by statistics, let's eradicate bees...a much bigger cause of death to Americans (not counting those mercenary Americans who get paid to invade and occupy foreign lands) than are terrorists.
I don't know how gullible people can be. There seems to be no limit. Goebbels and Edward Bernays would be very impressed, astounded even.
How were USians made to be so stupid? Mass hypnosis?
Pity me. I have a mother who alternates between reading the Bible and watching Fox. She thinks little Bush, Dick Cheney, Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh are good Christians. Boy, is she terrified of those terrorists. Can't understand why they are so violent! I've given up suggesting that maybe there's some animosity due to bombing their cities, using depleted uranium in our weaponry, torturing and killing citizens, things like that. I've given up noting that those evil terrorists don't seem all that prevalent around here, or that maybe suicide bombing is an act of desperation. Or that these aren't wars, because wars require two armies. I certainly wouldn't consider mentioning that maybe WE are the terrorists. Oh my no.
I seem to recall a time when she could actually reason. At least she lives 45 minutes away.
Frank Cash, I second that motion.
Peace, Jack
Thirded. I'm still waiting for my BBQ to collapse at near free fall speed into it's own footprint after an hour's fire.
Hahaha! Nice!
LOL,, you forgot to paint the frame with thermite maybe?
>^^<
Only if I can have my "AD' (Anno Dominion) Back I find all this "Common Era" trash to be offencive
>^^<
like there was no human civilization before 5 AD C,mon!
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/11/01/binladen.tape/
Here is what Osama bin Laden said in 2004:
"We are continuing this policy in bleeding America to the point of bankruptcy. Allah willing, and nothing is too great for Allah," bin Laden said in the transcript. He said the mujahedeen fighters did the same thing to the Soviet Union in Afghanistan in the 1980s, "using guerrilla warfare and the war of attrition to fight tyrannical superpowers." "We, alongside the mujahedeen, bled Russia for 10 years until it went bankrupt and was forced to withdraw in defeat," bin Laden said. He also said al Qaeda has found it "easy for us to provoke and bait this administration." "All that we have to do is to send two mujahedeen to the furthest point east to raise a piece of cloth on which is written al Qaeda, in order to make generals race there to cause America to suffer human, economic and political losses without their achieving anything of note other than some benefits for their private corporations," bin Laden said."
Are we as Americans going to end up exactly as Al Qaeda wanted BECAUSE OF an excessive need for a military solution?
I agree with the overall point, however I have seen no proof or evidence that ObL said/wrote that. For that matter ObL is not listed as a suspect by the FBI.
We did, on Sept 11, 2001.
Al Qaeda won. They won when the US invaded Afghanistan and Iraq to avenge 9/11, it was planed that way brilliantly.
The US is now bankrupt after 10 years of two unwinnable wars it was trapped into. Beautiful isn't it?
As for who Al Qaeda really is, just do a research on who has benefited from the wars, the Bushes, the Carlyle Group, the New World Order people (if you can call them people) the same old war profiteers, it doesn't take a rock scientist does it?
The Patriot act was our writ of bankrupcy. We abrogated our Constitition, closed the Republic and named ourselves EMPIRE!
But after Bush Jrs inoguration I came to expect less of Americans each year and haven been very superised. If the vote would hace been;
1; McCain
2; Osmama
3; Obama
Tho vote would have been split as no American could tell the differance, in the last two!
I'm just along for the ride...
>^^<
"Why does the military of a country convinced it's becoming ungovernable think itself so capable of making another ungovernable country governable? What's the military's skill set here?
The skill set is murder. Remember the words of the gunslinger Mattis, the jarhead general made commander of Centcom. "It's fun to kill some people." These bad seeds, these homicidal infants, truly believe they can kill themselves into world hegemony and maintain it forever. These cretins were born and bred in a bloody-minded nation with the world's most expensive and lethal sandbox: the U. S. military and its Toys 'R Us selection of killing machines. Their macho junior auxiliaries, people like Obama or the late Robert McNamara (two peas in a pod if there ever were any), eagerly do their bidding, love rubbing shoulders with these "tough guys" and vicariously enjoy the bloodshed and mayhem. As has been pointed out numerous times, stupid people are cocksure. And that makes Obama, if not Emperor of the world, then Emperor of this stupid nation, whoopin' an' hollerin' and driving daddy's expensive foreign made convertible top speed toward the edge of the cliff and extinction.
