we are stardust's picture

    War Everlasting

    By we are stardust on Tue, 10/05/2010 - 6:28pm |

    The notion that the US is now engaged in perpetual war is quickly gaining traction.  A few new books have hit the concept hard, among them Chalmers Johnson’s Dismantling the Empire: America’s Last Best Hope, and Andrew Bacevich’s Washington Rules: America’s Path to Permanent War (American Empire Project).

     As we wonder if we’ve indeed entered the realm of no more peace for the US, we might be thinking about what we know now.  We know that there are still at least 50,000 troops in Iraq, and they will be increased by private contractors working for the DoS; we suspect those numbers will rise.  We hear that there are far more contract soldiers there already, some report great numbers of them, up to a ratio of 1:1 for the last evacuation.  We hear that the embassy in Baghdad means to double its number of inhabitants.

     We know that when Obama came into office, there were between 31,000 and 36,000 US troops in Afghanistan; now there are about 108,000; all apparent signs by David Petraeus are that draw-downs won’t begin until at least 2012, depending on reaching target goals of 400,000 trained security forces.  We know that’s a virtually impossible goal, given history.  We also know it’s the longest war in US history.

     We’re conducting a secret and dangerously knife’s-edge war in Pakistan: drone strikes have increased rapidly in the past few weeks.  We now know that there are several thousand CIA dark-ops forces operating, and drone assassinations have risen sharply.    And the new evidence of plots to harm European cities has ramped up concern and ‘anti-Al Qaeda operations’ there.  Reports say that similar operations have been underway in Yemen all year.  I will leave aside the issue of whether or not any or all of the intelligence is accurate or true; we’ve been fooled before; many times before, in fact.  And since fear allows more military and intelligence expenditures, the terror alerts go up, the fear level goes up, the neo-cons revenge-screams go up, Democrats join the crowd, and the Congressional purse-strings open.

    So.  How would one assess the idea that Permanent War might be already written for us?

    We have Bob Woodward’s new book, Obama’s Wars describing the Afghanistan assessment meetings that the Generals only provided one realistic option to him (the others were explained to be non-starters): they wanted 40,000 troops to ‘surge’ and win; Obama, by all accounts, chose the counter-insurgency strategy, believing in the old saw that both had ‘worked’ in Iraq, regardless of contrary opinions…

     Glaringly present in Woodward’s story is the idea that Obama had no real choices, that the combined DoD/intelligence/homeland security apparatus dictated the choices, or lack of them.  What we think of that understanding could be part of other, endless threads…

     This chart shows the magic and mystique of their optimistic projections; you’ll notice that even given rosiest scenario, 2012 is the earliest thought of troop draw-downs, and that plans detail 68,000 residual troops remaining…indefinitely? 

     But still; an optimist might want to say that if we can just get all thing things right, we could be looking at some date after, say…2014…that these wars will be wound down.  (Especially if we want to ignore the fright that is now Pakistan; and its nukes…and instability…okay; add a few more years…)

     Now these wars are evidence of years of additional war; but are there any metrics which could answer the longer question about Permanent War?  Nick Turse writing at Tomdispatch thinks so, and advises us to follow the money.  And he follows the expenditures for US bases around the globe.  It’s pretty compelling evidence for incessant war; we should be asking: Or else why such staggering investment?  The question sadly seems to answer itself.  From Turse:

    The Iraqi base-building project alone had already absorbed several billion taxpayer dollars in just the first half-year of construction in 2003.  But it did look like a one-of-a-kind architectural adventure -- until, that is, the “forgotten war,” the one in Afghanistan, came back into view.  Starting in 2008, base building ramped up there, went into overdrive in 2009, and hasn’t come out of it yet.  The result: according to Nick Turse, author of The Complex: How the Military Invades Our Everyday Lives, an even more staggering base-construction splurge, and with it, the announcement last year that another monster embassy would go up, this time in Pakistan’s capital, Islamabad, for another cool near-billion. (The already large U.S. embassy in the Afghan capital, Kabul, would also be further expanded to the tune of $175-200 million).  And keep in mind that none of this even includes the huge ring of supporting bases for America’s Afghan and Iraq operations in the Persian Gulf, South and Central Asia, and even on the island of Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean.

     Turse reports on his discoveries about bases in Afghanistan:

    Colonel Wayne Shanks, a spokesman for the U.S.-led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF), tells TomDispatch that there are, at present, nearly 400 U.S. and coalition bases in Afghanistan, including camps, forward operating bases, and combat outposts.  In addition, there are at least 300 Afghan National Army (ANA) and Afghan National Police (ANP) bases, most of them built, maintained, or supported by the U.S.  A small number of the coalition sites are mega-bases like Kandahar Airfield, which boasts one of the busiest runways in the world, and Bagram Air Base, a former Soviet facility that received a makeover, complete with Burger King and Popeyes outlets, and now serves more than 20,000 U.S. troops, in addition to thousands of coalition forces and civilian contractors.” 

