More Timely Thoughts from Founding Father

[wakeflood]

You know, we really were blessed with some sharp thinkers and students of history with the founding fathers. Ran across this quote from Madison recently. Amazingly pertinent to our current state of military affairs. Nothing new under the sun, it would seem.

“Of all the enemies to public liberty, war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes; and armies, and debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few. In war, too, the discretionary power of the Executive is extended; its influence in dealing out offices, honors, and emoluments is multiplied; and all the means of seducing the minds are added to those of subduing the force of the people. The same malignant aspect in republicanism may be traced in the inequality of fortunes and the opportunities of fraud growing out of a state of war, and in the degeneracy of manners and of morals engendered by both. No nation could reserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare.Those truths are well established. They are read in every page which records the progression from a less arbitrary to a more arbitrary government, or the transition from a popular government to an aristocracy or a monarchy.”

—James Madison, “Political Observations,” April 20, 1795

Share This

[DBP]

Yes, it still rings true today, doesn’t it?

I was just discussing this with some friends in the WS peace group. They maintain that Obama is just as bad as GWB, and they give as their reasons that he escalated the war in Afghanistan, that he’s upscaling the drone program, that he’s threatening Iran, and so on.

I don’t agree with my friends on this. Clearly Obama is no dove, but when I compare the Obama foreign policy with the Bush foreign policy I see huge differences.

For example, unlike Mr. Bush, Mr. Obama gets that large-scale foreign invasions are a bad idea. He also emphasizes diplomacy more than Bush did, and is much better at building and sustaining international coalitions. These things are significant, and frankly, I’m disappointed that my friends are taking the all-or-nothing approach here.

I will admit that, in spite of the progress under Obama, we still have a bloated military budget, and we still rely way too much on military force as a political tool.

I’m not a pacifist; I believe that war has its uses for a free people. But I also believe that these uses are very limited. As Americans, we must learn to see war in a new way and we must ensure that our leaders see it that way too.

We should always think of war as the last resort, never as the first.

Share This

[wakeflood]

Agreed on all counts. My concern is that, as Ike pointed out, the system is now much bigger than any one individual – empowered by law or not – can control.

I believe that the pressure put on the civilian leadership to “sit back and relax, we got this”, is overwhelming. Sure, they give them the “which way do you want to attack?” option so they feel like they have some nominal input, but the MIC is self-perpetuating. Do not attempt to adjust your picture. We are in control…

It’s like the scorpion and the frog. It’s what they do.

Share This

[wakeflood]

And I’m disgusted by the propaganda that the military uses to convince the masses that the WAR machine is really a PEACE machine. To wit: The Navy, a Force for Good.

Really?? I thought the Navy was supposed to be ONLY big enough to defend our territorial waters from intruders with bad intent. Since when are they now the extended arm of our diplomatic and political corps? Oh yeah, Teddy’s Great White Fleet. Well, that went by the wayside before and after WWII. So now we aren’t supposed to rethink that? Guns vs. butter?? Bueller? Bueller?

Share This

[DBP]

>>I believe that the pressure put on the civilian leadership to “sit back and relax, we got this”, is overwhelming.

—Yes, indeed. But here again, I see differences between Bush and Obama. Bush was more the hands-off type, even though he relished the “Commander-in-Chief” role — which in his particular case was never anything but an honorific title anyway.

Remember how he wouldn’t (or couldn’t) even fire that disaster of a defense secretary he had? Rumsfeld? If Rummy hadn’t resigned, I think Bush would have let him stick it out till the end.

Contrast with Obama, who has not been afraid to swap out battlefield commanders, and who fired two popular four-star generals in succession, in both cases for offenses not related to military skill.

Obama is going in the right direction, but the plain fact is that Americans have got to get more involved in foreign policy issues, or we’re lost.

There are grounds for optimism. Americans seem to be breathing a collective sigh of relief at the latest cuts to the Pentagon, even knowing that some Americans will suffer as a result of those.*

Same deal with the SPD drone program, full-body scanner at airports, and the security cameras on Alki. People are finally telling the government: Enough! You can’t use “security” to justify this shit anymore.

*********************

*Pentagon cuts are directly affecting my daughter, who works at an Army base in Columbus, Ohio. Starting in April she’s going on mandatory furloughs of 1 day a week for the indefinite future. She’s got two little kids to support, so a 20% cut in pay is a genuine hardship for her.

Share This

[DBP]

Photo by DBP

Share This

[JanS]

DBP…the info about your daughter. I have a friend who works at the shipyard in Bremerton, civilian IT Librarian. He’s single , so will adjust..likes the idea of a third day a week off..but he has figured he’ll lose about $550/mo. He works with family men who will really take a hit.

And it flies in the face of at least one poster who said that it won’t be as bad as they say, and it won’t affect people nearly as much as they say. All well and good if it’s not affecting them…but it will affect a good bit of people.

