Militarism: Opiate of the Masses? Posted by Lorelei Kelly

From today's Congressional Daily Digest:

6:20 P.M. -
DEBATE - Pursuant to the provisions of H. Res. 293 the Committee of the Whole proceeded with 30 minutes of  debate on the Woolsey amendment. Amendment offered by Ms. Woolsey.

An amendment numbered 26 printed in House Report 109-96 to express the sense of Congress that the President should develop a plan for the withdrawal of U.S. military forces from Iraq, and submit this plan to the congressional defense committees.

This evening, and finally, Congress had thirty minutes of debate (15 pro and 15 con) about the Iraq war.  Despite it being a high stakes issue, both Democrats and Republicans spoke in favor of this amendment. Of note, Walter Jones a conservative Republican of North Carolina,  prefaced his remarks by saying that he and the amendment's sponsor--the liberal Representative Woolsey--had never voted together on any issue. He then went on to declare that the time had come for Congress to start seriously discussing our situation in Iraq and that even though  he had supported the war in 2003, he had reassessed his position given new information about the integrity of administration claims about the threat Iraq posed to the USA. Hopefully today's floor debate will spark a trend.

Issues of war and peace deserve far more congressional attention--says Professor Andrew Bacevich, who is the author of "The New American Militarism" and who I had the opportunity to have a discussion with today.  His book outlines worrying trends--both in US policy and society--of the American infatuation with all things military including unrealistic  idealization by the public and the mis-match of resources in policy making.  The resulting imbalance, he attests, creates both social division as well as an unhealthy environment for the military as an institution in American democracy. 

Bacevich, a VietNam Vet and retired Army officer, is no lefty, yet his position is a standard leftist critique:  the degree of militarism that we are witnessing in today’s culture and policies is radically at odds with the founding ideas of our nation and that continuing down this path will lead to unhappy outcomes. What set us on this path? It was partly the US Congress—which was unified in a Cold War consensus for half a century—but never changed its habit of deference at the Cold War’s end.   Moreover, Soviet spending used to at least provide a benchmark for US spending.  Today there are no boundaries and very few people are asking: How much is enough? Certainly nobody with political power.  It is oft quoted that the US spends more on the military than the rest of the world combined.  Bacevich suggests that we should peg our defense spending to the  next top 10 or so, just to have a ballpark figure based on something real.

Even if one doesn’t agree with Bacevich’s militarism argument, you have to admit that our current array of policies are problematic.  He suggests that the all-volunteer force is operationally not sustainable, especially if the GWOT promise of never ending war is true—we just don’t have the people.  He reminded us that the decision to go to an all volunteer force brought closure to the policy fights of the 1960’s with the lasting result that those who benefit most from the abundance of America were freed of the obligation to defend our country.  This is just wrong.

The expectation that information technology will produce a quantum leap in our military prowess is also a problem, says Bacevich.  First of all, nobody really knows what “transformation” means. Technology is definitely relevant in today’s conflicts but it is not necessarily decisive. Second, with our emphasis on technological fixes, we assume a compliant adversary.  Today’s threats result from two guys meeting in a café and deciding to blow something up in two weeks.  Today’s challenges look like Mogadishu 1993 and Fallujah 2005. Our military technological infatuation leads to policies that have little to do with real needs—i.e. weapons in space.  There has been no serious debate about this issue, yet here it is on the front burner.

Bacevich’s argument is vital. We must have more public discussion about military issues and their relationship to democracy—both here and in policies abroad.  If it is the norm that Americans truly do think that the use of force is effective—this implies serious consequences for US policy. More open deliberation will benefit the progressive case as any discussion about war and peace ultimately brings up core American values and leads to the question, what kind of relationship with the rest of the world do we really want?

