In an otherwise interesting essay entitled, "The Price of Perpetual War," we find this perplexing paragraph:
The United States did not choose this era of perpetual war. It is the price of living in a world where, for the first time, terrorist groups and malevolent individuals can reach the United States and wreak havoc from virtually any corner of the world. That threat was literally brought home by al Qaeda on 9/11 and reinforced all too recently by the terror attacks in Paris, Brussels, and San Bernardino.
Does anyone believe this is so? Alas, millions of Americans. But to make a quick list…
…We chose to give a blank check to Saudi Arabia to run one of the world's most repressive regimes while spreading extremist war-on-the-infidels Islam throughout the Middle East and beyond. One doesn't have to subscribe to conspiracy theories to acknowledge that Osama bin Laden and 15 of the 19 hijackers on 9/11 were Saudi citizens. And what has our kowtowing to the kingdom given us? The House of Saud's oil, to fuel our "non-negotiable" (and already heavily subsidized) car-based sprawl lifestyle. Most oil needs to stay in the ground if we are to avoid destroying the planet even more — and between "making different arrangements" and domestic oil, we don't need OPEC anymore. …
…We chose an even closer connection to Israel, Riyadh's quiet ally, whether this was in America's national interest or not. And with the oppressive and increasingly extremist regime of Benjamin Netanyahu is it increasingly not. Indeed, increasing Jewish settlements on Palestinian land and injustices against the Palestinian people committed by Israel blow back on the United States, which has long ago lost its credibility as an honest broker in the Middle East. It has inflamed Islamic and Arabic anger against us. And for what? To please the powerful donors of AIPAC and older Jewish voters in the swing state of Florida?…
…We chose to invade Iraq, a nation that had nothing to do with 9/11 terrorism nor did it possess weapons of mass destruction. In toppling a distasteful but secular strongman, we unleashed the furies of sectarian strife going back to the death of Muhammad in 632. Our stupendously bungled occupation (Don "Stuff Happens" Rumsfeld, Paul Bremer) made it much worse; ISIS can be traced to these critical early blunders. The conflagration has spread throughout the region. And for what? To validate the Project for a New American Century, secret Cheney oil deals, and show how "The Vulcans" made their own reality? Real reality had other plans and millions blame America for the blood of the Iraqi people and a "war on Islam." This was done in our name. We did this…
…We chose to antagonize Russia, first by expanding NATO into the former Warsaw Pact countries — despite strong evidence this violated a 1990 promise made to Moscow. We continued to do so by supporting the EU's reckless attempt to embrace Ukraine, which had been part of the Russian Empire for centuries, then enacting sanctions against Moscow for annexing Crimea, which had never been historically part of Ukraine. We choose to ignore Russian exceptionalism. To wealthy Republican John Sidney McCain III, the land of Tolstoy and Tchaikovsky, whose people conquered a continent and crossed to take Alaska, is "a gas station masquerading as a country." And for what? To keep the Military Industrial Complex well funded? Our actions have stoked Russian nationalism and taken the heat off [the real-estate developer's] bromance object, Vladimir Putin…
…We choose to maintain an alliance system left over from the Cold War without even a peep of reflection. Uncle Sucker is left holding the bag. Why is the Middle East our problem rather than that of our NATO allies, who won't even spend the minimum on their own defense? Why does British Prime Minister David Cameron get to eviscerate the Royal Navy yet profit from global commerce protected by the U.S. Navy? And he is only one free-rider. Why is North Korea our problem and not that of Beijing? Perhaps it's better to have Japan under the American nuclear umbrella than having Tokyo develop its own nukes. But is George Kennan's containment theory, specific to the Soviet Union, really applicable to China? Who benefits? The arms makers — America is the world's largest exporter of military hardware. But who named us world police?…
…And don't forget that we chose to abandon the Geneva Conventions and enshrine torture as national policy, run the abominations of Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo and black sites. For what? To look strong? This inflamed the Muslim world against us and guarantees that American soldiers will not be treated according to what were international norms before we shredded them. George Washington forbade torture during the Revolutionary War As historian Scott Horton wrote, "In all respects the prisoners were to be treated no worse than American soldiers; and in some respects, better. Through this approach, Washington sought to shame his British adversaries, and to demonstrate the moral superiority of the American cause." That was American exceptionalism then. Now, it is something sinister.
No, perpetual war in not inevitable. And the choice is not between the status quo and Charles Lindbergh-style isolationism.
The opportunity costs of our choices are enormous and mounting. Not least among our choices has been the GOP religion of tax cuts. Now our National Parks face a maintenance backlog of $11.5 billion. They must compete in an "American Idol-style" contest for a pittance of private grants. While every advanced, urbanized nation on the planet has high-speed rail (good for the climate too, vs. passenger jets), Amtrak struggles with a minimal network and most speeds lower than a century ago. The GOP response is to attempt to kill its inadequate $1.4 billion subsidy. The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program, producing an unreliable jet, has cost $1.5 trillion. (Our subsidies of sprawl and single-occupancy automobiles would amount to many trillions).