Having said that, if the Pentagon really thought about it, there are quite a few areas that could be cut back without hurting people like your daughter. Have you seen this?

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/borowitzreport/2013/03/pentagon-cuts-could-hamper-ability-to-invade-countries-for-no-reason.html?mbid=nl_Borowitz+%2887%29

Share This

[KatherineL]

Interesting to note that, although he may have been against war, Madison was forced to declare war against the British while president.

Share This

[wakeflood]

I certainly have empathy for those whose lives are significantly impacted by the defense cuts. As has been noted by many, the military saw 9/11 as an opportunity to put millions of folks on the dole in every voting district they could across the nation just to make it more difficult to cut later. “Weaponized Keynesians”, as they’re called. Alas, like any other career in an industry being phased down or out, real people feel real pain. Loggers, fishermen, printers, alchemists…should I add postmen? The list is endless.

But it IS the case that the military would rather not be bothered with sorting out ways to limit impacts on people – why would they? They get LOTS more leverage having voters affected than just cancelling stupid programs and cost-controlling budgets.

Would be nice to see us transition those smart folks into developing green technology but that just doesn’t fly. Infrastructure bank? Pfffft!

Share This

[wakeflood]

KatherineL: Madison sure did sign up for the 1812 gig. Two and a half years of grinding it out to seal the deal of American manifest destiny on the continent. Wonder when our post War on Terror “Era of Good Feelings” is scheduled?? ;-)

Share This

[DBP]

Yeah, Jan, I read the New Yorker piece a couple days ago when Mike posted it. It’s very funny.

I just wish it were true.

Unfortunately, our ability to START wars doesn’t seem to have anything to do with our ability to pay for them. After all, GWB started a couple of ’em and charged ’em both on credit cards.

Obama’s being much more cost-conscious with his emphasis on drones. But even drones can lead to war if you’re not careful with them. (And we’re not being careful enough with them, obviously.)

On the question of our place in the world, here’s how I think we should relate to other nations whenever there’s a problem that involves a “threat to the United States.” In order of preference:

 

1) Use diplomacy, moral suasion, and appeals to reason. Consider the other side’s point of view, but stand firm on principles.

. . . if that fails . . .

 

2) Build coalitions and apply carefully targeted sanctions

. . . if that fails . . .

 

3) Try sabotage

. . . if that fails . . .

 

4) Impose blockades and launch “surgical strikes”

. . . if that fails . . .

 

5) Go back to the drawing board

“Launch an invasion” is still on the list. Way down at the bottom after a bunch of other options I haven’t even thought of yet.

 

We should never EVER invade another country unless they’ve already launched some kind of attack on us.

Share This

[JanS]

I agree. . Many of the countries in the Middle East, etc. bit*h about the US, but they expect us to be the world’s policeman. It has to stop. We can’t be all things to all people. It seems that we’re damned if we do, and damned if we don’t. If we take a non-invasive approach, then cuts in the military budget won’t hurt as much.(getting back to the original post)

Share This

[JoB]

it is obvious to me that payroll cuts for military support are going to impact local economies.

Share This

[HMC Rich]

I so disagree with you guys, but I do agree that peace is the most worthy goal we could achieve.

I am glad he isn’t like the old progressives and pushes for war. How’s that Gitmo closure going BTW.

Share This

[JoB]

HMCRich..

Gitmo isn’t closing nearly fast enough..

but.. Osama’s son-in-law is being held in New York and will face our court system there.

that is progress.

Share This

[wakeflood]

Agreed. Gitmo’s still a huge embarrassment and public trials are how we regain faith in our justice system. And show the world that we aren’t just another torture state.

Share This

[dobro]

Gitmo is still open because cowardly Republicans in Congress refused to fund Obama’s order to close it.

“I am glad he isn’t like the old progressives and pushes for war.”

More bizarro world commentary. Makes as much sense as saying “I’m glad he’s not like the old conservatives, always pushing for peace and reining in the defense budget.”

Share This

[DBP]

Yes, I can see that. Everything makes sense now.

Gitmo is open because Republicans won’t let Obama close it.

The economy sucks because Republicans won’t let Obama fix it.

We’re losing the war in Afghanistan because Republicans won’t let Obama win it.

 

Who says politics are complicated?

Share This

[wakeflood]

I agree. Gitmo’s open because Obama either A) no longer believe it needs to be closed because it serves some useful purpose or B) he can’t figure out how to close it any time in the foreseeable future.

Either way, he owns the fact that it’s still there and ain’t going away anytime soon.

And he owns Afghanistan too.

I will take issue with the economy. It WOULD be much better without GOP obstructionism.

So, yes politics IS complicated n’ stuff. ;-)

Share This

[dobro]

Gitmo is open because Congress failed to act. Obama gave the order to close it. So the answer is)B because he’s not a dictator he cannot close it arbitrarily.

