WELCOME TO WARMART

I believe I have finally found the appropriate metaphor to describe America’s war machine. It is a multi-billion dollar purveyor of shoddy merchandise, often obtained from dubious sources, that seeks to spread its influence around the Globe and dupe the public into patronizing it without proper consideration of the consequences for the health and welfare of either its employees or customers, just like Walmart.

The shoddy merchandise the United States Department of Defense does purvey, unlike the goods available at Walmart, are not fit for women, children and other living things. The sole purpose of DOD is to find a place, any place, where the generals can practice the war tactics they learned at West Point or in their ROTC classes without regard to the sovereignty of other nations, the sanctity of their borders, or the lives and limbs of their citizens.

Moreover the Department of Defense exercises its powers not in the defense of the United States as its name suggests, but rather in the functions that were its forte when it was still known as the War Department. That is more fitting for the simple reason that while war has been a constant part of American life since its founding, rare has the defense of America provided justification for those wars.

After all, one has to go back to the War Of 1812 to find an occasion where a foreign army has effectively invaded our borders requiring us to put up a defense. Mexican War? A campaign of conquest to expand our borders. The Indian Wars? We were the invaders, not the defenders. The American Civil War? The archetypical intercine conflict surely never contemplated by our Forefathers when they pledged to “provide for the common defence“ in the Preamble to the United States Constitution. 

Not even Germany and Austro-Hungary during WW I and the Axis powers in WW II ever seriously attempted to breach our borders in their attempts at World Conquest. (Good thing that Wall was built, eh?)

Our other wars have been a melange as we pretended  to not have colonies while at the same time getting pissed off when our non-colonies were attacked or sticking our collective warmongering noses into other nations’ affairs because some politician got a hard on to rid the world of commies, Muslims, and other scum, usually with darker skin than the American “ideal”. Never mind that we sent our own soldiers of color to fight other soldiers of color with the only commonality they shared was that generally our government treated all those soldiers and their families as less than human.

Now I’ve never been in the Pentagon, home to this massive and vastly over-expensive war machine. But I am old enough to recall being in big city department stores and taking the elevator to the upper stories with the operator sounding off what could be found on each floor where it stopped. But instead of household notions or ladies garments the Pentagon’s elevator stops at floors where the operator, in my imagination, intones ” 2nd Floor—Ground troops available to die for no cause. 3rd Floor—Over-priced and unneeded fighter planes. 4th Floor—drones and torture devices.  5th Floor—Penthouse—closed to all but Generals and their aides, representatives of defense contractors, lobbyists, and Congresscritters who voted for the highest level of appropriations.”

 

I found this intriguing essay reprinted on Huffington Post a few days back

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/military-ongoing-war_us_5ace7703e4b063460ae9fb7d

In it Andrew J. Bacevich, who is both a historian and a retired U.S. Army Colonel who served in Vietnam (and who, coincidentally is only nine days older than myself)  expounds on what he terms the seven principles that “that define the prevailing military system of the United States.”

Well enough, but his essay begins with a quote from St. Sugustine—the ancient philospher, not the Florida city.

The purpose of all wars, is peace.

I’m sure Augie had some meat behind those words but to me the notion is absurd. If you don’t have war you have peace so why would someone start a war to achieve peace?

No, the purpose of war is greed. Greed for wealth, greed for power, greed for revenge, greed for territory, and even, if you will as in the American Revolution, greed for freedom. However even that notion is tempered by the fact our revolution like most, was fought to counter the greed of our oppressors serving those other purposes.

Bacevich approaches these principles from the point of questioning why the world’s greatest military power ever cannot win the wars it starts. And that, my friends, is a gross oversimplification that is unfair to what Bacevich has written. He examines our all-volunteer army and what that means for the citizenry. He discusses the roles of Congress and the President (any president) in supporting, providing for, and exercising this vast military power and how the executive ends up prolonging wars.

The following passage alone is what inspired my thoughts and this writing.

…pursuant to the terms of our military system, the armed services have been designed not to defend the country but to project military power on a global basis. For the Department of Defense actually defending the United States qualifies as an afterthought…

I do have some differences with Bacevich over how he answers the questions he raises. But as he is former military of high rank his perspective is bound to provide different conclusions than mine. I do applaud him for asking these questions. When I first read his essay I knew it was worth pondering then re-reading, and then commenting on in some form and forum.

I am against war. That is as directly as I can state it. War? What is it good for? Absolutely nothing—thank you Edwin Starr.

I’ve been alive to observe this nation’s war machine in action for over sixty years. I have yet to be impressed with either the rationale behind these actions or the execution of them. I came of age during the Vietnam War and, due to student deferments and than open slots in an Army reserve unit managed to avoid its clutches. Many in my generation served, and many protested, and the Venn diagram of those two groups and positions reveals a significant overlap.There are people who assert we learned lessons from that folly and that is was stopped by the massive protests. Neither is true.

And even if these alleged lessons can be defined, as Hamlet said, they are

More honour’d in the breach than the observance.

