Submitted by: Mike Spindell, guest blogger
Our nation has become a military empire analogous to ancient Rome, another Republic that lost its bearings because it became the mightiest fighting force of its time. That we owe this to having spectacularly won what could be called “The Last Just War”, World War II, merely ironically underlines our descent into become the World’s most bellicose nation. This bellicosity has been masked by propaganda that makes us out to be the one nation responsible for ensuring “freedom and safety”. In this strife torn Earth, that idea cannot be supported since the truth is that we are the chief threat to peace in the world today. Now in truth, the use of the United States military to intervene in this Nation and other Nation’s affairs is not simply a phenomenon that began with World War II as you can see from this timeline linked here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_United_States_military_operations . What World War II marked though was the absolute dominant position in world military power which our country attained during our participation in that war. Given the magnitude of its scope it is easy to forget that for the United States World War II lasted only a brief four years. However, the incredible mobilization of troops and the supporting materiel of war were accomplished via a total mobilization that in the end fully turned the vision of Corporate America towards the great profits and benefits to be derived by American military dominance. Indeed, for generations to come there was a fluidity of personnel between leading corporate entities and the Department of Defense.
Since 2001 our Armed Forces have been totally engaged in two major, unjustified wars and various minor “peace actions”. A child born in 1990 in the U.S. grew up in a world where there has been constant warfare and warfare’s necessary companion glorification of military service. The admixture of America’s warlike behavior and the faux glorification of the nobility of our military has become a constant in that young persons mind, only to better make them future cannon fodder for our dominant Corporate/Military Industrial Complex. Sadly, the less educated that young person is the more they are gullible to the siren call of that propaganda of military glorification. As the Great U.S. General Smedley Butler said so long ago: “War is a racket”.
In truth we honor our soldiers far more in words than in deeds. “America’s Greatest Generation” as establishment mouthpiece Tom Brokaw put it, was also the one generation of military personnel that was actually very well treated in the aftermath of their service. The World War II returning troops were educated via the generous G.I. Bill, had their homes financed through special discount programs and entered the marketplace at a time of phenomenal growth of the U.S. economy due to our country’s new position as the World’s dominant power. Every generation of returning veterans before and after World War II was treated rather shabbily in comparisons, despite the lavish praise given them for their service. The huge backlog in receiving benefits and medical treatment for our latest generation of returning veterans is masked by our presumed “honoring of the troops”, which is constantly accomplished merely in words, with a paucity of actual services delivered.
The reality is that the only real bi-partisanship that exists in our politicians today is that the overwhelming majority of both Democrats and Republicans are enthusiastic supporters of American military hegemony and bought stooges of the Corporate/Military Industrial Complex. That many beyond their corporate donors are indeed true believers in American military supremacy is no doubt true. The fact is that if you were born after let’s say 1960, your view of the world was shaped by American interventionism and American military supremacy. Barack Obama was born in 1961 and one can count him as one of those who for the most part supports America’s military interventionism. The proofs of my assertions are simple. In this time of supposed budgetary crisis, there is barely minimal support for cutting anything out of our Military and Intelligence budget. I lump Military and Intelligence together because there has been such a blurring of the lines between these two formerly discrete government entities, that today it is impossible to distinguish boundaries.
When it comes to my premise for this piece which is that this country will soon be involved in its “next” war, let me explain my reasoning. First of all there is the eight hundred pound gorilla in the room of American politics that almost no one that I’m aware of talks about. We are mired in a recession with countless American unemployed. If we bring our troops home and cut our defense budget we will add hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of people to our jobless rolls. Truly, the military has been the escape for many with otherwise poor employment prospects into obtaining a respectable job and the semblance of a future career. By cutting the military/intelligence budget, as things now stand economically in this country, we will recede from “recession” into “depression”. However, without something to justify the existence of our military budget, the U.S. spends more on our military budget than the next thirteen countries combined military expenditures, the truth that we are squandering the riches of this country to support the profits of private corporations becomes obvious. Therefore we need something to justify this unnecessary expense and that is another war.
