EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
A World Made by War: How Old Will You Be When the American War State Goes Down?
When you look at me, you can’t mistake the fact that I’m of a certain age. But just for a moment, think of me as nine years old. You could even say that I celebrated my ninth birthday last week, without cake, candles, presents, or certainly joy.
I’ve had two mobilized moments in my life. The first was in the Vietnam War years; the second, the one that leaves me as a nine-year-old, began on the morning of September 11, 2001. I turned on the TV while doing my morning exercises, saw a smoking hole in a World Trade Center tower, and thought that, as in 1945 when a B-25 slammed into the Empire State Building, a terrible accident had happened.
Later, after the drums of war had begun to beat, after the first headlines had screamed their World-War-II-style messages (“the Pearl Harbor of the 21st century”), I had another thought. And for a reasonably politically sophisticated guy, my second response was not only as off-base as the first, but also remarkably dumb. I thought that this horrific event taking place in my hometown might open Americans up to the pain of the world. No such luck, of course.
If you had told me then that we would henceforth be in a state of eternal war as well as living in a permanent war state, that, to face a ragtag enemy of a few thousand stateless terrorists, the national security establishment in Washington would pump itself up to levels not faintly reached when facing the Soviet Union, a major power with thousands of nuclear weapons and an enormous military, that “homeland” -- a distinctly un-American word -- would land in our vocabulary never to leave, and that a second Defense Department dubbed the Department of Homeland Security would be set up not to be dismantled in my lifetime, that torture (excuse me, “enhanced interrogation techniques”) would become as American as apple pie and that some of those “techniques” would actually be demonstrated to leading Bush administration officials inside the White House, that we would pour money into the Pentagon at ever escalating levels even after the economy crashed in 2008, that we would be fighting two potentially trillion-dollar-plus wars without end in two distant lands, that we would spend untold billions constructing hundreds of military bases in those same lands, that the CIA would be conducting the first drone air war in history over a country we were officially not at war with, that most of us would live in a remarkable state of detachment from all of this, and finally -- only, by the way, because I’m cutting this list arbitrarily short -- that I would spend my time writing incessantly about “the American way of war” and produce a book with that title, I would have thought you were nuts.
But every bit of that happened, even if unpredicted by me because, like human beings everywhere, I have no special knack for peering into the future. If it were otherwise, I would undoubtedly now be zipping through fabulous spired cities with a jetpack on my back (as I was assured would happen in my distant youth). But if prediction isn’t our forte, then adaptability to changing circumstances may be -- and it certainly helps account for my being here today.
I’m here because, in response to the bizarre spectacle of this nation going to war while living at peace, even if in a spasmodic state of collective national fear, I did something I hardly understood at the time. I launched a nameless listserv of collected articles and my own expanding commentary that ran against the common wisdom of that October moment when the bombing runs for our second Afghan war began. A little more than a year later, thanks to the Nation Institute, it became a website with the name TomDispatch.com, and because our leaders swore we were “a nation at war,” because we were indeed killing people in quantity in distant lands, because the power of the state at home was being strengthened in startling ways, while everything still open about our society seemed to be getting screwed shut, and the military was being pumped up to Schwarzeneggerian dimensions, I started writing about war.
At some level, I can’t tell you how ridiculous that was. After all, I’m the most civilian and peaceable of guys. I’ve never even been in the military. I was, however, upset with the Bush administration, the connect-no-dots media coverage of that moment, and the repeated 9/11 rites which proclaimed us the planet’s greatest victim, survivor, and dominator, leaving only one role, greatest Evil Doer, open for the rest of the planet (and you know who auditioned for, and won, that part hands down)!
Things That Go Boom in the Night
I won’t say, however, that I had no expertise whatsoever with a permanent state of war and a permanent war state, only that the expertise I had was available to anyone who had lived through the post-World War II era. I was reminded of this on a recent glorious Sunday when, from the foot of Manhattan, I set out, for the first time in more than half a century, on a brief ferry ride that proved, for me, as effective a time machine as anything H.G. Wells had ever imagined. That ferry was not, of course, taking me to a future civilization at the edge of time, but to Governor’s Island, now a park and National Monument in the eddying waters of New York harbor and to the rubble of a gas station my father, a World War II vet, ran there in the early 1950s when that island was still a major U.S. Army base.
On many mornings in those years, I accompanied him on that short ride across the East River and found myself amid buzzing jeeps and drilling soldiers in a world of Army kids with, among other wonders, access to giant swimming pools and kiddy-matinee Westerns. As a dyed-in-the-wool city boy, it was my only real exposure to the burbs and it proved an edenic one that also caught something of the exotically militarized mood of that Korean War moment.
As on that island, so for most Americans then, the worlds of the warrior and of abundance were no more antithetical than they were to the corporate executives, university research scientists, and military officers who were using a rising military budget and the fear of communism to create a new national security economy. An alliance between big industry, big science, and the military had been forged during World War II that blurred the boundaries between the military and the civilian by fusing together a double set of desires: for technological breakthroughs leading to ever more efficient weapons of destruction and to ever easier living. The arms race -- the race, that is, for future good wars -- and the race for the good life were then, as on that island, being put on the same “war” footing.
In the 1950s, a military Keynesianism was already driving the U.S. economy toward a consumerism in which desire for the ever larger car and missile, electric range and tank, television console and submarine was wedded in single corporate entities. The companies -- General Electric, General Motors, and Westinghouse, among others -- producing the large objects for the American home were also major contractors developing the big ticket weapons systems ushering the Pentagon into its own age of abundance.