     Bagram Prison is being ‘remodeled’ to the tune of an initial $60 million, and will allegedly be turned over to the Afghan people soon…

     Also from Turse:

    Currently we have over $3 billion worth of work going on in Afghanistan,” says Colonel Wilson, “and probably by the summer, when the dust settles from all the uplift, we’ll have about $1.3 billion to $1.4 billion worth of that [in the South].”  By comparison, between 2002 and 2008, the Army Corps of Engineers spent more than $4.5 billion on construction projects, most of it base-building, in Afghanistan.

     In as section called America’s Shadowy Base World, Turse reports on familiar base numbers:

     The Pentagon’s most recent inventory of bases lists a total of 716 overseas sites.  These include facilities owned and leased all across the Middle East as well as a significant presence in Europe and Asia, especially Japan and South Korea.  Perhaps even more notable than the Pentagon’s impressive public foreign property portfolio are the many sites left off the official inventory.  While bases in the Persian Gulf countries of Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, and the United Arab Emirates are all listed, one conspicuously absent site is Al-Udeid Air Base, a billion-dollar facility in nearby Qatar, where the U.S. Air Force secretly oversees its on-going unmanned drone wars.

     And he reminds us that the 300 bases of various sizes in Iraq and few of the 400 in Afghanistan are not included in those figures.

     And leaves us to wonder how many US forces will always remain to protect ‘US interests’ around the globe.

     You decide.  Is there any hope of ending or even slowing down this trajectory?  As the realization that this is all so, I have been trying to find ways to live with it, and imagine ways to push back hard against it.  In much the same way that I try to envision being able to live with Ken Buck as my Senator, or Tom Tancredo as my Governor; but endless war is far worse.

     

     

     

    Comments

    All the politicians, in both parties, claim they are for bringing jobs back home. Of course the repub chant is completely hollow.

    But if the taxpayer monies we send over there were spent over here, we would have full employment.

    And the international corporations who owe no allegiance to US at all, are making all the profits.

    I do not want us over there. I have been against every single war we have been in since Vietnam.

    Fine discussion Stardust.


    by Richard Day on Tue, 10/05/2010 - 7:03pm

    Thanks, Richard.  Chalmers Johnson was hoping beyond hope, as were many of us, that Obama would be the one to start unwinding Empire; instead, look what we've gotten from him.

    We have to push back: this is all creating more enemies (Pakistan is new evidence of it).  The difference between Old Empires failing and US Empire trajectory for failure is a bit different, isn't it?  If the Fed is in collusion with the War Profiteers, they can adjust monetary policy a bit to accomodate it.  I think. 

    (Obey may come in to tell me where I'm wrong.)   ;o)

    We are the slaves to Empire now; it's a tragic state of affairs.


    by we are stardust on Tue, 10/05/2010 - 9:16pm

    I admit that I had to approach this blog incrementally, reading it in pieces, by paragraph....going away and coming back again to read more.

    This is the heartbreaking crux of the matter with which no one can cavil.  

    This is not what we campaigned for, worked for, donated to.

    Nor is it .... just more of the same (as if that would be justified).

    RATHER, it is ESCALATION called something else, rationalized as something else, distanced by spin and whatever speak works in the moment.

    THIS is grotesque.


    by wws on Tue, 10/05/2010 - 7:09pm

    I worked on it incrementally, too; so no blame there.  The burden of knowing all this becomes ever larger; the anger that not many want to know it is also hard.  I've been saving files on our bases for over a year, adding to them, and as Turse or Tom say:  "Almost no Americans or Congresspeople give a flying fart about the extent or costs of the plethora of bases unless the subject of unneccessary domestic base closures comes up." (or something to that effect.)  ;o)


    by we are stardust on Tue, 10/05/2010 - 9:26pm

    I keep coming back to the $1T+ we've spent so far, and ask if we had just given that money to Iraq and Afghanistan, (Afghanistan's GDP = $12.8B, and Iraq's = $23.7B), would we be any worse off?  Now we've got corporations making boatloads of money servicing those wars, in ways that make Ike's fear of the MI complex seem quaint, and the Citizen's United ruling, and 501c nonprofits making corporate election giving not only unlimited, but completely anonymous.  I think whatever vestiges of democracy we have retained have been incontrovertably hijacked by capitalism and an uninquisitive belief in free market efficiencies, regardless of the question of whether a company that generates 90% or more of its income from gumint contracts may not be what we would or should consider a "private" enterprise, and is subject to the market forces that would theoretically guide it to the most efficient allocation of resources/cost.  Not to divert you from the question of perpetual war. It's a good one.   Apologies.  It's my belief that once we adopted this tack in the so-called-war-on-terror, there will only be a turning back once the treasury has been depleted.  To do so much sooner than that will leave whoever inhabits the Whitehouse or Congress open to criticisms of being soft on terror the next time someone sets their underpants on fire on a US domestic flight.


    by miguelitoh2o on Tue, 10/05/2010 - 7:45pm

    And that's the light at the end of the tunnel, miguelitoh. Wars of conquest and occupation on this scale are simply not sustainable. The treasury already IS depleted, and the wars are being fought on borrowed funds. They'll go on as long as No. 1 creditor China is willing to let them go on, as a way to protect its own equity and keep the world safe for its own entrepreneurs. American troops and armaments as sort of Visigothic mercenaries to Beijing's Rome.