The economy has clearly been slowed by Republican obstruction. Obama has had a jobs act before Congress for over two years. Nancy Pelosi, when Speaker, passed over 200 bills, many of them related to jobs and the economy, that were filibustered to death in the Senate. Boenher will not allow any helpful bills to reach the floor of the House.

The war in Afghanistan is Bush’s war. Obama made a mistake by going along with a troop surge advocated by a military industrial complex (whom Obama does not control) that seeks perpetual war. He is winding it down, however, for which he should get some credit. He is the CIC of the military but not of the military industrial corporate cabal.

There are several issues on which I disagree with the administration, but these three issues really aren’t that complicated. If we didn’t have one of our only two political parties in a state of complete dysfunction and nihilism things wouldn’t be this eff’d up.

Share This

[dobro]

One correction: Afghanistan is actually the American people’s war. The propaganda, lies,and war profiteering that have sustained it have elicited barely a peep from the populace. We have failed miserably to hold the politicians responsible so it’s really our own fault that it has gone the way it has. Blaming Bush or Obama is too easy.

Share This

[DBP]

I understand that closing the Gitmo detention center is difficult and complicated.

I don’t fault Obama for not fulfilling all his promises. I don’t even fault him for not fulfilling this particular one.

I do fault him for knuckling under without taking a stand. Seems like if there was anything to take a stand on, it’s Gitmo.

Come on, Obama dude. The guy before you had mad skills for getting what he wanted. Where’s your game?

Share This

[DBP]

Re: The Guantanamo Naval Base

What an effing joke! The land that it’s on belongs to Cuba, not us. Cuba hates our guts. So how come we get to have a naval base and torture center in their country?

Here’s what happened: In 1903, after kicking out the Spanish dictator and installing our own dictator in his place, Teddy Roosevelt signed a treaty with said friendly dictator granting the US a lease on Gitmo in perpetuity.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuban-American_Treaty

This is what’s known as an “unequal treaty.” Such a treaty is legally void according to international law, either because it has not been negotiated in good faith by two co-equal partners OR because either one of the partners is bargaining without proper authority.

In the case of the Cuban-American Treaty, both of those conditions are true. First, it’s obvious that Cuba, being under military occupation by the US at the time, was hardly an equal negotiating partner. Second, it should be obvious that no leader (not even a democratically elected one) could ever sign away his country’s patrimony in perpetuity. But that’s just what this Cuban dictator did.

For the past 50 years or more, the Cuban government has consistently repudiated the Treaty, but the US simply ignores that. Every month the US government sends the Castro government a “rent” check of about $4,000 (cheap!) and every month Castro sends it back.

Given all this, how can we, in good faith, continue to lay claim to Guantanamo?

The whole place is an illegal, immoral sham.

Share This

[JanS]

actually, from the Wiki article, one check was cashed early on, so the US says that’s an agreement with the treaty. Many checks were kept and stashed in a drawer. And the “person” the checks are made out to doesn’t even exist. The position was done away with years and years ago.

Share This

[dobro]

“The whole place is an illegal, immoral sham.”

Absolutely correct. My only point about it is that the blame for its current state lies on Bush for starting the atrocities and Congress for their cowardly refusal to carry out Obama’s order.

“I do fault him for knuckling under without taking a stand…”

He did take a stand. He ordered it closed. From the hill.com 10/21/12

Obama’s declaration last week on “The Daily Show with Jon Stewart” that he wants to close the military prison drew applause from the young, liberal audience he hopes to will turn out for him on Election Day.

“There’s some things that we haven’t gotten done. I still want to close Guantánamo. We haven’t been able to get that through Congress,” Obama said after Stewart asked about “trading ideals for security.”

Obama’s pledge to shutter the Guantánamo Bay military prison was one of his biggest campaign promises in 2008, and he signed an executive order his first week in office to close the military facility on Cuban soil.

But in the face of fierce opposition in Congress from Republicans, Obama backed away from his attempts to close the facility and move the terrorism trials from military commissions into federal courts.

Though Gitmo remains open, the Obama administration has reduced the detainee population. Mitt Romney supports keeping the prison open and increasing its size, the official said.

Democratic aides in Congress acknowledge it would be difficult to gain enough support to close the military prison while Republicans retain control of the House. But they say that some traction has been made on the issue in the past year.

Republicans slammed the Obama administration earlier this month after it purchased Thomson Prison in Illinois, a site that has been mentioned as a possible location for Guantánamo detainees.

The administration insisted the prison purchase was unrelated to Guantánamo, but Republicans were not convinced.

“Obama Administration officials today promised that Guantanamo terrorists will not be transferred to the Thomson prison, citing Congressional action prohibiting it,” House Homeland Security Chairman Pete King (R-N.Y.) said in a statement.

“I have trouble believing Obama Administration promises.”

Human-rights advocates who want Guantánamo closed expressed cautious optimism over the president’s statement on Thursday.

Share This

[Author]

Posts