More than half a century later, the Pentagon is still living a life of abundance -- despite one less-than-victorious, less-then-good war after another -- while we, increasingly, are not. In the years in-between, the developing national security state of my childhood just kept growing, and in the process the country militarized in the strangest of ways.
Only once in that period did a sense of actual war seem to hover over the nation. That was, of course, in the Vietnam years of the 1960s and early 1970s, when the draft brought a dirty war up close and personal, driving it into American homes and out into the streets, when a kind of intermittent warfare seemed to break out in this country’s cities and ghettos, and when impending defeat drove the military itself to the edge of revolt and collapse.
From the 1970s until 2001, as that military rebuilt itself as an all-volunteer force and finally went back to war in distant lands, the military itself seemed to disappear from everyday life. There were no soldiers in sight, nothing we would consider commonplace today -- from uniforms and guns in train stations to military flyovers at football games, or the repeated rites of praise for American troops that are now everyday fare in our world where, otherwise, we largely ignore American wars.
In 1989, for instance, I wrote in the Progressive magazine about a country that seemed to me to be undergoing further militarization, even if in a particularly strange way. Ours was, I said, an “America that conforms to no notions we hold of militarism… Militarization is, of course, commonly associated with uniformed, usually exalted troops in evidence and a dictatorship, possibly military, in power. The United States, by such standards, still has the look of a civilian society. Our military is, if anything, less visible in our lives than it was a decade ago: No uniforms in the streets, seldom even for our traditional parades; a civilian elected government; weaponry out of sight… the draft and the idea of a civilian army a thing of the past.
“In the Reagan-Bush era, the military has gone undercover in the world that we see, though not in the world that sees us. For if it is absent from our everyday culture, its influence is omnipresent in corporate America, that world beyond our politics and out of our control -- the world which, nonetheless, plans our high-tech future of work and consumption. There, the militarization of the economy and the corporatization of the military is a process so far gone that it seems reasonable to ask whether the United States can even be said to have a civilian economy.”
Of course, that was then, this is now. Little did I know. Today, it seems, our country is triumphant in producing only things that go boom in the night: we have a near monopoly on the global weapons market and on the global movie market, where in the dark we’re experts in explosions of every sort. When I wrote in 1989 that the process was “so far gone,” I had no idea how far we still had to go. I had no idea, for instance, how far a single administration could push us when it came to war. Still, one thing that does remain reasonably constant about America’s now perpetual state of war is how little we -- the 99% of us who don’t belong to the military or fight -- actually see of it, even though it is, in a sense, all around us.
Warscapes
From a remarkable array of possibilities, here are just a few warscapes -- think of them as like landscapes, only deadlier -- that might help make more visible an American world of, and way of, war that we normally spend little time discussing, questioning, debating, or doing anything about.
As a start, let me try to conjure up a map of what “defense,” as imagined by the Pentagon and the U.S. military, actually looks like. You can find such a map at Wikipedia, but for a second just imagine a world map laid flat before you. Now divide it, the whole globe, like so many ill-shaped pieces of cobbler, into six servings -- you can be as messy as you want, it’s not an exact science -- and label them the U.S. European Command or EUCOM (for Europe and Russia), the U.S. Pacific Command or PACOM (Asia), CENTCOM (the Greater Middle East and a touch of North Africa), NORTHCOM (North America), SOUTHCOM (South America and most of the Caribbean), and AFRICOM (almost all of Africa). Those are the “areas of responsibility” of six U.S. military commands.
In case you hadn’t noticed, on our map that takes care of just about every inch of the planet, but -- I hasten to add -- not every bit of imaginable space. For that, if you were a clever cartographer, you would somehow need to include STRATCOM, the U.S. Strategic Command charged with, among other things, ensuring that we dominate the heavens, and the newest of all the “geographic” commands, CYBERCOM, expected to be fully operational later this fall with “1,000 elite military hackers and spies under one four-star general” prepared to engage in preemptive war in cyberspace.
Some of these commands have crept up on us over the years. CENTCOM, which now oversees our wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, was formed in 1983, a result of the Carter Doctrine -- that is, of President Jimmy Carter’s decision to make the protection of Persian Gulf oil a military necessity, while both NORTHCOM (2002) and AFRICOM (2007) were creations of the Global War on Terror.
From a mapping perspective, however, the salient point is simple enough: at the moment, there is no imaginable space on or off the planet that is not an “area of responsibility” for the U.S. military. That, not the protection of our shores and borders, is what is now meant by that word “defense” in the Department of Defense. And if you were to stare at that map for a while, I can’t help but think it would come to strike you as abidingly strange. No place at all of no military interest to us? What does that say about our country -- and ourselves?
In case you’re imagining that the map I’ve just described is simply a case of cartographic hyperbole, consider this: we now have what is, in essence, a secret military inside the U.S. military. I’m talking about our Special Operations forces. These elite and largely covert forces were rapidly expanded in the Bush years as part of the Global War on Terror, but also thanks to Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld’s urge to bring covert activities that were once the province of the CIA under the Pentagon’s wing. By the end of George W. Bush’s second term in office -- think of that map again -- Special Operations forces were fighting in, training in, or stationed in approximately 60 countries under the aegis of the Global War on Terror. Less than two years later, according to the Washington Post, 13,000 Special Operations troops are deployed abroad in approximately 75 countries as part of an expanding Global War on Terror (even if the Obama administration has ditched that name); in other words, Special Ops troops alone are now operating in close to 40% of the 192 countries that make up the United Nations!
