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.

 

 

 

SECURITY THEATER OF THE ABSURD

Today is September 11, a familiar date in American history. All across the nation our citizens are observing the tragedy associated with that day. There is nothing wrong with such observation. But I suspect the date will fade in the nation’s collective conscience as years pass. After all, December 7, the day of the Pearl Harbor attack which brought our entry into the cataclysm of World War II, is a blip on the video screen pf public awareness these days.

True, the two wars that resulted from September 11 each lasted twice as long or more than WW II (with one continuing obscenely and unjustifiably). So I suppose in that sense our interest in the anniversary remains a part of our present reality.

It is time to contemplate and consider how much of the reaction to the occurrences of that date which we “honor” demonstrate that we have created a perverse industry that accomplishes de facto the intent of the murderers and their gurus.

It is pretty much accepted that the motivation behind those horrific attacks was th desire to lay bare the hatred of America and its way of life. Ironically that way of life has evolved profoundly into a system much closer to what those criminals found in their nations of origin.

We, like many of them, have become engaged in endless conflict with bogeyman rivals, though we once supported those very same leaders we now wantonly kill.

Moreover, we willingly have gone to great lengths to “protect” ourselves with measures that only upon occasion draw vehement protests as they become further and further ingrained in our psyche. Regrettably the majority of us blindly accept the lies submitted as a purported rationale for these measures though any freshly minted attorney just graduated from the Dewey Cheatem and Howe School of Law could utterly destroy their credibility in any court of competent jurisdiction in a New York minute.

The abominable and reprehensible and deliberately mis-named Patriot Act does have a good point or two. It is printed on very classy stationary and it makes wonderful kindling.

Otherwise it viciously assaults the rights of Americans in ways that only Franz Kafka could appreciate. Warrantless searches and invasions of privacy are specialties. Borrow books from the library or use its computers? The government can dig into those practices and the libray staff is forbidden to inform you so you could take action to counter the probe.

Of course the two most prominent and costly actions undertaken in response to this date are the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. They have cost trillions of dollars and left many thousands of our fine young citizens dead or maimed, upheaving lives at home.

Have you flown lately? The TSA will ansure that your trip begins badly (the airlines take care of the rest) with ill-thought out policies and procedures of a Rube Goldberg nature. Then as you go through their checkpoints you are taken aside and informed you cannot fly. You are on a “no fly list” of some arcane origin since you are a “danger to security”. Funny that list has inlcuded the late Sen. Ted Kenendy (he was NOT going to pilot the plane with a young woman next to him) and five year old children.

That fine undemocratic institution known as the National Football League buys into this nonsense, requiring you to pass through metal detectors, subjecting some to body searches, yet does not prevent the admittance of certain Oakland Raiders fans with physical mayhem, not cheering for the team, as their raison d’etre.

Ah, but UMOC, what really set you off this fine late summer day?

I’ll tell you.

It seems that the very memorial to the victims of that awful day, that ought to represent the best about our great country, has instituted the reductio ad absurdum of security measures.

http://www.slate.com/articles/life/culturebox/2012/09/sept_11_memorial_does_the_world_trade_center_site_really_need_so_much_security_.single.html

1. Everyone in your party must be listed and have proper ID.
2. You must print out your tickets before arrival
3. You must show ID at several checkpoints
4. Blah blah blah

  The article examines three questions raised by these measures.

Is enhanced security necessary at the memorial? Are the specific measures in place likely to be effective? And what is their cost to a free society? 

One person asked was Bruce Schneier, a leading security expert, who coined the term “security theater”

… to describe measures that are visible or intrusive but also pointless or ineffective.

Schneier posits that

The tactics, Schneier said, “assume we can guess the plot. But as long as the terrorists can avoid them by making a minor change in their tactics or target, they’re wastes of money.” What isn’t a waste of money? “Investigation, intelligence, and emergency response—stuff that doesn’t require you to guess the plot.” 

The article notes that similar memorials to terror attacks do not carry such restrictions though they recognize equally emotionally powerful events.

Moreso the truth is since that infamous date there have been at most just over a dozen deaths caused by Muslim terrorists in the U.S. and some argue the shootings at Fort Hood do not belong in that category. Yet we have a disturbed young man killing that many at a movie opening in Colorado or another disturbed young man killing nearly three times as many at Virginia Tech or…well the list could go on.

But even these crimes are so rare and so random that security measures established in their aftermath will likely most benefit the owners of security companies implementing them.

Yet this “theater” provides an illusion to the masses that they are safer when they were not unsafe in the first place. That is much like the illusion that greeted 1930’s movie patrons who were able to temporarily escape the harsh rigors of the Depression while watching actors and actresses in fancy garb dancing merrily across the screen.