But to hell with addressing climate change, building 21st century infrastructure, protecting the people's priceless natural inheritance, or even funding real defense needs and attending to legitimate national interests. The GOP can't keep cutting taxes and fretting over debt and deficits — and also continue massive military spending. The fretting over red ink will stop the minute a Republican becomes president. And as for the rest? Stuff happens.
Think about that when you make a choice in November, not just for the White House but every race from city council on up.
Your selection of historical events includes “sunk costs”. Right, wrong, or indifferent, those things happened.
The world is a different place because of the terrorist attacks you mention. I share your frustration that the US seems to be taking the lead in the fight, at least in terms of military action in foreign lands.
Eisenhower was spot on about the military industrial complex. Like all government bureaucracies, it sells fear in exchange for more power, more money, more people, more,more, more. Lunacy.
BTW, I think the 1.5 trillion for the F-35 is actually how much the total costs are projected to be, not what that freakin’ fiasco “has” cost. Nonetheless, it’s a mess and future defense requests for funding should be analyzed with explicit reference to what a mess it has become. Heads should roll.
My thought are clear. Want a war? Pay for it. Want social security? Pay for it. To argue that since x is subsidized, then y should be subsidized, too, is exactly what has gotten this country (and the states) in the financial mess they’re in.
It’s also part of the problem with a global approach in fighting terrorism. Those budgets are strained, too.
The last 4 quarters of GNP growth have been 3.9%, 2%, 1.4%, and .8% and the 10 year TBill hasn’t seen 2% for about 5 months- it hasn’t seen 3% for about 2 1/2 years.
And the US is still the world’s best economy…..
More bad news
https://money.cnn.com/2016/06/03/news/economy/us-economy-may-jobs-report/index.html?iid=hp-toplead-dom
10 year yield tumbles to 1.7%
The real estate developer is right about one thing. We need a wall. The world needs a wall – a wall completely encircling the United States – to keep us from getting out and ruining the rest of the planet. At the same time, in real estate terms, it would create the American ideal, a gated community with no gates.
The idea that the US “did not choose this era of perpetual war’ is preposterous. Declaring ‘war’ on ‘terror’ is nothing if not opting for the choice of open-ended, ill-defined, and perpetual conflict. Addicted to the crack of defense dollars our elected representatives are incapable (unwilling) of dialing back the obscene amounts of money we shell out on ‘defense’. And guess what? When you’ve got an immense, shiny, powerful military, it’s impossible to resist the temptation to use it.
The military has become a career for thousands of undereducated Americans who would have worked in factories prior to globalization. With few blue collar options available, what else would we do with these folks as a nation?
Diane D’Angelo with an elitist and extreme view of the military. At some level this may be true. Especially in the lower enlisted ranks. However, the military has warned of the danger climate change imposes and has even mentioned the effects of Republicans giving the DoD wasteful funding.
Diane raises a valid point about employment. But major and sustained investment in infrastructure would create many jobs, not only construction but operating positions. So would taxing Wall Street with incentives for deals that create jobs. Universal healthcare would allow people to move out and start their own businesses, hire one or two. Antitrust needs to be toughened — consolidation kills employment. Lots of options. We’re facing big issues with automation ahead. But military Keynesianism isn’t the solution.
well said mr. talton, we have the resources to better ourselves; the will? the imagination?
I do think military budget cuts need to be considered. I believe we can maintain a strong, world-leading military with somewhat less funding. It’s not the end of the world to cut back a little bit. I wish more conservatives wouldn’t see military spending cuts as failing some sort of litmus test.
It’s okay to increase or decrease spending levels in response to real-world stimulii and I do feel the challenges of the present and future require perhaps less overall troop strength but continued strong investment in technology and intelligence.
“(T)he military … has even mentioned the effects of Republicans giving the DoD wasteful funding.”
True, phxSUNSfan, but Congress (mostly, but not completely, Republicans) has foisted upon the military some weapons the armed forces have rejected, like the tanks parked in Nevada because the Army has no use for them but Congress ordered them anyway (jobs, you know).
A few points:
1. Most Americans have no idea how strong our military is. If they did, they wouldn’t listen to idiots like Trump talk about how weak we are. Even a candidate like Bernie Sanders has not discussed in general the firepower our military has, nor asked to what ends we possess it. For instance, we have 10 Nimitz-class supercarriers. No one else has even one. China’s single carrier is about half the size of a Nimitz. We of course have the world’s largest air force. You know who No. 2 is? The U.S. Navy.
2. We fret about Iran having a nuke. I say we give the Iranians one, then tell them we’ll have one of our 14 nuclear-armed Ohio-class submarines parked in the Persian Gulf in case they use it. One of those subs carries 24 Trident missiles, each of which can have up to 14 warheads packing 100 kilotons of power (the Hiroshima bomb had about 15). You want to play? Let’s play.