And talking about what the Pentagon has taken under its wing, I’m reminded of a low-budget sci-fi film of my childhood, The Blob. In it, a gelatinous alien grows ever more humongous by eating every living thing in its path, with the exception of Steve McQueen in his debut screen role. By analogy, take what’s officially called the “IC” or U.S. Intelligence Community, that Rumsfeld was so eager to militarize. It’s made up of 17 major agencies and outfits, including the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI). Created in 2004 in response to the intelligence dysfunction of 9/11, ODNI is already its own small bureaucracy with 1,500 employees and next to no power to do the only thing it was really ever meant to do, coordinate the generally dysfunctional labyrinth of the IC itself.
You might wonder what kind of “intelligence” a country could possibly get from 17 competing, bickering outfits -- and that’s not even the half of it. According to a Washington Post series, Top Secret America, by Dana Priest and William Arkin:
“In all, at least 263 organizations have been created or reorganized as a response to 9/11… Some 1,271 government organizations and 1,931 private companies work on programs related to counterterrorism, homeland security and intelligence in about 10,000 locations across the United States… In Washington and the surrounding area, 33 building complexes for top-secret intelligence work are under construction or have been built since September 2001. Together they occupy the equivalent of almost three Pentagons or 22 U.S. Capitol buildings -- about 17 million square feet of space.”
Oh, and keep in mind that more than two-thirds of the IC’s intelligence programs are controlled by the Pentagon, which also means control over a major chunk of the combined intelligence budget, announced at $75 billion (“2 1/2 times the size it was on Sept. 10, 2001,” according to Priest and Arkin), but undoubtedly far larger.
And when it comes to the Pentagon, that’s just a start. Massive expansion in all directions has been its m.o. since 9/11. Its soaring budget hit about $700 billion for fiscal year 2010 (when you include a war-fighting supplemental bill of $33 billion) -- an increase of only 4.7% in otherwise budget-slashing times -- and is now projected to hit $726 billion in fiscal year 2011. Some experts claim, however, that the real figure may come closer to the trillion-dollar mark when all aspects of national security are factored in. Not surprisingly, it has taken over a spectrum of State Department-controlled civilian activities, ranging from humanitarian relief and development (aka “nation-building”) to actual diplomacy. And don’t forget its growing roles as a domestic-disaster manager and a global arms dealer, or even as a Green Revolution energy innovator. You could certainly think of the Pentagon as the Blob on the American horizon, and yet, looking around, you might hardly be aware of the ways your country continues to be militarized.
With that in mind, let’s consider another warscape, one particularly appropriate to a moment when numerous commentators are pointing out that the U.S. seems to be morphing from a can-do into a can’t-do nation, when the headlines are filled with exploding gas lines and grim reports on the country’s aging infrastructure, when a major commuter tunnel from New Jersey to Manhattan, the sort of project that once would have been tattoo-ably American, has just been canceled by New Jersey’s governor.
Still, don’t imagine that the old can-do American spirit I remember from my childhood is dead. Quite the contrary, we still have our great building projects, our pyramid- and ziggurat-equivalents. It’s just that these days they tend to get built nearer to the ruins of actual ziggurats and pyramids. I’m talking about our military bases, especially those being constructed in our war zones.
I mean, no sooner had U.S. troops taken Baghdad in April 2003 than the Pentagon and the crony corporations it now can’t go to war without began to pour billions of taxpayer dollars into the construction of well fortified American towns in Iraq that included multiple bus routes, PXes, fast-food joints, massage parlors, Internet cafés, power plants, water-treatment plants, sewage plants, fire stations, you name it. Hundreds of military bases, micro to mega, were built in Iraq alone, including the ill-named but ginormous Victory Base Complex at the edge of Baghdad International Airport, with at least nine significant sub-bases nestled inside it, and Balad Air Base, which -- sooner than you could say “Saddam Hussein’s in captivity” -- was handling air traffic on the scale of O'Hare International in Chicago, and bedding down 40,000 inhabitants including hire-a-gun African cops, civilian defense employees, Special Ops forces, the employees of private contractors, and of course tons of troops.
And all of this was nothing compared to the feat the Pentagon accomplished in Afghanistan where the U.S. military now claims to have built something like 400 bases of every sort from the smallest combat outposts to monster installations like Bagram Air Base in a country without normal resources, fuel, building materials, or much of anything else. Just about all construction materials for those bases and the fuel to go with them had to be delivered over treacherous supply lines thousands of miles long, so treacherous and difficult in fact that, by the time a gallon of fuel reaches Afghanistan to keep those Humvees and MRAPs rolling along, it’s estimated to cost $400.
At some level, of course, all of this represents a remarkable can-do achievement and tells you a great deal about American priorities today, about where our national treasure and can-do efforts are focused.
Ziggurats or Tunnels?
And I could go on. The Pentagon and the military make going on easy. After all, the list is unending, the militarization of our American world ongoing, and it’s all happening in your time, on your watch. This is the world you are going to walk out into. I may be nine years old in TomDispatch terms, but I’ve been around for 66 years and this won’t be my world for so long.
So let me ask you: Are you sure that you want the U.S. military to be concerned with every inch of the planet? Are you sure that you want your tax dollars to go, above all, into building pyramid-equivalents in Iraq or Afghanistan instead of tunnels at home, or into fighting a multigenerational war on terror planet-wide, instead of into putting the unemployed to work here? If you can’t imagine reducing the American military mission and “footprint” on this planet significantly, then, of course, it’s probably best to ignore this talk. But rest assured: you won’t save our country that way, you’ll destroy it.