     


    by acanuck on Tue, 10/05/2010 - 9:09pm

    And there will come a time when China will not only find us less useful, I suspect they will find us in the way, and that is a confrontation I do not look forward to.


    by Austin Train on Tue, 10/05/2010 - 9:16pm

    I read recently that for the midterms 20 times more hidden money has been contributed to candidates, and Republicans benefited by a ratio of 16:1: Karl Rove is in hog heaven, the fouquerre, may he rot in Hades...

    The Dems were too bankrupt to even try much more of a broad fix to Citizens United past the Disclose Act; big fricking deal: Being required to announce who funded an freaking teevee ad!  And even Dems voted against it! 

    As for your question about giving money to Afghans and Iraqis: we DID!  But most of it went to corrupt officials, billions taken off airplanes, carried by the basketsful to anyone who appeared useful.  American money corrupts.  It would have been a tall order to actually get the bucks to ordinary people; that's the only objection I have by now to that thought exercise. 

    It'll be interesting to see what happens with China, the yuan, and the new Trade Modifications (or not.)  Kinda seems like they do hold a lot of the cards, but some people speak of an inter-dependence that might cause them to think twice about dumping dollars.  Again, I read too much, and know just enough economics to be dangerous, so I have a hard time sorting good thought from bad. 

    I'd think that at the point the Fed couldn't tinker with it all, were China to divest in the US, the shit would have hit the fan so far that there wouldn'[t be any coming back for us lowly expendables.

    With the next Congress , reforming tax policy for the better doesn't seem very likely, does it?   ;o)


    by we are stardust on Tue, 10/05/2010 - 9:38pm

    As to being held captive by China vis a vis their dumping dollars, or even refusing to buy more, we can always print more of same, thereby devaluing their investment.  It would be kinda like a Mexican standoff between Chuck Norris and Jackie Chan. 


    by miguelitoh2o on Tue, 10/05/2010 - 10:44pm

    LOL!  I did get to think how we so often speak of China as holding most of our treasury bills, and thought of some of the other nations who buy them;  I keep reading that aginst all odds, many nations find us a safe investment.  Here's a list from The Guardian; shoot, Japan, Saudis, Brazil...plenty of high numbers among just those...

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2010/mar/09/china-federal-deficit-us-america-debt

    I guess I can't see national bankruptcy as reversing war; we're already bankrupt, aren't we? 


    by we are stardust on Tue, 10/05/2010 - 10:58pm

    Bankrupt?  Depends on how you look at it.  Japan has a national debt that's 200% of its GDP.  We're only at about 45% of ours.


    by miguelitoh2o on Wed, 10/06/2010 - 1:09am

    Endless war is what empires do.

    To secure resources, to "keep the outsiders at bay", to keep the populace focused on an external enemy that is sold as an existential threat to the way of life we are prepared to export at the point of a gun.

    I suspect we have indeed lost our way and become that which we fought to end in Europe and Asia somewhat more than half a century ago.


    by Austin Train on Tue, 10/05/2010 - 7:51pm

    One thing I've been musing about, though, Austin is this: many Empires seem to have functioned to augment their coffers, secure slaves and resources, etc.  At least as far as my understanding stretches, citizens may have been taxed to pay for raising and supporting armies, but it was more of a direct path the monay took.)  And I'm not saying their weren't monies to be made in profit...)

    But with American Empire today, it seems that a good part of the reason to wage war is simply that the war profiteers and industries directly benefit from incessant war, and it's necessary to manufacture enemies, which is of course what the idea of GWOT is good for. 

    American Hegemony is one thing, but that most of the populace, the infrastructure, education, health, pollution mitigation, etc. suffer because of war costs seems different now, and raises it to a whole 'nother level.

    I am wondering, too, if you've said on the boards already who you were in another incarnation; I've noticed several people have mentioned their former screen name personnas.  Please feel free to advise me that it's none of my business; I'm operating under the radar here for a bit myself.   ;o) 


    by we are stardust on Tue, 10/05/2010 - 10:03pm

    I wonder if this isn't beyond the usual "sold out to the military industrial complex."  It might well be that we've spent so much raising this empire that we can't compete for resources without it.  Of course, at a certain point, military technologies are disruptive.  Nuclear weapons are too powerful to be used without causing massive destruction.  So we go for drones, weapons in space, and high altitude bombers and cruise missiles.  So the U.S. has the advantage of being the only power reliably able to pick off targets, including individuals, from afar.  Until, of course, it isn't or until somebody builds a $500 counter to our $5 billion weapons system.


    Depressing stuff.


    by Michael Maiello on Tue, 10/05/2010 - 10:24pm

    "...until somebody builds a $500 counter to our $5 billion weapons system."

    Well, that made me laugh, Destor.  I needed that!

    "Beyond"; yes, I think so.  It's almost akin to fire: it seems to be all-consuming, self-replicating, and with a life of its own.


    by we are stardust on Tue, 10/05/2010 - 10:37pm

    As I have reported before, Andrew Bacevich in his recent book Washington Rules sums up perpetual war as a result of the military-industrial-think tank-politician complex (two more than Ike mentioned). They all feed off the money coming from empire and war, and for politicians, they get elected or re-elected by 'protecting us' in the futile, often counter-productive conflicts we so easily get into, Petraeus even wants 1.2 billion for Yemen (I say let Saudi Arabia worry about Yemen!).