As I see it there are three good prospects for that coming war, though I won’t preclude that we might fight all three at once. The first prospect is that ever handy, oil rich, example Iran. The justification would be similar to that of Iraq, which is “weapons of mass destruction”. The idea is that we can’t allow a country as unstable as Iran to have nuclear capacity. Underlying this justification is that Iran has a massive supply of oil riches and so would be a prize similar to Iraq and the oil leases we forced Iraq to agree to. Naturally, a partial excuse would be its threat to Israel, but in truth that is merely a convenient overlay for Saudi Arabia’s competition with Iran for dominance in the Muslim world.
A second possibility is intervention in Syria for humanitarian reasons. The Syrian dictator Assad is no doubt a brute, but we live in a world where a great many country’s are ruled by brutes. The “humanitarian” interest in Syria is its strategic location, the presence of American military bases close by and the various economic benefits to be supplied by controlling that country.
Now a third possibility rearing its ugly head comes from the clownish dictator of North Korea. Again we find a nuclear threat involved and also this is paired with the “humanitarian” need to rid this unfortunate country of its hereditary dictator. That North Korea is a failed state, unable to feed its people and geographically located next to one of the World’s great powers China may be ignored because the silly posturing of its’ “dear Leader” can be propagandistically twisted into a “threat” to our country.
It must be noted that possibly the most unstable country to possess nuclear capability in the World today is Pakistan, yet that ill-governed country is somehow never cited as a threat to the U.S., even with its harboring of Osama Bin Laden and of the Taliban, next door to the country we are currently deeply involved in.
These are my reasons for my believing that quite shortly our country will be involved in another war. Unless thinking by both parties in Washington changes drastically, which I don’t see as likely given the gravy train our politicians are on, we will receive the same propagandist buildup as a preparation of the American people for yet another war. We will squander the lives of our troops and the wealth of this country maintaining our role as the “Leader of the World”. We will move ever closer to Rome’s example as a republic turns to empire and the empire is ruled by military heroes and so it goes.
The reader will note that I used no links to back up my suppositions and in truth this guest blog was my meditation on the militaristic character that has prevailed in our nation. However, my musings are not merely the product of a fevered brain this morning, but actually a continuation of an ongoing theme of a portion of my guest blogs. The links below supply the information and detail that have influenced my feelings and a the combination of work that both Gene Howington and myself have produced in the past year or so.
Submitted by: Mike Spindell, guest blogger
http://jonathanturley.org/2013/02/09/petraeus-the-problem-with-heroic-hagiography/
http://jonathanturley.org/2013/02/02/why-they-hate-hagel-and-american-mythology/
http://jonathanturley.org/2012/09/15/this-changes-everything/
http://jonathanturley.org/2012/09/08/the-drum-beat-goes-on/
http://jonathanturley.org/2012/08/25/lest-we-forget/
http://jonathanturley.org/2012/06/23/missing-the-point-when-the-point-is-obvious/
http://jonathanturley.org/2012/06/17/propaganda-102-holly-would-and-the-power-of-images/
http://jonathanturley.org/2012/05/20/propaganda-101-what-you-need-to-know-and-why-or/
http://jonathanturley.org/2012/04/01/defending-our-freedoms/
http://jonathanturley.org/2012/03/17/a-real-history-of-the-last-sixty-two-years/
http://jonathanturley.org/2012/02/25/hypocrisy-democracy-whats-going-on/
http://jonathanturley.org/2012/01/07/americas-transcendent-issue/
http://jonathanturley.org/2011/09/24/as-we-careen-towards-a-dream-of-armageddon/
http://jonathanturley.org/2011/09/10/the-president-has-been-afraid-of-what/
RWL,
They sign up for all kinds of reasons. Too many to name. Some economic, some for educational opportunity, some out of family tradition, some for adventure. And on and on. Besides, when you are 19 or 20, you are bulletproof.