A decade ago, when I was born as TomDispatch.com, many of you were only ten or eleven years old, as were many of our soldiers now in Afghanistan and Iraq. A decade from now, if the war in Afghanistan (and increasingly Pakistan) is still being fought, most of you will be entering your fourth decade on this planet and you may even have a 10 year-old of your own. A decade from then, if -- as some top Washington officials insist -- the global war on terror is “multigenerational,” that child may be fighting in Pakistan or Yemen or Somalia or some other military “area of responsibility” somewhere on the planet. A decade from then…
Of course, whatever skills we may lack when it comes to predicting the future, all things must end, including the American war state and our strange state of war. The question is: Can our over-armed global mission be radically downsized before it downsizes us? It will happen anyway and it won’t take forever either, not the way things are going, but it will happen in an easier and less harmful way, if you’re involved, in whatever fashion you choose, in making it so. Had I had a birthday cake with candles on it for that ninth birthday of mine and blown them out, that, I think, would have been my wish.
- 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...



68 Comments so far
Show AllWar is a money making "sport". I found this article on the website "Raw Story". Way to go sports fans.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1321244/CIA-paid-Liverpool-buyout-tycoons-millions--use-jet-torture-flights.html
If Mr Englehardt were as astute as he seems to think he was in 2001 he would have been aware and of the founding manifesto of the Project for a New American Century and he would have been struck with the realization that that neocon wet dream had actually come about and that we, as a nation...were in for a very bad time.
This guy seems to be stuck trying to interpret the shadows on the wall being projected for him by these same neocons. Give it up Tom. All you need to do to understand the nightmare we're going through is to step back, strip yourself of the myths and preconceptions (my country's leaders would never kill their own citizens for money and power) you've been fed and look at the actual facts.
I know it's painful...it was for me...but if you don't you'll condemn yourself to the open-mouthed, blind bewilderment that you display in essays like this one.
Putting American foreign policy into context means understanding how capitalism functions. Without a class analysis, one can make no real sense of anything happening in the world. Understand capitalism and one will understand the real underlining causes of all our problems.
Well said, commentator.
I didn't get that from his article at all. When I read it I felt like Tom was 'preaching' to the masses and that he's well aware of where the neo cons are taking us.
I felt like he was trying to break through the hardened shell of those that don't want to believe that which is so plainly obvious to us and the rest of the world. I thought it was a very well made series of points and a decent communication of insights and this will, hopefully, lift the veil of 'patriotism' that we're all taught to believe.
(I could be wrong but if anyone thinks on this topic for more than a week and you'll inevitably come to the same conclusions that all of us here have.)
I don't recall people advertising their books on CD before, but i could be wrong.
Note to Tom, when i saw the planes crash into the world trade center my first thought and statement to my friend on the telephone was, "Now George Bush can start WWIII".
No you are not. I was making plans to leave the US within a month of 9/11, dumping my academic career and taking my newborn child out of the coming storms way. I was right then (as were you) and am sorry that I was selfish enough to do so (something about a newborn child makes family sacrificing more difficult).
That being said, I was pretty alone in thinking that was the beginning - marking point of the end of the American Republic. Tom has done great work, I hope CD'ers will cut him some slack on this, Loss is something that takes everyone different paths/times to overcome.
I agree, the article was very informative and does a nice job of pointing out how expansive the US military has become.
And you were quite correct. We then began the 'new and improved' WWIII.
Engelhardt says,
"No place at all of no military interest to us? What does that say about our country -- and ourselves?"
This is old hat. At Lowry Air Force Base training center for, among other specialties, Intelligence oprations specialist and military photo interpreter school in 1967 they had WAC charts (1:1,000,000 feet scale aeronautical charts) of every square mile of the planet earth with the radar signal pattern in yellow (used by bombers) of ALL the cities (ours too - for training of course).
We wanted to dominate it all.
We wanted to make it impossible to disobey (Brainwash victims win cash claims http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/ news/uk/scotland/article495413.ece).
I have a friend who went to the School of the Americas. He was in an elite Army outfit. During training they were given a German Shepherd dog to feed and care for. They slept next to their dog. They tended to its' wounds. They lived in the sticks with only the dog as company for about a month in the survival training living off the land. The dog would help them hunt. Indeed, the dog was instrumental in keeping each man healthy.
Just before graduation (they were all trained in martial arts), the company was formed up. All the men with their loyal dogs. They were ordered to kill their dog. They did. It broke my friend's heart and it tore at him for many years. I have lost contact with him. This was in the 1980s. It's probably worse now. This is what you support when you support the troops, wave at them in parades and honor them at funerals.
I hope Tom understands that we are predatory monsters. National Defense has nothing to do with it.
"...on the morning of September 11, 2001. I turned on the TV while doing my morning exercises, saw a smoking hole in a World Trade Center tower, and thought that, as in 1945 when a B-25 slammed into the Empire State Building, a terrible accident had happened."
I turned on the TV in my classroom on 9/11/2001 just in time to see the second plane slam into the tower. My first thought was, "CIA."
Gee, I'm glad that smarter people than I have explained ad nauseum how wrong I was.
my thought was "oh my god, it's the Reichstag fire"
I share your dismay, markpower. I see the taboo against skeptically questioning the Official Conspiracy Theory that ostensibly solves the Mysteries of 9/11 as a tragic confluence of general Amerikan intellectual inertia and corporate media manufactured consent.
The JFK, et al assassinations also became taboo for the same reasons.
I reject such taboos, and deplore their insidious self-sealing, self-confirming nature.
However, I also recognize that the 9/11 topic IS a tar baby, a quicksand, or a riptide that threatens to capture even tangential references and pull them out to sea as soon as they're pulled out to see.
In other words, I AM sympathetic to writers who wish to make reference to 9/11 as a touchstone for discussion of matters APART from the taboo questions. They face the dilemma of either turning ANY reference to that fateful day into a discussion of the controversial mysteries surrounding it, or making a superficial reference to it in order to move on. Those of us who skeptically question the catastrophic events and narratives flowing from it are bound to find such superficial, passing references unsatisfying, troubling, and even suspect.