    The wars won't end until the voters demand an end.


    by NCD on Wed, 10/06/2010 - 12:03am

    How do I put this?  I agree with the sentiments expressed so far.  Yet the questions lingers: What next?  How do we articulate a politically viable alternative to the current situation? By politically viable I mean one which acknowledges the legitimacy of national interests as all nations would claim.  By political viable I mean an articulation that acknowledges that while threats have been manipulated to amp up the fear for political and other agenda, there are in fact threats.  By politically viable I mean one which does not depend on America ignoring increasing political instability in significant regions of the world.

    We can and do gnash our teeth over the current state of affairs.  But what is the alternative?  I don't have an answer, nor have I heard it from others, and that is the salt in the wound.


    by Elusive Trope on Wed, 10/06/2010 - 12:10am

    The first step, Trope, is to realize the extent to which U.S. militarism and imperialism is the cause of "increasing political instability in significant regions of the world." Once you can wrap your head around that concept, the rest of the equation gets easier.

    Yes, the United States has national interests. But every government since at least WW II has misidentified what those real interests are, and that's why American foreign policy consistently fails. The reason successive govts make that mistake is that they don't consider their employers the average citizen/voter, but the 2% who pay them to govern. So the military-industrial-congressional-media complex works actively to keep the 98% stupid and malleable.

    So far, it's worked like a charm.

     


    by acanuck on Wed, 10/06/2010 - 2:26am

    Great psychoanalysis but no answer, acanuck.  Tell us how you feel after you become welcome in the war room as President of the US.


    by LisB on Wed, 10/06/2010 - 2:34am

    As you said Lis- no answer.  We all get the critique.  We get the flaws in the thinking.  We all see the vileness of the military-industrial complex.  No great insights there.  But how do we proceed forward.  And as I put forth, in a politically viable manner.  Levitating the Pentagon isn't an answer.  In other words, how do we, as a nation, in the next couple of years bring the country back on to a path whose trajectory is one of perpetual peace rather than perpetual war.


    by Elusive Trope on Wed, 10/06/2010 - 3:53am

    I will never be welcome in the war room in any capacity, and I'm not eligible to be elected president (as it happens, I was born in Kenya).

    "Politically viable manner?" Are you kidding me? I got that same kind of response from my American friends (yes, I have a few) in the early years of the Iraq war. "Yes, the war's a mistake, but now that we're in it, how do we devise a practical exit strategy that doesn't waste all the lives and money we've put into the enterprise?"

    People, if you're still asking questions like that, you really are fucked. America's problem is SYSTEMIC. And no, to be honest, I don't think you have a chance in hell of fixing it. So maybe I shouldn't be upsetting you by telling you things you don't want to hear.

    Alternatively, you could fight like hell to take back your country. Even if you lose, it's a good and noble fight.


    by acanuck on Wed, 10/06/2010 - 4:14am

    Hint: for starters, educate yourselves about America's history and place in the world. Then educate your neighbors. Then take back the Democratic Party from the corporatist greedheads who control it. That would be a start.


    by acanuck on Wed, 10/06/2010 - 4:19am

    I am quite educated about America's history and place in the world thank you very...much.  And those opportunities that present themselves, I do educate my neighbors.  And not just my neighbors.  Working in the nonprofit sector, I sit with bankers, lawyers and CEOs and CFOs etc. in meetings with the intent of creating opportunties for the low-income individuals and families to find greater independence. 

    But how do you propose I take back my Democratic Party in Indiana.  I really like to know how the voice of people which wants at its most liberal a blue dog can be turned to electing a socialist.  Please oh freaking please enlighten me because god knows i'm dancing as fast as i can to no avail.


    by Elusive Trope on Wed, 10/06/2010 - 4:45am

    Okay, i'm in a pissy mood so sorry if this comes across as uncivil but...

    here's a concept for you to consider - how does one take one's country back.  One option is to just kill everyone who disagrees with us.  Another option is take control of the levers of power and impose our will on those who disagree with us. Three we can bamboozle those who disagree with us into agreeing with us (which requires the everlasting bamboozle in order to maintain the retaken country), or four we can persuade through an articulation that is both the truth and which resonates with the people that a different path is needed.  The fourth option is the most difficult and for which there are no easy answers.

    We can make those who disagree with us as the enemy (which i do quite often), but if we are to truly move forward as a nation, as a country, we must find a way to bring the country as whole into the fold, to have them embrace voluntarily a progressive view of the way forward. 

    Or we can sit back and bask in our righteousness that we are the few that see the true way, allowing us to bitch and moan about the powers to be and the great ignorant unwashed masses that support them.


    by Elusive Trope on Wed, 10/06/2010 - 4:29am

    Hell, I'm in a pissy mood, too; I say let's go for your first option: Kill everyone who doesn't agree with us.  Uh-oh; unless you and I don't agree...well, let's kill zem all, anyway.


    by we are stardust on Wed, 10/06/2010 - 12:06pm

    I'd go with option four. Obviously, I was in a rather pissy mood myself last night, and the emphasis on "political viability" didn't help my mood. It came across as "How can we change the foreign-policy results without altering our underlying assumptions and approach?" I realize that's a caricature of what you were trying to say but, read in parallel with the discussion at Whiskey Tango Foxtrot, it got me a bit steamed.