As in the theater of the absurd, in security theater logical construction and argument gives way to irrational and illogical speech and actions.

Tom Stoppard, et al would be extremely proud of their progeny.

COMMANDER IN CHIEF—OR KILLER IN CHIEF

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States…

Thus begins Article II Section 2 of the United States Constitution. The most important principle gleaned from this language is that of civilian control over our nation’s military power. Remarkably this principle has received universal acceptance among the populace.

Respect for the military itself has wavered to some extent through the years, likely reaching a nadir during the Vietnam War. Though our government set the policy, there was no doubt the influence of military leaders was important in developing and implementing the policy of engagement in Southeast Asia that was folly unfolding before our very eyes.

Though advisors had first been sent to Vietnam by Eisenhower and JFK had expanded their roll, LBJ became the President of record for that war and his legacy is largely based on it. That, in spite of huge accomplishments in civil rights, the beginnings of Medicare, and other successful domestic initiatives that are as praiseworthy as his military adventures are damnable.

Is LBJ the only President to be judged on exercising his authority as Commander in Chief? Certainly not, or I would not have a topic for this blog entry.

FDR is fondly remembered for ushering the country through the Great Depression. But that challenge almost pales in comparison to what he faced in bringing the United States into World War II, culminating in the near victory achieved at the time of his death on April 12, 1945. Failure in that endeavor would have not only detracted from his legacy, but probably would have eradicated the memory of his restoration of the economy.

So today on a lesser scale we have a President with a recent successful military excursion now added to his resume. The editorialists, bloggers and media talking heads are now debating whether the tracking and killing of Osama Bin Laden will elevate the stature of President Barack Obama sufficiently not just for his legacy but, more importantly in the short term, assure his re-election in 2012.

Why is that. Why should his popularity, his survival in the Office, depend on much on this relatively minor exercise of his Commander in Chief powers, no matter how favorable the outcome?

An odd sidelight to this discussion is that, having only a few days prior to the raid on OBL’s hideout fended off a good deal of the birther issue, new polls apparently justify the conclusion that, miraculously, that issue is a now a mere speck on Obama rather than an albatross around his neck.

But the events of last Sunday also resurrected the tale of President Jimmy Carter’s failed rescue mission of the Iranian hostages in 1980, which certainly would have resulted in the deaths of many Iranians. That failure sealed Carter’s fate in his bid for re-election.

At one time we had a President, Woodrow Wilson, who enhanced his bona fides as CIC by “keeping us out of war” and won re-election in 1916. Post WW II, however, especially post Vietnam War, the image of the President suffers unless and until he has some meaure of success militarily, i.e. kills some bad guys.

That factor is even more evident as we elect Presidents with no combat military experience themselves. Ronald Reagan served in WW II but he made propoganda films and never came face to face with either German or Japanese combatants. He loved rattling sabers against the Soviet Union but had to invade tiny Granada lest his desire and capability to go to war be questioned.

George H.W. Bush served more than honorably in that war, but when he declined to drive all the way to Baghdad to oust Saddam Hussein in the Gulf War he was derided as a wimp.

Bill Clinton was excoriated as a “draft dodger” and unworthy to be CIC but deflected some of that criticism by sending troops to Kosovo and Somalia. Because neither of those moves resulted in, or ever COULD have resulted in clear military victories, his CIC legacy is not strong.

George W. Bush is the epitome of a President who took his CIC powers to heart. After starting two wars of dubious merit he then reveled in being a “war President”, though he chose to be so , often proclaiming how much these responsibilities weighed on him, but to this day offering no regrets for the cost of lives in those conflicts.

Most pointedly he did something his dad did not—hunt down and kill Saddam Hussein. Even if the actual execution was due to Iraqi justice, Bush got de facto credit for the death. For better or for worse his legacy will be judged on those wars and the demise of Hussein

So we arrive back at our current CIC who has shown little hesitation employing our forces, from maintaining a presence in Iraq to expanding one in Afghanistan, to firing assorted missles and dropping bombs in Libya Obama already dispelled any notions he was shy about using army, navy and air force to further his policies.

But, like many of his predecessors, Obama has found that his popularity, legacy and foreign policy support gain more traction from killing than from legitimate efforts to maintain peace or from the success of any domestic policy whatsoever.

The President of the United States is Commander in Chief of our armed forces and militias every day of his term(s) in office. But it seems that this power is underappreciated and even criticized and thought unworthy of him until he puts those forces in harms way to kill the bad guys of the moment.

My desire is for my Commander in Chief, no matter who, to demonstrate his, or her, strength as such by being able to maneuver the Ship of State through troubled waters without resort to the extreme use of that power.

I shouldn’t hold my breath, should I?