Still, I'm sympathetic because I view this as a legitimate negative-negative or lose-lose dilemma for the writer: one must either self-censor OR self-hijack one's own work.
FWIW, although I'm always happy to read explicit rejection of the bogus Official Conspiracy Theory, I've adopted a half-assed parallel of part of the Hippocratic Oath when I come across references to 9/11.
I don't mind if the writer doesn't do the good of challenging the taboo and extant officially-sanctioned myth as long as they do no harm, i.e. blithely or casually including factoids or rhetorical homage to the cover story.
I think it's unwise to reduce EVERY reference to 9/11 to a simplistic shibboleth, or litmus test, of the writer's acumen and validity. That approach too easily becomes obsessive, not to say monomaniacal. IMO, if a commentary has redeeming value, I don't think it necessary to jump on an equivocal 9/11 reference with both feet, or consider it a fatal flaw.
So I don't fault Engelhardt for not expounding on the problematic nature of 9/11 here. At least he didn't sweeten the reference by supplementing it with toxic factoids or anti-"Truther" cheap shots to satisfy the complacent and 9/11-weary with Trutherphobe bona fides.
hey, OS!
you say:
~ I think it's unwise to reduce EVERY reference to 9/11 to a simplistic shibboleth, or litmus test, of the writer's acumen and validity. ~
I so want to agree with your statement, but...I find 911 to be precisely a litmus test...this moment, and reactions to, are defining...
there is a level of awareness that is either existent, or not...even willingness to question and investigate reflects awareness of possibility...
writers that miss on this subject leave me wondering: are they dumb, or dishonest? do we just write whatever we want, and call ourselves writers?
once one misses on this subject, all subsequent subjects are necessarily discussed from an intellectual position held together by bubblegum and toothpicks...
with no there there, one can only patch and pinch arguments together...arguments that sound logical, but have no actual logic behind them, as the whole structure is a charade...Iraq, Afghanistan, Guantanamo, Taliban, al-Quaeda, bin Laden, politics and elections, religion, economics and finance, whatever...
the truth about 911 cannot be just another 'compromise', as it is key to the current power structures of this planet...
I enjoy your posts!
I hear you OS but after looking closely at the OCT the only conclusion I could see was that it was false. I don't know who was responsible or even what organizations they represent. All I know for sure is that the story we've been lied to and that there has been a consistent cover-up by the mainstream media since that day.
This realization has profound implications in our understanding of how things work in this fair land. Most people are unwilling to face these head on. But to my mind if you don't understand 9/11 you don't understand politics, public affairs or the true nature of the political, economic and financial leadership. Which reduces essays like this one to meaningless verbiage.
Trying to read meaning into the shadows on the cave wall won't ever get us anywhere. They are akin to the "theological" debates about trans-substantiation or the Albigension heresy in the Middle Ages.
I wish I could believe that the truth shall set us free...who knows?...but I can say for sure that not recognizing lies and falsehoods isn't going to help.
I agree with both you, OS, and dubet. 9/11 is indeed a pivotal issue. If we could get the shameless, ridiculous lies of the official version through the public's head, we might have a fighting chance.
Yet as a teacher, much as I'd dearly like to, it would be professional suicide to go into class and say, hey kids! Don't you see! The official 9/11 story is not possible in these some-hundred ways. Check it out! No, I'd be fired in short order. And any journalist trying to do the same at CD or any other progressive site would be barred (although, unlike the MSM joints, you won't be barred for saying the same on comments).
So what to do? Spread seeds of doubt. Give students articles that point out that Hussein and bin Laden were both working for the CIA. Show the effects of the invasions; ask if this is really war, if there's only one army; ask if you can go to war against a vague idea called terrorism. Make points about the costs. Review the cost of lives. Consider psychology. Show how fear has been manipulated. Go at it "slant," as E. Dickinsen said.
Some will say this is a bullshit excuse to keep my job. Maybe, but do you have any idea how few instructors at state colleges, let alone public high schools, actually teach critical thinking? I leave the breadcrumbs, and some find it.
That's what I do; that's what our journalists do.
I think one of the most important things a teacher can do is to try and steer kids clear of the predatory military recruiters. It is bad enough that we pay for the crimes of the MIC with our dollars. It is far worse when we pay for it with our children's lives. I'm not a teacher, so I don't know if it is even possible for a teacher to talk to students about alternatives to the military, or to at least teach them the horror of real war as opposed to the video game version of the military recruiters want kids to see.
Top notch stuff. I commend you for your approach. You should make Section V of PNAC's Rebuilding America's Defenses required reading for your students. Remember to point out that it was written in September of 2000.
"I leave the breadcrumbs, and some find it. " –(Elizabeth H)
We like this phrase and are in complete agreement. But in America the loaf has vanished and the 'crumbs' are most often found only by accident, after the rats have come and gone.
Anyway, we proceed.
Yes, it is immeasurably sad.
I checked out your "more important pieces of American literature of the last decade."
This is silly. Why not offer a cogent, reasonable explanation of the Pentagon attack? Like one that accounts for forensic evidence? Um, can't find one? I've looked myself.
You accuse others of stupidity, and then provide this crap as evidence? You're truly a fool.
Building Seven.
I am no defender of truthers but Taibbi is just some suburbanite guy who is trying to put food on the table. Why he tries to make light of 9/11 is beyond me. My only reply to his article is PNAC.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century
This is a group of wealthy movers and shakers in this country who called for a new Pearl Harbor in September of 2000. In November of 2000, they stole the elections and took power. In September of 2001 they had their new Pearl Harbor. That's a helluva coincidence and I'd love to see Taibbi chuckle it up about this ugly reality.