    Because the way I see it, based on Obama's inability to buck the entrenched military-State Dept-intelligence elite, the policy you see is the policy you're going to get. A little further downthread, Obey makes some very good suggestions for what a rational U.S. foreign policy might look like. But the big question remains: Who exactly is going to implement these changed priorities and approaches? Not the Republicans and not, it's now clear, the Democrats.

    So yeah, the solution -- if any -- has to be more radical. I don't have much of a clue about how progressive thinking Americans can take back the reins of power, even within the Democratic Party. The exact opposite trend seems to be occurring. But, IMHO, that's what has to happen if you're ever going to exit the cycle of everlasting war. I don't envy that task or underestimate its difficulty. And I'm sorry you live in Indiana.

    In passing, kudos to Articleman and stardust for launching two excellent, thoughtful threads.


    by acanuck on Wed, 10/06/2010 - 3:11pm

    Thanks for contributions to the thread, Acanuck.  As you'd only commented to others above, I'd felt free and/or duty bound not to respond.  Hard to know the etiquette.  ;o)

    I think old politicalviability got a good scrubbing today; we obviously have to think larger somehow.  Ending war is going to have to be a people's movement, I think, along with return to sanity about unfair trade, financial regulation, and more.  And it's going to ten times harder now that Corporations have been discovered to People, and that Money is Speech.  Bslev always says Americans aren't stupid; I don't know if I agree, but I do know we are collectively willfully ignorant: we don't really want to know the Hard Truth, and too many of us DO want to believe stupid and wrong and easy things.

    And it's a damned shame that we've become so isolated from each other; it makes these issues harder to talk about.  "Say, Joe; I read from a reliable source yesterday that the US have over a thousand bases we maintain around the globe; what do you think of that?"

    And I hate seeing that Maddow and Olbermann have gotten into burlesque; it makes them less than reliable sources on the Left.  I know; it's NewsOtainment, but it still rankles that they are throwing away trust by the handful.  And yet they both idolize Edward R. Murrow; go figure.

    Anyway; thanks for playing on the thread.  I taped a bit of the Woodward/Charlie Rose interview, and will watch.  It knocked my brain around: too many obvious Presidential disconnects.  If I find the link when it's up at Rose's site, I'll post it.  That one man in the White House could have turned this around, but it would have takenbravery he apparently doesn't have.


    by we are stardust on Wed, 10/06/2010 - 4:36pm

    "Political viability" refers to something that is very real in the minds of the decisionmakers whose jobs are on the line.  It basically translates into "Can I do this and keep my job?"  Or, "Can I do this and have a chance of being effective on any number of other issues I also consider important and which I think I have a better chance of making a positive difference?"  Or both.

    Since the perception is the reality of the decisionmakers, it must be dealt with by anyone seeking to change the reality.

    Taking on the project of US military bases abroad is a huge deal. It's not immediately obvious where, or how, to start.  Ending our commitment in Afghanistan obviously is viewed as not politically viable by our current President, I conclude.  But that is a more doable proposition than, say, cutting the number of US military bases and troops abroad in half over the next 10 years.

    Maybe a place to start for those of us who want a policy change in Afghanistan is to try writing the speech the President delivers to the country announcing his plans to end the US military commitment in Afghanistan. 

    That makes a conversation such as this a heck of a lot more concrete, because the suggested public explanation, and the assumptions upon which it is based, are laid bare for inspection and discussion. 


    by AmericanDreamer on Wed, 10/06/2010 - 4:54pm

    Well, write the damned speech, Dreamer!!!  Post it!!!

    (I'm sure we'll all be happy to give it a grade, or add to it!)  LOL!  But I am sick of the vialbility trope; sometimes we just to have to yell the truth as we see it out. Mr. Smith goes to Washington, etc.)  People just keep yawning, otherwise.


    by we are stardust on Wed, 10/06/2010 - 5:10pm

    The other side of the coin has to why it would mean they are able to keep my job - and that is there buy-in from their "constituents."  This is itself a two-sided coin with the general voting public on one side (i.e. the ones that actually vote) and the big money special interest supports on the other side.  A politician is in heaven when both sides of this coin are aligned with his or her position.  But when the interest side is against the policy, it usually requires a healthy majority of the constituents to be in favor before the politician will buck the special interests.  Which is why the base closures is unlikely to happen anytime soon.

    In a withdrawal from Afghanistan, I think there can be developed a messaging outlining the points you talked about so that it generates the "political will" to make a withdrawal necessary.  (Or come clean and say they're there because their trying to keep Pakistan stable which is the real reason in mho)


    by Elusive Trope on Wed, 10/06/2010 - 5:13pm

    A politician is in heaven when both sides of this coin are aligned with his or her position.  But when the interest side is against the policy, it usually requires a healthy majority of the constituents to be in favor before the politician will buck the special interests.  Which is why the base closures is unlikely to happen anytime soon.