A lot of young people cannot find jobs, have no insurance, and who sign up out of desperation to have a regular paycheck.
maybe we should talk about making the democracy around the world safe from the United States of America
99guspuppet: I support individuals & their freedom & their creativity & their productivity
If you do not support democracy, how is that defined? Or is it just your unilateral, dictatorial decision what shall and shall not be declared “freedom”?
Does freedom let people kill each other? Steal from each other? Rape each other? Enslave each other? If you do not believe in “mob rule,” and you do not believe in violence, why should those acts be prohibited, and if any acts are prohibited, how do you propose we enforce that prohibition without violence against against somebody determined to commit violence to get what they want?
I think you need some further mental processing of your list of what you “support,” as it stands what you support and do not support cannot be used to create a coherent societal system. What you support is “anarchy” which typically evolves in short order to absolute rule by psychopathic violence.
Mike S,
“In truth we honor our soldiers far more in words than in deeds.”
OS
“It is also a truth as old as history itself that young men and women die for the aspirations and egos of old men.”
Then, what does this say about those who serve? Why are our young people signing up by the thousands every year? Is it the economy (i.e lack of job opportunities. Entering the arm forces without a college degree is similar to working entry level management at McDonalds?)?
Is it ignorance or lack of knowledge about the benefits if you don’t serve out your 20 years, if you don’t go to college while your enrolled-increasing your chances of being promoted, or being badly injured (physically and/or mentally) and, then, having to live a low-income lifestyle or even becoming homeless?
Why are you (young people) fighting for a country (USA) that refuses to fight for you?
Excellent article Mike S.
I remember seeing it somewhere else, but how about a new Cabinet designation for Department of Peace.
America needs to start defining “peace” as strength. –Bill Maher
“Maher Blasts U.S. ‘War Monger’ Response To North Korea And The Military Industrial Complex (VIDEO)”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/13/maher-war-monger-north-korea-military-industrial-complex_n_3076200.html
AP,
Thank you for thr Bill Maher link since it inspired this piece. Tthis morning when I started to write this, the video wasn’t available. You’ve brought this blog back to its inspiration and Maher’s rant is well worth watching.
Just so you know…. i am not part of “We”. I do not support governments in America, I do not support ” the social contract “. I do not support WAR ! I do not support democracy ( mob rule ). I do not support jingoism. I do not support violence. I support individuals & their freedom & their creativity & their productivity…. 99guspuppet
CheatinDog 1, April 13, 2013 at 12:01 pm
No one talks about making the world safe for Democracy anymore.
*****
Maybe we should start talking about making the United States safe for Democracy???
Otteray Scribe 1, April 13, 2013 at 11:31 am
Mike,
This is an excellent piece. As an amateur historian, I am constantly bemused by the fact too many people see an armed intervention as a first choice, not the last choice. Sun Tzu gave them the answers over 2,500 years ago. People say they have read Sun Tzu, but fast money speaks louder than common sense and the lessons of history.
A few lessons from Sun Tzu:
******************************************************
The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting.
For to win one hundred victories in one hundred battles is not the acme of skill. To subdue the enemy without fighting is the acme of skill.
There is no instance of a nation benefitting from prolonged warfare.
Supreme excellence consists in breaking the enemy’s resistance without fighting.
The general who wins the battle makes many calculations in his temple before the battle is fought. The general who loses makes but few calculations beforehand.
Ultimate excellence lies not in winning every battle, but in defeating the enemy without ever fighting.
===========================================
Your quote comes from a book written by a Chinese General titled “The Art of War.”
Is war an art or is it a disease:
(Is War An Art or Is War A Disease?). This Chinese General is required reading while Civics 101 is not.
The reason is the drift toward totalitarianism by way of taking over the old United States without firing a shot — by practicing the “art” of Sun Tzu.
According to General Westley Clark, that policy coup has now taken place (A Tale of Coup Cities – 2).
It takes “real genius not to see” that they only practice Sun Tzu on the American public, not on the nations we have invaded, occupied, and virtually destroyed.