All of PNAC is a sinister arrow. Do yourself a favor and browse their website. Check out the names. Cheney, Rumsfeld, Jeb Bush. Note the Mein Kampf nature of the site. It is a blueprint for US imperialist domination of the world. I might be naive enough to believe that the great mysteries delivered them their much hoped for "new Pearl Harbor" but that still doesn't detract from the ugly reality of what these men represent.
Oddly enough, this attitude of US empire and making the world safe for Roman soldiers doesn't appear to be partisan. One only look at the war criminal currently sitting in the White House to realize that this is a bipartisan movement. Listen to any wag from the State Department and you realize how disconnected we have become from our government. I wouldn't take this stuff personally but these are my tax dollars funding these imperialist exercises. When is enough enough?
www.newamericancentury.org
I can understand getting upset about it being mentioned to the point of annoyance by some, but honestly, 19 highjackers hijacking 4 planes with boxcutters, when they weren't on the manifests, and several were later found very much alive... kinda hard to believe isn't it? and a passport being found without even being singed, that supposedly fell out of a plane that crashed into a building causing a fire so hot it melts steel?
Yocohoma, like all fools who cannot believe their own eyes (Building 7), you resort to disparagement and insult to arguments you are unable to refute. The point is not David Ray Griffin. The point is physics. The point is mountains of evidence, forensic, circumstantial, eyewitness. The point is motive and benefit, as in any crime. The point is overt statement of intention (Clean Break; Project for a New American Century) and implementation of a plan. The point is concrete, steel, glass, plastic, flesh and bone turning to dust in seconds. The point is Hani Hanjour, who couldn't pilot a Cessna, executing a 300-degree banking turn in a lumbering commercial airliner, a maneuver many top-gun pilots say would be hard to pull off in a military plane. The point is iron microspheres. The point is nanothermate. The point is Steven Jones, Nils Harrit, Francesco Cossiga, Andreas Von Bulow, Michael Meacher, Paul Craig Roberts, Ray McGovern, Robert Baer, Dario Fo, Richard Falk, Hamid Gul, Peter Dale Scott, Annie Bichon, David Shayler, Richard Gage, and the literally thousands of engineers, scientists, scholars, architects, and ex-military, government and intelligence people who aren't afraid to call a spade a spade.
You, on the other hand, are an enabler of the most sinister development in US politics since well before Roosevelt. I hope your blustery self-satisfaction includes this not-so-rare achievement. You run with the herd, and call it good, common sense.
Evil needs people like you.
"I think it's unwise to reduce EVERY reference to 9/11 to a simplistic shibboleth, or litmus test, of the writer's acumen and validity. That approach too easily becomes obsessive, not to say monomaniacal." –(Obedient Servant)
Correct.
–The finest, most nuanced and sophisticated articulation of the 'truther' dilemma yet seen on this blog. Should be the final word on the subject.
It's balanced skein–alternating both cogent critique of methodology, and respect for the weight of the issue itself– sets new standards for judiciousness and utility.
"However, I also recognize that the 9/11 topic IS a tar baby, a quicksand, or a riptide that threatens to capture even tangential references and pull them out to sea..." –(Obedient Servant)
Precisely! A felicitous turn of phrase.
Both a benign and cautionary lesson to the 'truther' acolytes and practitioners, so they can avoid becoming the flotsam and jetsam of the 'unmoored,' and avoid the reek of charlatanism– when they use the 'battle ax,' as opposed to the 'rapier'– to make their necessary points, even more salient and powerful than they already are.
Well said.
We are now experiencing the realization of the moral bankruptcy of an amazing and horrifying chain of decisions made by those in power over centuries, not just the last ten years.
Fact: One of Thomas Jefferson's maids raised issues with him about how he could write such finery and continue to see blacks as unequal and "less intelligent" (his words).
Fact: An African freed slave married to an Irish indentured woman who had paid off her indenture computed the ephemeris (exact time of the rising of a bunch of jupiter's moons used by 18th century navigators to determine position) while residing in Maryland. This required telescopic observation and high order mathematcs. Jefferson howled that no African could do such a thing. The African himself offered to confirm his own knowledge of astronomy and mathematics to Jefferson (who probably had never gone beyond basic mathemetics) and was rebuffed. The African even built an extremly accurate clock out of wood (metal was hard to come by). Eventually he was killed, his house burned down (along with the clock) and the Irish woman had to flee for her life.
Fact: During the constitutional convention, Franklin and Washington witnessed a demonstration of steam technology on a ship.
There was no excuse for rationalizing the inferiority of the African in order to assure profitable crops. They knew all about levers and force multipliers in machinery. These bastards just liked having slaves, period.
It was the first of heinous power and abuse loving decisions that led to folks like Rockefeller many years later railroading Oklahoma Native Americans to sell their land so he could get at the oil.
It was the same attitude towards labor when machines increased profits. Screw labor. More money for Carnegie and friends. Our leaders have chosen greed, power and abuse consistently.
This is not working. 9/11 is just the latest insult to our intelligence.
I always find it rather bizarre whenever the word 'conspiracy' comes up in media discourse and it is treated as though the very concept is itself a fiction. What was Watergate? I think that perhaps we need to come up with a new term?
How about "Issues We Aren't Allowed to Consider"--IWAAC.
Especially when 19 people, working together to do something, is, by definition, a conspiracy. (Even if their scary Muslims with box cutters)
For that matter, Congress is, by definition, a Conspiracy.