One of my favorite Founding Fathers, Benjamin Franklin, had just completed a grueling round of negotiations that brought an official end to our Revolution through treaty with Britain. He took the time to write his long time friend, Josiah Quincy, Sr., to remark on that and related events including criticism he had faced. And he concluded that letter with the words I think all of us should take to heart.

https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Franklin/01-40-02-0385

there never was a good War, or a bad Peace.

 

 

 

IS THAT A NUKE IN YOUR POCKET OR ARE YOU JUST HAPPY TO SEE ME?

On the heels of the just announced agreement with Iran on its nuclear program, negotiated by China, Russia, Germany, France, England, and, of course, the United States, comes praise for the diplomatic efforts of President Barack Obama.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/04/02/iran-deal-obama-legacy_n_6996586.html

In that framework of a final agreement, which is to be reduced to its legal language by June, Iran is to scale back its nuclear program signficantly and a series of inspections and safeguards will be implemented to ensure compliance.

Earlier this year Obama took major steps to normalize relations between the U.S. and Cuba after more than a half century of rancorous discourse, travel taboos, economic sanctions, and assassination plots.

In the ongoing battle against climate change—the most difficult part being the intransigence of conservatives to even acknowledge the problem as something to seek resolutions to—last November Obama announced a bilateral agreement with China in which that nation works to reduce emissions.

This triumvirate of accomplishments… an Axis of Non-Evil?… certainly is more worthy of Nobel Peace Prize scrutiny than anything Obama did prior to being honored with that award in 2009, the year he entered office.

Of course the praise for this feat is near universal in this country as Congress rejoices that, with the threat of Iran nukes eliminated, it can finally pare the Defense budget to a reasonable level that will still allow for our security as a nation.

Oh, I wish. Republicans right and righter (no left in that Party) are vociferous in their condemnation of the pact and issuing vague threats…well, not so vague…to attempt to dismantle it. They seem to be in utter defiance of the Benjamin Franklin adage

There has never been a good war, nor a bad peace.

They seem determined to commit war on Iran no matter the cost.

One can reasonably express skepticism that Iran will fail to keep its bargain or that the inspection process will somehow fail or that, just maybe, instead of nukes Iran has the largest garage in the world with a battalion of Ted Kaczynskis producing pipe bombs to be mailed to each American household.

But, it does not matter what the terms of the agreement are nor how staunchly they can be enforced. Were Iran simply to surrender all nuclear materials it possesses, with Geraldo Rivera hosting the biggest live TV event since the opening of Al Capone’s vault so the world can bear witness, these critics speak and act as if nothing will satisfy their concerns short of bombing Iran into submission.

Will there be strict compliance with this agreement should it go into effect? How the hell do I or anyone know that. And strict compliance means Iran builds no nuclear weapons. But, absent strict compliance, is there some basis for forecasting whether it’s true and clear goal…preventing Iran from raining nukes down on Israel, the U.S. or any other nation..is achieved?

Well look at this list of treaties dealing with limiting nuclear arms.

• Treaty of Tlatelolcol           1967
• Treaty of Rarotonga          1985
• Treaty of Bangkok             1995
• Treaty of Pelindaba           1996
• Treaty of Semipalatinski    2006
• START I                             1991
• SALT I                                1972
• ABM Treaty                        1972

Some of these treaties have expired of their own accord. Others experienced the withdrawal of at least one of the signatories including the United States.

From a technical viewpoint, have all these treaties been upheld while in effect? I don’t know and I don’t care. The principal purpose of each and every one of these diplomatic coups was to avoid mushroom clouds that were killing people.

Since there have been none of these mushroom clouds appearing with the intent of killing large numbers of humans since August 9, 1945, I look at them as a success. Not unequivocably so, but the expiration and/or violation of any of them has not resulted in catastrophe.

But we all know that prior to this basic agreement’s inception, there was  a wide call among the neocons to just go ahead and bomb Iran as the primary preferred pre-emptive action to be taken.

Here on Moyers and Company Robert Perry scores the pre-agreement commentary by such as John Bolton, Thomas Friedman, and Joshua Muravchik that appeared in either the Washingtton Post or the New York Times. Friedman actually advocated for arming ISIS to help thwart Iran while the other two were all in for the U.S. to bomb Iran’s nuclear facilities.

The New York Times Publishes Call to Bomb Iran

Bolton continued the contrived warmongering of the Bush Administration of which he was a part (also getting paychecks from Reagan and Bush I as part of his resume) by ignoring or lying about some basic facts. Here  he is taken to task for doing so by Jon  Schwarz.

https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/04/04/factual-errors-john-boltons-bomb-iran-op-ed-new-york-times-care/

And there are even commenters on a Post-Gazette editorial who extend their record of inane insanity by urging us to have war with Iran now rather than waiting until later.

http://www.post-gazette.com/opinion/editorials/2015/04/05/Iran-s-framework-Negotiators-deserve-a-chance-to-finish-the-details/stories/201504040026

Iranians seem to be pretty damned happy.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/apr/02/iranians-celebrate-nuclear-deal-tehran

Surprisingly that grumpy old red state conservative Pope Francis not only spoke favorably of the deal but had the temerity and audacity to do so during his annual Easter address. According to many folks in this country promoting peace is not very Christian.