I believe Sun Tzu’s admonition is off-point. He wrote in a time of kings and emperors, when the gains and costs of war were pretty much borne directly by the kings and emperors that chose to pursue it (or were victimized by it).
That is no longer the case. War is usually profitable for somebody; and war profiteers are not generally the type of people that care if their profits come at enormous human costs, or even the fall of countries.
Just as certain investors with a ton of cash on hand are willing to destroy an otherwise viable and profitable company in order to pocket as profit a tenth of its value, war profiteers that can make tens or hundreds of millions of dollars will live fine elsewhere, in Switzerland, Europe, Australia, Canada, New Zealand or many other fine countries where money buys luxury and first-class healthcare and security, often with fewer restrictions than the USA.
If an investor gains control of a company and doesn’t care about the survival of it or the people it employs, they can extract and pocket much of the future profits immediately, load the company up with crippling debt, and leave it to its fate. Just ask Mitt Romney, he’s an expert.
If war profiteers don’t care about the survival of the country, they can for pennies on their profit-dollar use corrupt tactics to push it into war, so the country buys ludicrously over-priced weaponry and services. They can run the country into crippling debt, pocket their profits and leave it to its fate while they relax as decamillionaires in their fine houses all over the world.
It is a strange truth that war brings out the best in people, as well as the worst in people.
It is also a truth as old as history itself that young men and women die for the aspirations and egos of old men.
Another element of our national militarization is the leaking of that mindset into domestic policing.
SWAT, military style police raids, the increasing police firepower, etc are all symptoms of our national militarization.
It isn’t only distant foreigners who will feel the effects of our militarization.
Bron 1, April 13, 2013 at 1:03 pm
I find it interesting that the rise of the progressive era in the late 19th century …
Ayn Rand
“The Roots of War,”
Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, 38
==========================================
If you are reasoning from the foundation of the only female pr*ck around, Ayn Rand, then you would be talking about the Civil War (“late 19th century”) which was a war against slavery.
She would not have sanctioned that war, choosing slavery instead.
I prefer to listen to an American who has been a cabinet member, congressman, and President.
Add to that having been a real civil rights expert because of having written The Bill of Rights, then having been called “The Father of The Constitution.”
He has a unique American foundational view of war:
(The Greatest Source Of Power Toxins?, emphasis added). Since this was before progressives or conservatives, democrats or republicans, it is not an understanding born of modern political science.
It is far more timeworn and far more distant from the modern age of propaganda.
It is far more pure than the hateful daughter of wealthy folks who came to Hollywood from Russia.
Obama has been provoking and poking a stick at North Korea for ages. Same with Iran. Hes a warmonger. Hes got alot of the left fooled tho an they think hes about peace. Whatever. Herding the sheeple
Mike,
Wonderful article. Otteray Scribe’s contribution of SunTsz’s observation that, “there is no instance of a nation benefiting from prolonged warfare” seems to be a lesson that mankind is incapable of learning. When we were in the process of replacing the French in Viet Nam, Ho Chi Min advised, you will come, we will kill a few of yours, you will kill many of ours and in the end, you will go home. Such is the lesson of history for invading and occupying foreign armies. The fact that the United States is so persistent in refusing to recognize this should be a reminder that the business of America is business and the thing business loves most is a good old fashioned war. Media being nicely consolidated into fewer big businesses, they also seem eager to serve as propogandists, more than happy to fan the flames of aggression.
Though Iran, Syria and North Korea are all good bets for our next military intervention, I am not so sure you should be discounting Pakistan quite so much.
“In the long run, war and the preservation of the market economy are incompatible. Capitalism is essentially a scheme for peaceful nations…. The market economy, subject to the sovereignty of the individual consumers, turns out products which make the individual’s life more agreeable. It caters to the individual’s demand for more comfort. It is this that made capitalism despicable in the eyes of the apostles of violence. They worshiped the ‘hero,’ the destroyer and killer, and despised the bourgeois and his ‘peddler mentality’ (Sombart). Now mankind is reaping the fruits which ripened from the seeds sown by these men.”