As a side note, circa 1992, I was going home from college for Thanksgiving.
A friend gave me a ride to the airport in the VW bug he was in the process of fixing up.
On the way, he returned a carpet knife he had borrowed to cut some carpet in reupholstering his car.
Without thinking I put it on my carryon.
At the security they saw it and removed the blades from it before I was allowed on the plane.
Remember the Dimos facilitate and support every crime perpetrated on the USA and world citizens.
War, Environment, Economic and Judical.
Do not vote for a criminal party, but do vote for a third party as a statement. Even if the electronic ballot transfers your vote otherwise.
THANK YOU! I have been advocating a No Confidence vote movement for some time now and gotten no response except the sound of crickets chirping. For years, the media tells us low voter turnout is reflective of voter apathy rather than an awareness of our political disenfranchisement. Let's stop making it so easy for them. Even if the monopoly media suppresses the news, the international media will not. If we can't make a difference we can at least make a statement.
I'm with you. Boycott voting until we see real campaign finance reform and regulation of corporate media coverage. Be loud and vocal. I'll be curious to see how they handle a 20 or 30 percent turn out and all pretenses of democracy have been exposed.
Correct.
Voting in America, is for the most part, an act of compliance and a tacit ratification of the system. The third party vote is anything but a protest vote or an act of conscience, but a vote of implicit collaboration with the status quo. Anyway, are there any third parties in America?
The following could be said about voting in America, where, in truth, it is impossible to elect a President who is not a fascist or a Neo Fascist like Obama.
"Against stupidity, the gods themselves contend in vain." –(Nietzche)
This is better:
"The dictatorship is necessary because it is a case, not of partial changes, but of the very existence of the bourgeoisie. No agreement is possible on this ground. Only force can be the deciding factor"
–(Leon Trotsky)
Thank you, Tom, for so well articulating the obvious, and thank you CommonDreams for re-posting it. Many American militarists profess to be Christian. Our militarism should be cast in Christian terms, to better understand it. "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" is what Jesus said is the first and greatest of God's commandments. That means, we expect and hope that China, Iran, Russia, Sweden, France, Japan, Mexico, Israel, Canada, England, Germany, etc. will each also divide the up the globe into "commands" for their own defense, and will also build bases, for example, in Syracuse, Topika, and Sacramento so that they can pre-emptively defend themselves, from us.
They do more than 'profess' to be christian. They have been forcing recruits to listen to christian evangelists at military bases in the u.s. This is a fact. I just saw a well documented piece made at Princeton on FSTV last night.
The recruits were being punished if they didn't attend these meetings. Part of the brainwashing - the war between 'good' and 'evil'. Now that i think of it, the ex jesuit priest and activist/author James Carroll was featured in the documentary.
I think we would all do well to begin to think as human beings rather than this continous harkening back to organized religions. I personally don't intentionally violate others, and i didn't need any religious figures from the past in order to tell me that it was just plain wrong. I do have a conscience and an inner life of my very own. As do we all.
I appreciate your post and the spin you put on that particular ball, however!
peace.
I don't want the military to go on. My experience of 9/11 was very different. I knew instantly that the US would go to war against someone and that this would be an excuse for ever more military spending and war.
I had not yet read the PNAC statement but I knew because I knew I lived under the patriarchy and it's most powerful player the US with its fusion of capitalism, hi tech and old, ever warring patriarchy. I knew it would be about male ideas of honor over any rational approach to confronting the attacks. A rational approach would have been to accept the good will coming our way from most of the world and to have worked with international police to do good intelligence and find the culprits and punish them. To criminalize the act instead of making Jihadi heros out of the perpetrators.
But patriarchy loves war and though there are of course many men wise enough to oppose war, few of them will look at how it is supported by our construction of masculinity as being dominant and being a warrior. So it didn't take any prescience to see that Bush/Cheney would go to war and Cheney would greatly profit from it due to Halliburton.
That is what they always do and until we see that patriarchy is a brotherhood of warriors even when they fight each other, we will never end war.
Please don't bother to tell me that women support war too. I am well aware that women too can be brainwashed and have been made to feel they must either depend on men or be like men to achieve power. Patriarchy is mens creation though it is too often called the human condition.
So true.
I recommend The Chalice and the Blade by Riane Eisler, then her later books.
"The question is: Can our over-armed global mission be radically downsized before it downsizes us?"
No. Both the MIC and the so-called "economy" will be downsized at the same time. They are, after all, two sides of the same coin.
"It will happen anyway and it won’t take forever either..."
It has already begun. The foreclosure moratorium is the first sign that the banks are about to collapse.
In 2001, how could Tom and others have missed the obvious parallel with the Reichstag Fire in Berlin which provided the excuse to implement a totalitarian fascist state?
from the article:
~ And for a reasonably politically sophisticated guy, my second response was not only as off-base as the first, but also remarkably dumb. ~
maybe articles should be written by others, then...
The MIC loves fear and emotionalism. They know the Pavlovian reaction from fear and emotionalism works well on the American sheeple so they can carry out their deceit and con job. When the towers were hit on 9/11/01 most of the people around me reacted with flag waving, emotionalism and fear. There was no way I could reach these people including many of my relatives who are still buying the 911 con conspiracy theory today. It works well every time. Some examples: remember the false flag attack on the Maine in 1895 so we can attack Cuba; remember the false flag attack on the Lusitania so we can get into WW1 in 1917; remember the complicit attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941 by our government; remember the false flag in the Gulf Tonkin so we can make billions in Vietnam; remember the false flag of 911 so the MIC can justify making billions in Iraq and Afghanistan and make maybe trillions of $ in the future by stealing their oil and minerals. These false flags whip the American sheeple into a frenzy of emotional bellicosity so their government can justifying murdering hundreds of thousands of their husbands,sons,loved ones and innocent foreigners. To quote the highly decorated ( 2 medals of honor) General Smedley Butler: " I spent most of my time being a high class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and for the Bankers. I suspected I was just part of a racket at the time. Now I am sure of it ". A world made by war. Made by the war racketeers and profiteers!