    I think that's accurate.  It describes the situation on issue after issue, whether it's HCR, financial reform, campaign finance reform, etc.  DR, in Articleman's thread reviewing Woodward's book, makes a related point (the comment which quinn and I praised), coming at it from somewhat the opposite perspective from you (he effectively asks "what stops us from doing the sensible thing? whereas you ask "how could we overcome the array of forces that prevent these sensible things from being done?")

    Many of us here and at the cafe and well-known commentators have lamented the absence of a, or several, progressive movements strong enough to get politicians to pay attention.  I wish I had an answer as to what makes the difference in going from good intentions to generating traction.  As an individual I tell myself to stay alert, look for opportunities to contribute something positive on issues that seem strategically important, make sure I am doing something and not just letting myself be paralyzed by how daunting the tasks are, keep plugging, you never know when a brushfire will turn into a bonfire but it's more likely to happen if each of us is doing something rather than nothing.  I'm just one person and don't know what else to tell myself, and do. 


    by AmericanDreamer on Wed, 10/06/2010 - 5:35pm

    It astounds me that even in a big-picture discussion of forces arrayed toward Always War, you can take it all down to sniping about some imagined disses to the presidency.  This thread was expressly not about that,  except for my mention of Woodward's take on the limited options Obama was presented with on Afghanistan.

     


    by we are stardust on Wed, 10/06/2010 - 8:34am

    Wow, I really can’t find anyone on this thread I agree with. In my view, as long as Americans don’t lose their appetite for killing brown people, perpetual warfare and Empire is perfectly viable. The whole Military-Nat’l-Security apparatus accounts for about 7-8% of GDP, that’s smaller than the financial sector and less than half the size of the Health Care sector. And there’s less wasteful spending in ‘defence’ than in those other sectors. National interests and security could perhaps be efficiently – if less belligerently – maintained at a little over half the current cost, but harsher calculi go for Health care and finance. And the MIC is set to grow less than either of those other dysfunctional sectors. So – again, ignoring for the moment the killing of brown people – the MIT is really the least of the nation’s problems. Given our insatiable need for absolute total security at all costs, forking over 8 to 10% of GDP indefinitely for that luxury seems like a price people will accept.

    But if you are going to worry about it, what is the problem? The US’s de facto ME policy – behind all the smoke and mirrors – seems to involve maintaining the region as a whole in a state of instability or oppression (which itself trends towards instability, of course). There are many reasons why we do so, but the LEAST IMPORTANT reason is the interests of the war profiteering industry. First, and most obviously, there is the oil, and the power that comes with control of oil resources, something that the US is unwilling to cede to independent local regimes. Second there is the general control-freakish unwillingness of the US to accept stable non-oppressive regimes that are not obsequiously obedient to the US. And yet, there obviously is no conceivable stable non-oppressive regime that is obedient to the US in that way. So that only leaves only one option – maintaining instability so that non-obedient regimes can’t gain a foothold. Third there is the unquestioning support of Israeli expansion and the implicit mistrust of all things Islamic – two sides of the same coin. With the deliberate destruction of civil society in the region, the only credible and viable political and social leadership lies with the religious authorities, which are precisely the kind of political movement that freak Americans out.

    So how do you turn this situation around? Again, pretty obvious really – reduce US dependency on oil; reduce the power base of Islamic fundamentalists by pushing to normalize relations (i) between the US and Iran, (ii) between Israel and its Muslim neighbors, (iii) between Pakistan and India; render Islam less alien for the US population by increasing the visibility of Muslims and ethnic middle-easterners in government; be more accepting of less than total obedience in allies (such as Turkey), and be less frightened of democratic Islamic movements (like the anti-colonial Brotherhood in Egypt). There is already the beginnings of movement on oil-dependency with the nudges towards domestic Natural Gas resources, some movement on Israel with the rise of J-Street as a force standing against AIPAC, and other positive though fragile moves such as Turkey’s mediation (or ‘interference’, depending on your pov) vis a vis Iran. The two negative trends imo are Pakistan where US policy is a mess and the rising American Islamophobia. It is unbelievable how acceptable it is in mainstream circles to casually consider Muslims to be subhuman savages. And as long as that is the case, we’ll keep killing brown people with abandon. But, like I said at the beginning, nobody seems to think that is much of a problem. Which just illustrates how far we have to go.

    Nothing I’m saying is controversial, and so it is probably a bit boring. But it seems at odds with – or at least orthogonal to – what I’m reading here. So thought it worth spelling out …

    That said, thanks for this blog, Stardust. There should be more like it!


    by Obey on Wed, 10/06/2010 - 6:38am

    Wow...okay, I'm really trying to hold back on the snide comments.  So, let's just take one part of this.

    How do you propose that the US push, to use your word, Pakistan and India to normalize relations?  I would add that India is a relatively stable country of "brown people" (to use your phrase) with which the US doesn't seem to have a problem, which kind of undermines your whole thesis, but I won't dwell on that.


    by Elusive Trope on Wed, 10/06/2010 - 7:39am

    How to push for normalized relations between Pakistan and India? Work more with the EU and China to have the international community more invested in talks over Kashmir. I don't really see that as rocket science. But obviously no silver bullet either, as always with peace talks. Why do you have an inclination to getting 'snide' about that?