3. Seems to me a lot of defense people could be employed rebuilding our infrastructure, including the rail systems Jon mentioned, expanding high-speed Internet across the country, repairing our roads and bridges, and expanding alternative sources of power so that we wouldn’t have to protect the Middle East sandbox. The political will, alas, is lacking. Not enough kickbacks.
4. The U.S. spends half its budget on war, more than the next 10 countries combined. We could cut our defense spending in half and have all of the things Sanders has talked about and still have the world’s strongest military. It’s just priorities, people.
5. One way to cut down our war-making is by reinstating the draft. If Biff (and now Betty) were at risk of getting their ass blown off in some godforsaken shithole like Afghanistan or Syria, Mom and Dad would think twice about our war adventures. As it is, America treats its service members like Don Blankenship treats coal miners: a necessary nuisance, easily replaceable.
Greg, Well said. And 10-4 on mandatory conscription. The military has place almost anyone regardless their abilities or handicaps could find a work place.
Hillary, “do you want someone like Trump to have access to the nuclear codes? ”
America, “Hillary, you’d put the nuclear codes in your unsecured email.”
The issues raised here are valid and disheartening. Our American problems are the result of political choices.
And now . . . a vote for Hillary is a vote for the status quo.
And Trump is insane.
SJ, said, “Trump is insane”. I agree.
But so are about 30 percent of the American population.
If Hillary gets the job we can only hope that Sanders campaign has and will keep her from being the status quo and a Roman General off to war.
I like what Greg HillaRd said above.
RC, you make a lot of well stated points. What would your middle east prescription be? Would you recommend at this point completely withdrawing from Iraq and Afghanistan and all alliances in the middle east? Do you think doing that and ending any involvement with Israel would placate the jihadists and keep them from wanting to attack us?
Jon,
It’s not a binary choice.
Our Front Page editor, who spent many years in the Middle East as a foreign-service officer (or spook?), argues that things are so screwed up that we should let the Crips and Bloods fight it out and check back in a generation…or two.
I say, first we need to act in our national interest, rather than being led along by the Saudis and Israelis. Sometimes our interests coincide, often not.
Not everything is ours to fix. The EU has a larger GDP than the United States. As for Colin Powell’s apocryphal “Pottery Barn rule,” we DON’T own it — even if we broke Iraq.
I don’t want to “placate the jihadists.” I want to stop digging (the Rule of Holes: “When in a hole, stop digging.”). Our “war on terror” has only bred new terrorists. Every time we claim to have killed some top terrorist in a drone strike, it accomplishes…nothing, except to inflame more of the Islamic world against us.
We also need to be aware of the stupendous population overshoot in the Middle East and elsewhere (AZ, call your office). As this intersects with climate change, things are going to get very nasty. We’d be better off attending to clean energy, taxing carbon, building high-speed rail and funding transit — and paying for a modernized nuclear deterrent and large Navy — than continuing to dig the hole. We’re not the world police.
How many CHAPOS can U kill until there are no CHAPOS left?
Defense spending continues to erode the USA. What will be left after our slick empire of political toadies and oligarchs collapses?
Jon, This is one of the best pieces I have seen on the topic. You nailed the high points and leave your readers to think about how to stop the bleeding. Thanks for leading us toward thinking our way out of the pit we have ended up in.
Will she continue the “Digging Of Holes”
https://consortiumnews.com/2016/06/05/did-clintons-emails-expose-cia-agents/
I’d say we’ve been a state of perpetual war since around 1940 – at least in terms of spending, staffing, etc. The founding fathers were again right about this issue – like most everything else.
This is insanity.
In case my original post didn’t come across correctly, it was dripping with sarcasm. I am appalled and depressed by our current state of affairs, not the least of which is that we’ve now been at war for an entire generation. You’d think people would be furious about this, but it barely registers a blip. Nothing feels real to me anymore except the chase for money and fame.
When American “exceptionalism” is turned into “superiority,” this arrogance becomes a form of stupidity–because it blinds these “uber-patriots” to what the object of their scorn is capable of, or willing to do.
This flag-waving, fist-shaking, over-the-top jingoism predictably turns into a xenophobic excess.
We think we can have it all to the point that we think we should be able to have it all–all in the name of supposedly being a nation “under God.”
This attitude ferments into marginalizing other nations, cultures, customs, and sensibilities.
When these entities resist our “entreaties,” our leaders subtly
“demonize” these “aberrations” from our supposedly “superior” way of life.
A perpetual state of war can then ensue.
And how many of these other entities peoples live longer lives than our overly competitive population???
Finally, regarding Lindbergh’s “isolationism,” how close was Lindbergh to Adolf Hitler and the Nazis? And was this “isolationism” a ploy to keep America out of the wider world to let the Nazis have “free rein” in their war of conquest?