Don't forget the false flag operation that triggered the U.S.-Mexican War, and the CIA-staged operations that overthrew elected democratic leaders in Iran (1953) and Guatemala (1954).
U.S. soldiers were deliberately exposed to above-ground nuclear tests in the U.S. West and to LSD and other such experiments in the 50's & early 60's.
What makes people think U.S. citizens wouldn't be sacrificed again to promote a war of expansion and greed?
"When you look at me, you can’t mistake the fact that I’m of a certain age."
Same here. But I'm glad I'm not nine years old. It would, in all probability, give me a lot more distance between here and eternity. However, I wouldn't want to live in a future United States.
"However, I wouldn't want to live in a future United States."
–(Mordechai Shiblikov)
–Have you got that right, or what! And as they say: "You ain't seen nothin' yet!"
Yet the truth of the matter is much darker:
Who wants to live in a future world where the United States even continues to exist?"
"And Darkness and Decay and the Red Death held illimitable dominion over all."
–(Edgar Allan Poe, "The Masque of the Red Death.")
Dominion over all!
"From the 1970's through 2001, as [the United States] military rebuilt itself as an all volunteer force and finally went back to war in distant lands, the military itself seemed to disappear from American life. There were no soldiers in sight, nothing we would consider commonplace today - from uniforms and guns in train stations to military flyovers at football games, or the repeated rites of praise for American troops that are now everyday fare...."
Close, but no cigar.
The Pentagon, uniforms and all, remained very much an omnipresent, visible fixture inside the DC beltway in the nation's capital, and near the major military installations stateside and abroad, throughout this whole time period. For our elected political elites in Washington, and for the thousands of families with a household member in active duty, the military never disappeared from daily life.
Nor did the military disappear from Hollywood. There was Rambo on his valiant rescue missions to bring back the Vietnam MIA's, Clint Eastwood as a grizzled Korean war hero carrying the torch of freedom into Grenada against the Commies, and Tom Cruise in his skivvies and ultra macho chic Top Gun jet fighter pilot regalia providing fair and balanced cultural coverage to offset those antiwar films like Born on the Fourth of July and Coming Home. Professor Andrew Bacevich included a whole section in his fine book "The New American Militarism" about this gradual resurrection of the post-Vietnam image of the US military establishment in our popular culture.
The Reagan and first George Bush presidencies also put military bravado back into the hard news coverage with orchestrated fanfare. Surgical airstrikes in Libya. Marines in Lebanon. The liberation of med school student hostages in Grenada, instantly refocusing attention away from Lebanon. The grand invasion of Panama, bringing the renegade narco-strongman Manual Noriega to justice. Ultimately, there was Operation Desert Storm (aka Persian Gulf War I), which ousted Saddam Hussein's forces from Kuwait in prime time blitzkreig fashion, thereby exorcising the ghosts of Vietnam from public memory once and for all.
That succession of gradually escalating militarism abroad during the twelve years when Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush occupied the Oval Office set the stage for humanitarian intervention in Somalia, the multilateral campaign in Bosnia, and for the post-9/11, borderless, multigenerational global war on terror. The American military "seemed to disappear from American life" during those decades after the fall of Saigon, if and only if you didn't follow the movies, watch television, or keep an eye on how federal money was being appropriated in Washington DC.
Bill from Saginaw
"The American military "seemed to disappear from American life" during those decades after the fall of Saigon, if and only if you didn't follow the movies, watch television, or keep an eye on how federal money was being appropriated in Washington DC." –(Bill from Saginaw)
–Well said. This perceptive refinement is indeed what was missing in Tom Engelhard't analysis.
In America, the 'seeming' is everything. The continuum of militarism is unbroken, despite the appearances of a hiatus to the contrary. American 'reality' shows up first in the virulence of its movies.
America is most at war when it appears not to be. Permanent war is indeed, an oscillation between the visible and the invisible, and is as much a 'psychological' or cultural construct, as it is a matter of materiality, as evident in the monstrous paraphernalia of its military 'hardware.'
The fact that the author here was so out of touch, so off in his assessment of this country, so surprised when 9-11 occurred is, well, bewildering.
There was no doubt in my own mind what was going on when the first WTC was struck. (Same with TWA 800. We'd never admit it was a terrorist attack, so they upped the ante and WTC was targeted next in order to make sure the terrorist's message was loud and clear--my opinion, I could be wrong.)
Our foreign policy and homegrown corporations and banks have pissed on and off too many people around the world for us to expect anything else but terrorism from here on out. And we are fighting them here because they have us fighting each other. We lashed out with our armies and mercenaries like a drunk in a fist-fight, our financial system is in collapse, their is little to no civil discourse thanks to the atmosphere the Press has created in its efforts to sell our airwaves to jingoistic and fascist morons for a few advertising dollars. In short, the jig is up, our facade of a nation has been exposed. The terrorists have won. All with a couple of planes and some box cutters. And we now wither and contract like a viper with its head cut off.
Scary the author was so far off and leaves largely absent the complicity of the Democratic party.
I don't see what the point of reading this book would be. Perhaps it should be retitled Sleeping Beauty Redux.
my first thought after watching the demolition of the WTC:
I can finally forget where I was when Kennedy was shot; this is way more momentous.
the two are directly related...