Ludwig von Mises (1949)
Human Action: The Scholar’s Edition
(Auburn, Ala.: Ludwig von Mises Institute, 1999), p. 824.
I find it interesting that the rise of the progressive era in the late 19th century coincides with the rise of military might/ambition. From TR and Woodrow Wilson to GW Bush and now BH Obama we have had endless war with a respite during the 20’s and 30’s under Coolidge, Harding and Hoover and the late 70’s and 80’s under Ford, Carter and Reagan except for the bombings in Libya and the support for the Mujahedeen against the Soviets.
TR, Wilson, FDR, Truman, Kennedy, Johnson, both Bushs, Clinton and Obama all pretty much anti-capitalist progressives. Coolidge, Harding, Hoover and Reagan pretty much pro-capitalist, individual liberty sorts for the most part. Although you could make a case against Hoover.
I think I see a pattern. So does my favorite philosopher:
“Laissez-faire capitalism is the only social system based on the recognition of individual rights and, therefore, the only system that bans force from social relationships. By the nature of its basic principles and interests, it is the only system fundamentally opposed to war.
Men who are free to produce, have no incentive to loot; they have nothing to gain from war and a great deal to lose. Ideologically, the principle of individual rights does not permit a man to seek his own livelihood at the point of a gun, inside or outside his country. Economically, wars cost money; in a free economy, where wealth is privately owned, the costs of war come out of the income of private citizens—there is no overblown public treasury to hide that fact—and a citizen cannot hope to recoup his own financial losses (such as taxes or business dislocations or property destruction) by winning the war. Thus his own economic interests are on the side of peace.
In a statist economy, where wealth is “publicly owned,” a citizen has no economic interests to protect by preserving peace—he is only a drop in the common bucket—while war gives him the (fallacious) hope of larger handouts from his master. Ideologically, he is trained to regard men as sacrificial animals; he is one himself; he can have no concept of why foreigners should not be sacrificed on the same public altar for the benefit of the same state.
The trader and the warrior have been fundamental antagonists throughout history. Trade does not flourish on battlefields, factories do not produce under bombardments, profits do not grow on rubble. Capitalism is a society of traders—for which it has been denounced by every would-be gunman who regards trade as “selfish” and conquest as “noble.”
Let those who are actually concerned with peace observe that capitalism gave mankind the longest period of peace in history—a period during which there were no wars involving the entire civilized world—from the end of the Napoleonic wars in 1815 to the outbreak of World War I in 1914.”
Ayn Rand
“The Roots of War,”
Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, 38
Mike Spindell 1, April 13, 2013 at 12:16 pm
The following article on the execrable Tom Friedman can be read to illustrate those “esteemed” propagandists who ramp up the drumbeat for America’s warlike interventions. One could say he’s a cheerleader for the Corporate Military Industrial Complex.
http://www.alternet.org/media/tom-friedman-most-overrated-and-disgraceful-journalist-america?paging=off
===========================================
Should anyone consider U.S. Journalist vs. U.S. Journalist a little too close to call, take the example of an American trained journalist who now practices in Jordan, as a further-away-from-the-fray observation (“professionally criminal”):
What makes it particularly egregious is that the bullying is being done by hypocrites out in plain public view:
(Origin of the Classic Nuclear Bully). Thus, Mike’s statement “the truth is that we are the chief threat to peace in the world today” is an accurate observation made by research journalists around the globe.
Mike, Channeling your thoughts on the feudal society is fair. You channeled mine in this article. 🙂
The following article on the execrable Tom Friedman can be read to illustrate those “esteemed” propagandists who ramp up the drumbeat for America’s warlike interventions. One could say he’s a cheerleader for the Corporate Military Industrial Complex.
http://www.alternet.org/media/tom-friedman-most-overrated-and-disgraceful-journalist-america?paging=off