    As for Indians being brown people we don't want to kill. Sure, yes. My implicit point was that the problem Americans have with muslims is as much a racial issue as a religious bias. If you find my way of expressing that offensive in some way, I apologize.


    by Obey on Wed, 10/06/2010 - 7:57am

    I don't find it offensive as much as it seemed to imply that racism was the driving force for why America is over there doing what it is doing - get the brown people.  To assert that would be contrary to your assertion that your comment is not controversial.  (which is not to say that there aren't racists and racism in the military and decision-making positions of government)  I think it would be a stronger argument for understanding why the general public has a greater tolerance for the carnage as a result of racism and religious bigotry as was seen in New York recently. 

    And if solving the Kashmir situation wasn't rocket science, I believe in my humble opinion, given the nuclear weapons at risk of coming into the play, the global community would have already found a solution.  From what I have read, it seems to me that Kashmir is about as contentious as the Israel Palenstine conflict in terms of neither side willing to budge, and willing to escalate the situation as soon as they see it somehow in their interest.


    by Elusive Trope on Wed, 10/06/2010 - 5:45pm

    Hm. You really do think we all are retarded, don't you? I'm not saying that the solution to the Kashmir standoff is easy to bring about. I'm saying the moves involved in pushing the Indians and the Pakistanis towards normalized relations - gathering trusted third parties like China for Pakistan and the EU and Russia, deciding on confidence building measures, better govt to govt crisis communication, etc - are pretty self-evident. That is how I understood your question. The Kashmir situation is of course difficult. But the lack of movement is partly due to international indifference. And even if no final agreement is reached, having the US making moves on behalf of Pakistan on stuff Pakistan cares about matters greatly, and reducing the threat of India, however marginally makes a difference on the degree to which Pakistan sides with the US against Al Qaeda.

    As for American racism. I don't think it is controversial that Americans are by and large indifferent to the loss of life amongst Arabs and Persians and Pakistanis. Would there be greater concern if they were white, Christian or Jewish? In my opinion CLEARLY yes. Their race is part of their Otherness. You seem to want to call that racism. I'd prefer to limit that term to the ideologically grounded hatred of Arabs that you get for instance with Marty Peretz. If anyone said about Jews the things he says about Arabs, that person would be regarded as a dangerous extremist. Peretz on the other hand is feted at Harvard. Imo it is not that Americans in general are racist, but anti-arab/muslim racism is a perfectly acceptable viewpoint even amongst the beltway elite.


    by Obey on Wed, 10/06/2010 - 6:43pm

    At least now we have a recipe; thanks, Obey.

    My framing choice wasn't so much about the waste of money (though it's sickening in this jobless climate), but that it was a way to see what the MICC envisions as our future.  And that the same people who decide which wars we fight profit from them.  I'm a little fuzzy on knowing if our policy is more about securing access to oil and gas, or controlling the prices, as some maintain.  But that we've known since the Carter days that we needed to seek alternatives to oil, and our government effectively squelched any moves in that direction has been a harsh reality to live with.

    Your theme about it being so massively okay with us to kill brown people is your best contribution to my thinking and mental images of the problem (pretty small word for something so enormous); and for too many the killing of brown Muslims is desirable, with or without the oil or profits angles.

    This was going to be the time that America realized that it was better to work with the world than impose our will on it; Turkey got pretty well bitch-slapped bu the administration for trying to work some (I thought) credible deals with Iran's nuclear ambitions.  (That they were willing to stand up to Israel a bit was no small thing.)  But this State Department ends up seeming like the Old State Department, at least the public face of it, and doesn't prefer carrots as much as sticks.

    I'm less sanguine than you are about natural gas; this area is chock full of poisoned water from gas extraction, but that's another discussion.  Thanks for the new word: I had to look up 'orthogonal'.   ;o)

    Imaging what happens down the road in Pakistan has my hair on fire. 

    And we'll try to live with your disappointment in the thread; or at least I will.  Seriously though, thanks for the wide Pug Perspective.


    by we are stardust on Wed, 10/06/2010 - 7:48am

    I forgot to say that I think convincing people that our Jackbooted Approach is making more enemies is important, but a tough sell.  The 'degrading the Taliban', 'degrading Al Qaeda' is big now, especially since Woodward's book. 

    I watched part of Charlie Rose's interview with Woodward last night; it's not up on Charlie's website yet, but it jerked my head apart, I  must say, in tone and content.  I'd be interested in your (or anyone else's) take on it.


    by we are stardust on Wed, 10/06/2010 - 8:04am

    Didn't mean to be sanguine about natural gas. It just seems the only industry-friendly - hence the only possible - path towards independence from ME oil.


    by Obey on Wed, 10/06/2010 - 8:21am

    Yeah; and I'm not all that fond of nuclear power so far, so...Where's Nicholas Tesla, by the way?  Or those new cars that run on marijuana, was it?  Or kelp?   ;o)


    by we are stardust on Wed, 10/06/2010 - 12:08pm

    woops double post -

    MIT should be MIC


    by Obey on Wed, 10/06/2010 - 6:42am

    Thanks for pulling all this information together, fellow temporary collection of stardust.  :<)

    As a thought experiment, can anyone here imagine one of the major news networks doing a story on this that raises questions about it? 