Alas, no matter the outcome of this deal, thwarted by Congress or not, observed fully by Iran or not, unilateral destructive action by Israel or not, this small step towards peace will remain that. Just one small step for man, but forever leaping into war for mankind.

Because, indeed, because they have seduced My people, saying, ‘Peace!’ when there is nopeace—and one builds a wall, and they plaster it with untempered mortar

Ezekiel 13:10

MAD MEN

There’s mad and then there’s mad. And the latter, more in tune with the second graphic than the first, is very sexist, very chauvinistic, very macho, and very deadly. It is the madness that begets war upon war upon minor skirmish  upon police action upon humanitarian intervention upon air strike upon incursion upon boots on the ground upon strategic drone strikes and, most of all, upon the bodies of millions…indeed hundreds of millions….victims of this mentality.

This madness has inhabited men since time immemorial and its rancid legacy pervades the pages of our history books and perverts our national character and falsifies our self-image as a people.

The us I speak of is a collective of all the nations, all the religions, all the ethnic groups and any other formal or informal collaborations or subsets of human groupings that have ever acted as a single entity to spread violence and mayhem and spill blood and guts that uglify our planet’s natural beauty and warps and burns and crumbles the wood and glass and steel and bricks and mortar or even simple earth that form the constructs of great architects and simple tribesmen alike.

The only admirable residue of these infernal conflicts are the quotes that survive telling us how terrible war is but which have absolutely no influence or preventative or deterrent effect when another opportunity to fire when you see the whites of their eyes the quality of their oil or diamonds or gold or the vastness of their lands.

War is Hell–Sherman… War is mankind’s most tragic and stupid folly; to seek or advise its deliberate provocation is a black crime against all men–Eisenhower… There was never a good war, or a bad peace–Franklin

I castigate the men who direct these actions but recognize that there are ample numbers of women capable of just as much disregard for the value and sanctity of human life as does any common serial killer.

Names such as Cleopatra and Catherine The Great and Margaret Thatcher come trippingly to the tongue as examples of distaff war mongers with the power to execute their blood lusts (and famously, on occasion, their carnal lusts, too).  But what about Queen Artemisia of Caria; Fu Hao; sisters Trung Trac and Trung Nhi; Boudicca; Joan of Arc; Laskarina Bouboulina; Juana Azurduy; Lakshmibai; Yaa Asantewaa; or Marina Raskova?

They are the 10 Hardcore Female Military Leaders From History  cited by Dan Wohl here.http://www.themarysue.com/female-military-leaders-300-artemisia/2/

Outnumbered to be sure by the Alexander The Greats, and Julius Caesars, and Hannibals, and our more modern versions of bellicose men like Lee and Grant and Sherman, and Kaisers, Fuehrers, Il Duces and Bushes more familiar to us in America.

Yet, by and large the fulminations of hostility and promulgations of justification for hostility reside in the psyches of men and the death wishes for the faceless enemy are carried out by men though women, not to mention children, the elderly, and any manner of bystander yield their lives to the inevitabilities of collateral damage and direct criminal mayhem that befall them due to their presence at the wrong place at the very worst of wrong times.

“But”, I hear the unconscientious objectors to this diatribe declare, “wars are just and wars are righteous and wars are for great causes”, all rationalizations adopted by one or more of the participants in any conflict. The maintenance of these rationalizations is often a mere cloak for the motivations of power and greed.

And before another objection is raised that I seem to be coating our proud troops or the rank and file Centurians and Mongols and Huns of the past with the patina of the immoral and wanton, let me remind you of my openly expressed admiration for some of this nation’s “heroes” here. https://umoc193.wordpress.com/2012/05/20/my-heroes-i-hope-yours-too/ And I’ve also explored the ultimate sacrifice here.  https://umoc193.wordpress.com/2012/11/29/goodbye-mr-chip/

Is war natural? Is it a part of any man, whether he is aware of it or not. Is he prone to be at war regardless of clas or race or wealth or station in life? I would like to think not and evidence of this may lie in the fact that, before marching off to destroy lives in the flesh, they are subject to the indoctrination of dehumanizing their opponents to make the destruction of flesh more palatable.

Jap, Gook, Chink, Kraut, Camel Jockey, Redskin, Savage, Slope and many more epithets and pejorations are used to make firing that bullet between the eyes so much easier as are the terms used by the nationalities or groups identified as such in return. I’m sure the Macedonians employed like terms for their enemies and it’s simple to envision the Spartans doing likewise and the Crusaders were the original Islamaphobes.

This madness infuriates me. It enrages me. I employ my own set of epithets  to describe these Mad Men.

Would that they had ears to hear and sanity to understand.

p.s. As I was composing this Foo Fighters were on Letterman performing Black Sabbath’s War Pigs