The language of relationship and values, I believe, is key to winning over Americans to a more progressive view of US power.  After all, the best and most important relationships in an individual's life are not technical, linear and measureable (like space weapons) They are messy, inefficient and sometimes random. (like democracy).  Using force or coercion to communicate in a relationship diminishes your interests at the interpersonal level (Bolton) and at the international level (Bolton at UN).  In the American legal system, the vast majority of legal cases are settled in privately mediated conferences—the need to go to the judge never arises because the communication breakdown is remedied by skilled, professional process engineers (lawyers).  These examples aren’t far removed from foreign policy. Peace and security isn’t an accident, its an outcome.  It really isn’t rocket science.

Comments

[Cal]

This post started out strong and -- with all due respect -- turned into mush. It would have helped if you would indicate what you think a "progressive view of US power" is.

Is it Bacevich's 'leftist critique,' that we need to cut military spending and the nation's foreign policy ambitions? Or does the progressive vision of US power include giant nation building -- almost region building -- projects that last generations, which will require a large increase in both the military budget and force structure?

If Bacevich is at all correct -- and I think he is -- the second option will be terribly damaging to our democracy.

BTW, your last paragraph is death to any Dem candidate. Kerry tried to "use the language of relationship and values," and it didn't resonate. Guys hate that stuff.

-

[George]

Regardless of whether one agrees with all, some, or none of the issues raised by Andrew Bacevich in "The American Militarism" (I think he's right on target), his book is a fascinating read and should be listed on the 'democracyarsenal' reading list

[Rick]

It's quite possible that we have too large a military, or that we are too "militaristic" a society, but I don't think that's the best way to start this analysis.

Rather, I think it might be more productive to examine our foreign policy priorities, aims, goals and commitments and make sure that our entire toolbox is appropriately sized to meet them. This would include our State Department infrastructure, foreign aid and multilateral organization contributions in addition to the military. We may very well determine that we might want to try to reduce some of our foreign commitments, or decide that some of our goals/needs would be better served by relying more on our non-military tools.

It isn't a specific criticism of any particular administration to recognize that the world is constantly changing. I think it would be productive to re-asses we are once every five to ten years and ask ourselves if we have the right quantity and types of tools to do the jobs we hope to accomplish. Once we've gone through that process we might have a better idea of whether or not we are "too militaristic" -- my suspicion is that we are, but I want to go off something more than just my hunch.

[Tom E]

Made sense until the final paragraph.

The American people will never buy a "progressive" vision of military power, because porgressives cannot control the starry-eyed peace-niks on the far left.

Given the choice of too much military or too little military, the American people will vote for the former.

The military funerals we are seeing are not for the sons and daughters of college professors and politicians, they are the children of the working classes. They have more sense than the Volvo crowd.

[paperwight]

I'm getting tired of Tom E's Club-for-Growth smearing of liberals. Among other reasons, here's why:

1) My people are pickup-truck people. I did manual labor as summer jobs through high school and part of college (and retail after that). Sometimes I worked 14-16 hours a day at peak season. I still remember being so tired on the drive home from work that I had to roll down the windows and crank up the radio just to stay awake. I drive an inexpensive American car. I don't drink lattes. I prefer beer and barbeque to latte and hors d'ouvres.

2) I have a close friend serving. He's a liberal. His last several jobs were *all* manual labor. Again, sometimes 12-14 hours a day. So I tend to bristle when people like Tom E hammer away on the Club-for-Growth "librul elitist" lies.

3) Given the choice between someone who served and was injured more than once (Kerry), served and was a POW (McCain), or dodged service (Bush and Cheney), the Republicans have consistently chosen to smear the first two and support the second two. Forgive me if I don't buy the "libruls don't support the military" line.

4) The liberal view is that our military should be treated well and only put into harm's way when it's absolutely necessary and always always based on the truth. We think that returning veterans should get our respect, not in the meaningless form of ribbon magnets, but also in good medical care and support services. We also think that everyone should have a safety net, a shot at a decent job, and maybe some protection in case they get hurt on the job or laid off. Last time I checked, the Republicans don't stand for any of those things.

Enough with the lies. I'm sick of it.