    If someone were to ask me to argue in favor of the point of view that says the US mainstream media self-censors in ways that do enormous damage to our country, presenting the information you present here and asking why hasn't a major network done a story on this would be as good an example as any in support of that proposition. 

    What legitimate excuse could there possibly be for this information not being reported by major media outlets?  That no one cares?  How would they know?   

    I don't know what the answers are.  But one thing I am fairly confident of is that if there is no public discussion, or even presentation of this information, then the 2% of whatever of the citizenry who feed off of and profit off the status quo--out of earshot and eyesight, and outside the awareness of the ordinary Jane and Joe--are going to continue to have their way. 

    Eisenhower didn't even say anything about the MI complex until he was leaving office.  Good for him for saying what he said.  But if even a conservative WWII hero in the Oval Office evidently didn't feel he could affect these developments while he was in Office, at that time when the situation was nowhere near as advanced and entrenched as it is now, what is the scenario by which that happens in our day?

    For me it starts with spreading awareness about the facts you've collected.  I strongly suspect that the vast majority of Americans have absolutely no clue as to the extent of our presence abroad, let alone some sort of attempt at understanding what it means.  They are being more or less deliberately protected from having to confront those facts and think about their implications. 


    by AmericanDreamer on Wed, 10/06/2010 - 2:55pm

    I said something upthread about Americans needing to educate themselves, then educate their neighbors. Discussions like this are a start; there's been more truth told here on dagblog in 24 hours than you'll get from CNN and Fox combined in a month.


    by acanuck on Wed, 10/06/2010 - 3:17pm

    You're welcome, Dreamer.  Sometimes it feels like self-gratification, you know?  Though I mean that in the best possible way!  LOL!

    It's no secret by now that it's in the interest of The Committee That Really Runs America (hat tip: Ed Quillen, the Denver Post) that we should stay stupid and ignorant.  Ideas have long been the biggest threats against tyrants.  The internet opened up a lot for people of all politcal stripes, and it may yet be reduced greatly soon, mores the pity.  But I'd like to think that the best ideas can take on a life of their own here and there: look what they used to do with double-page pamphlets!  It was at a time, though, when people were hungry for truth, and a way forward.  Too much ennui (yes: I said it) FATIGUE in this nation, too much addiction to all the wrong things that can cover up our pain and search for more knowledge and fulfillment; too many ways we are out for ourselves, not our brothers and sisters.

    All of that is keeping us from staging some rock and roll big movements.  Each time we surrender bits of our personal freedoms, or surrender bits of the Rule of Law we pretend so hard we adhere to, or surrender clean and clear voting, or make compromises ahead of the fight, WE SCREW OURSELVES.  By all rights we should be shouting from the rooftops, and out the windows, and out on the streets, making our demands heard.  We should be demanding real journalism, like Amy Goodman and a few others still bring.  Dear God, we're so puny compared to other countries in our activism!  When was the last worker strike?  The freaking Air Traffic Controllers?  (Thanks, Reagan, for killing unions forever!)

    Sorry for the rant.  I got uh...carried away there for a minute.  Better go comb my hair now.   ;o)


    by we are stardust on Wed, 10/06/2010 - 5:06pm

    Most of what is on the internet is not well-grounded factually, is not original (what really is original? not a whole lot), is not meant to be thoughtful or constructive, or some combination of those.  

    That doesn't mean there's nothing worth reading and thinking about, nothing worthwhile, no possibilities for positive change that can be incubated or facilitated through the internet and the ability to publish whatever one wishes.  It's a tool.  It's whatever we make and don't make of it.  It's an opportunity, that's all.  Both blogosphere triumphalism and denigration bore me.  It isn't any one thing.

    You're right that free, independent thought is by far the greatest danger to misguided or corrupt policies.  And every attempt to change the world that was hopeless, but eventually succeeded, started out as...hopeless.  The real death of hope would come if people such as you and others here were to stop thinking and searching and questioning.  Out of all that comes, sometimes and miraculously, possibility.  Journey of a thousand miles and all.  If I can think of any other cliches to put out there I probably will refrain from doing that out of respect for this audience.   


    by AmericanDreamer on Wed, 10/06/2010 - 5:21pm

    "...cliches...refrain...respect..."  LOL!

    The other reminds me of a song!  Damn; do we need a song!


    by we are stardust on Wed, 10/06/2010 - 5:29pm

    This dystopic, post-nuclear Armageddon gem is a propos.  Peace to us all. 


    by we are stardust on Wed, 10/06/2010 - 5:43pm

    The Woodward interview is up on Charlie Rose now:

    http://www.charlierose.com/


    by we are stardust on Wed, 10/06/2010 - 6:12pm

    US bases on foreign soil coupled with a large American presence correlate with a sharp increase in suicide bombings aimed at Americans, says a new book by Robert Pape and James Feldman called Cutting the Fuse: The Explosion of Global Suicide Terrorism and How to Stop It.

    Steve Clemons from New America Foundation explains it.

     


    by we are stardust on Thu, 10/07/2010 - 9:44am

    Latest Comments