Liquidation of enemy targets.. Thats what the Army thought me. None of that touchy feely stuff.
Just kill'em before he can kill you. In war thats all you really need to know.
>^^<
P.S. that was nearly 30yrs ago, I've learned to think for myself since then. :)
"Not a dime's worth of difference."
Prophetic, isn't it?
Perhaps this short video should be required viewing for the current school system in the United States.
http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2010/04/15/be-nice-to-america-or-well-bring-democracy-to-your-country/
Erroll,
"Page not found." Is there more to the link that got cut off when you pasted it?
Seventhson
I hope this link works better than the previous link as this one is essentially the same as the one I had attempted to copy.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ee6SdmmCN5Y
Thank you! That one worked.
And I have seen that before. Someone (perhaps you?) posted it here a few months ago. It's a great one!
"The conclusion I reached after reading Engelhardt's book is that, as much as I hate to admit it, the supposedly discredited neocons have actually prevailed. These cold-blooded warmongers who think the exertion of American power is the answer to every problem have won -- not by winning any wars, mind you, but by setting the terms of the debate."
The author sounds surprised. Wow! Apparently, he hasn't yet learned that both parties, both ideologies are exactly the same thing, pursue the very same objective and act in exactly the same way.
"Demise of the CHICKEN Hawks"
from stardust
Oh neocons, oh neocons,
you think you are so smug.
That royal carpet for your feet
is just a worn out rug!
For PEACE is hell--no fortune made,
your hearts set on plunder.
But don't you worry hawkish ones,
War tides will pull you under!
For secrets-- soldiers-- drones foretell
a failure---not a boon! YEAH!
When Erik Prince returns to head
a bloody, bloody junta!
And junta leaders have no time
for puffy, bloated hawks.
He'll herd you all to GITMO 2
and silence all your squawks!
From freedom then, to hawkdom now,
you'll be surprised to see,
A nation then, of storm troopers,
but YOU'LL no longer BE!***
SNAFU...
War: Terrorism with a bigger budget.
Peace and Justice=Weapons of Mass Instruction.
The Navy finally rejected my medical waiver, but the Army National Guard will accept it. I'm going in only because it's the best economic choice for me at the moment. However, I still strongly agree with the anti-war and similar movements.
I also agree with that article from yesterday about military "heroes". I'm sure as hell not one of those nor do I have any intention of being one. If I do get deployed to Afghanistan... well, I certainly won't be proud of that. I will resist illegal orders. That's how I feel at least.
And to think, while I'm over there, some shitheaded chickenhawk will be gloating in his living room over how the War on Terror is a good cause. While his cowardly ass is comfortably numb from the war, who knows what horrible shit I'll have to go through. All this so I can be an archivist...
I am probably going to get shot down for saying such optimistic, wish-washy mumbo-jumbo, but from acorns do mighty oak trees grow.
At the end of the day the change has to start inside ourselves, inside each one of us, and grow from there into an over-arching, nationwide consciousness. It's humanity's biggest fight - the struggle for emotional and spiritual evolution.
Think Phillip Coelho, or Carlos Castanada, and indeed the proper meaning of "jihad" - it is an internal battle for control of the ego. We can all be warriors, but warriors of the spirit.
My fiance recently had to do a "project" for a feature article she was writing for a South African woman's magazine - it involved doing 40 good deeds to friends, family and strangers over a 3-week period. But the interesting bit was that what we think are good deeds, what we think will help another person, are often the very opposite. So the point was an exercise in mindfulness, and exercise in looking deeper into someone else's life and circumstances and trying to see what we can do to actually help.
It made me think that this is what we should be teaching our youngest - paving the road to a shared consciousness. And I know all about paved roads and mistaken intentions, but if we woke up each day and decided, this is the day I help that particular person.
I watched a documentary the other day about a Buddhist monk who had been imprisoned in China for 38 years. 38 years! he told the interviewers that his biggest fear, even during the daily torture and pain of existence, was that he would lose compassion for his captors. A true warrior. A general in the struggle for subjugation of the ego.