[Alex Urevick-Ackelsberg]

"In the American legal system, the vast majority of legal cases are settled in privately mediated conferences—the need to go to the judge never arises because the communication breakdown is remedied by skilled, professional process engineers (lawyers)"
I'm sorry- but I believe that you're just incorrect here, at least if your talking about criminal cases (you are correct, I believe, when it comes to civil cases). The vast majority of criminal cases never make it before a judge because most people are threatened with exorbitant sentences if they don't plea and the usually cannot afford a competent attorney, regardless of the person’s innocence or guilt.

[Lorelei Kelly]

Thanks Alex, you're right. I'm referring to civil cases. (I was a mediator in civil court and have very little knowledge of criminal law).

Rick, I agree with you. I'm not convinced that Americans are militaristic per se...I think we've over-militarized our policy for a number of reasons, most of the institutional or political but not nec. cultural.

Cal, I'm working on how to express security issues through a relational framework--and I agree that Kerry was dissed for attempting something similar. That may have been the messenger, but it also was ineffective because of the simultaneous gutter level smear campaign of the conservative 527s. So guys hate this stuff. Well, it appears that even GW is now into the relationship angle.... (sending Karen H to do public diplomacy) will he make it acceptable? How would you talk about it? Guys might hate "relationship" talk, but they are also secretly grateful for girly influences in their lives (emotional support, comfortable homes) AND unmarried men die sooner than married men. Why do they deny their own self-interest? Is this coded in DNA or can men evolve?

paperwight, you rock. Tom E doesn't know it, but it would be hard to out-redneck me. Where I'm from gun racks and baby seats are standard dealer equipment and the dog:people ration is about 4:1.

[rosignol]

Given the choice of too much military or too little military, the American people will vote for the former.

------

It is better to have more military than you need, than to need more military than you have.

[BroD]

Rick is right: "I think it might be more productive to examine our foreign policy priorities, aims, goals and commitments and make sure that our entire toolbox is appropriately sized to meet them."

I'd only add that in sizing the tool box and filling it with tools there has to be some sense of proportion and prioritization. The "money is no object" (except, of course, when it comes to equipping and compensating the troops) approach to the GWOT is unsustainable.

[Cal]

---Well, it appears that even GW is now into the relationship angle.... (sending Karen H to do public diplomacy) will he make it acceptable? How would you talk about it?--- Lorelei

I would start by banning the word "relationship." In fact, any word Oprah uses frequently should be banned from the Dem vocabulary.

I personally like to quote Madison about war being the most "dreaded enemy to liberty." It's patriotic, and it confuses the Republicans.

It's clear rosignol is unfamiliar with it.

[Lorelei Kelly]

okay. I will try this no Oprah benchmark. Maybe we should create a sort of Luntz Left List with verboten words for Dems. But what to use in place of "relationship"? Google task number one.

[doc]

....mmmmmmm, 'imbroglio' comes to mind.

;' )

[2moons dil]

The game gives me a lot of happy,so I often go to earn the 2moons gold.Sometimes my friends will give some 2moon dil. I began to no longer satisfy with the present equipment, so I have to find a friend, a friend gave me a thing.I would not go to buy 2moons dil,i like the game very much.If you want to play it,join us and then cheap 2moons gold.Please do not hesitate to play the game.

[eve isk]

I hope i can get eve online isk in low price.

[Lord Of The Rings Gold]

I likeLOTRO Gold, I like the ending,Lord Of The Rings Gold will be better.

[knight online gold]

I hope i can get knight gold in low price,
Yesterday i bought knight noah for my friend.

[>requiem gold]

In fact, the
cheap requiem lant is expensive. I usually find
requiem online goldfrom the supplier.

[flyff gold]

you must borrow flyff gold from friends, or you buy flyff penya.

[yargıc]

Thank you for your sharing.! seslichat seslisohbet

[trpornizle]

en güzel rokettube videoları,
en muhteşem sex izleme sitesi
en kral rokettube yeri
kaliteli pornoların bulunduğu tek mekan
yabancı sitelerden özenle seçilmiş muhteşem ötesi rokettubeme sitesi...