Welcome author, Tom Engelhardt, and host, David Swanson.
[ As a courtesy to our guests, please keep comments to the book. Please take other conversations to a previous thread. - bev]
The American Way of War: How Bush’s Wars Became Obama’s
Tom Engelhardt should be well known to anyone who’s looked online for information on U.S. militarism during the past several years. His website, TomDispatch.com, has been invaluable, publishing new articles every few days, either edited by Tom (I’ve written a few of those myself) or written by Tom. And it’s Tom’s own writing, I’m sure, that brings people back.
If a person could approach you on the street, gently caress your cheek, and walk away leaving you with the feeling of having been violently slapped and dowsed with a bucket of ice water, they would approximate Tom Engelhardt’s writing, including that in his newest book “The American Way of War: How Bush’s Wars Became Obama’s.” And it’s all perfectly composed, edited, and triple-proof-read. So, here today is our unique chance to read Tom Engelhardt unscripted by asking him about just about anything related to our wars, our empire, our media, or probably any other topic. I can’t imagine Tom Engelhardt lacking for an insightful and informative opinion on anything.
But much of what he writes in his latest book, or at least what most strikes me, is his insistence on showing us things we ought to have already seen and really haven’t. He asks us to quietly pause and marvel in silence, or to ponder along with him, the perverse and unnatural wonder that is our war-based society and our war-based economy, beginning perhaps with the wonder that we live in these things unknowingly. Engelhardt’s writing in this new book puts into historical context, and into the context of possible alternatives some of our more bizarre/mundane phenomena, including, among much else:
–The crimes of 9-11, how our culture was prepared for such a thing, how differently we might have taken it had the buildings not fallen, and how readily and outrageously we transformed a crime into a war. Engelhardt reminds us of a White House press conference at which a reporter asked President Bush whether he really was considering declaring war on an individual. (The concern for this reporter, of course, was not with presidents declaring wars, but with the nature of the proposed enemy.)
–The insanity of the response to 9-11 that has been building for almost nine years in what we never before would have tolerated anyone calling “the homeland.”
–The empire of military bases the United States has spread around the globe, which occupy (pun intended) such a central position in the motivations of everything our government does and in the understanding that most of humanity has of us, but of which we are almost entirely unaware.
–The empire of 17 competing and catastrophically bad “intelligence” agencies in the U.S. government. If we can’t pause and wonder at this world of public but unaccountable crime, we are probably beyond the point of recovery.
–The nature of aerial bombing, the horrific murdering and torturing done by the bombs, and the sick spell that has convinced people that dropping bombs is moral and right, while retail scale killing and torturing is barbarous and evil.
–The exaggerated attention paid to certain dangers, like terrorism, as compared to much greater dangers, like illnesses and preventable accidents. If you wonder about this one too much you may begin to suspect that the libertarian denunciation of government may only ever be strong enough to defund workplace safety, environmental protection, and healthcare, whereas the funding of wars rises or falls based on acceptance or rejection of much more grandiose myths of good-and-evil created specifically to counter our usual distaste for unnecessary deaths.
Engelhardt draws out what is new, and what is identical to the claims and myths produced during previous wars and empires. And he goes after the degradation of our language. “Terrorism” has been reshaped to mean anti-U.S. activity. (Which explains why the media compares peace activists attacked by the Israeli military to al Qaeda.) Well known and openly discussed wars like our current war in Pakistan are consistently labeled “covert.” And so forth.
Towards the end of the book, we read a truly brilliant speech that Engelhardt tells us President Obama should give but never will. Maybe we could open this discussion by asking Tom to tell us about that speech and why we’ll never hear it.





260 Comments





Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Firedoglake
Welcome, Tom and everyone!
Tom, Welcome to the Lake.
David, Thank you for Hosting today’s Book Salon.
Hi, welcome to everyone, in the wake of the U.S. soccer loss…
Tom, do you want to start with my question about your never-to-be-given Obama speech? Have you tried to get Rachel Maddow to give it?
In response to David’s first question, there have already been three moments in the Obama presidency when a truly daring president might have moved to wind down the Afghan war. March 2009 was the first, when Obama instead announced a “surge” of 21,000 troops into Afghanistan. In December, he doubled down again in a speech at West Point announcing another major surge. Just before he gave that speech, I wrote a “speech” for him – with the central line: “This administration ended, rather than extended, two wars” — in which I argued that there was not a shred of evidence on the historical record for the common Washington wisdom that a president — but above all a Democratic president — who tried to de-escalate a war like the Afghan(/Pakistani) one, and withdraw American troops, would be so much domestic political dead meat.
I still believe that to be the case and suspect that, despite the right-wing echo chamber of criticism he would have experienced, had he moved to wind down the war last year, the move would have actually proved a political boon for him in the long term. However, I had no illusions that he would give a speech like the one I wrote for him – and he didn’t.
Now, we’ve just passed the third moment – the McChrystal resignation – and once again he’s essentially doubled down and gotten in deeper.
If only I knew Rachel Maddow, but no… I’ve just replied…
When do you think the United States will be invading Ghana?
The messages are already undoubtedly going out to Africom, our new African military command as of 2007
Does it help or hurt things to get people fantasizing about daring presidents, as opposed to focusing on pressuring the US House to cut off the funding?
Actually, since we’re multi-taskers, I don’t think it’s a choice… We can imagine daring presidents, but take the measure of this one and his administration and act accordingly…
What would have been different on 9-11 and since if the planes had hit the buildings but the buildings had not fallen?
We’re multitaskers. Peace groups are not. They send out one request to their lists for what to call Congress and ask for, and often it’s what Congress asks them to ask for, in which case it’s always about congressional rhetoric to influence the all-powerful president. Currently, it’s a House bill to ask the president for a nonbinding unspecified exit plan. Fortunately, stop-the-money is getting some traction now as well. When people ask you for your exit strategy what do you tell them?
The falling buildings and the ensuing “mushroom cloud” brought to mind apocalyptic nuclear fates Americans had long dreamt about — hence Ground Zero for the World Trade Center. If it hadn’t been so apocalyptic looking, the American response might have been less so. People might have been less willing to fall in with Bush’s Global War on Terror, his global free-fire zone.
Good afternoon Tom and David and welcome to FDL this afternoon.
Tom, I have not had an opportunity to read your book but I think I’m going to have to do so based on David’s excellent write-up.
Without having read it, I apologize if you address this but I assume you covered how the Vietnam War in the US became Nixon’s war after having been LBJ’s war (and how it became the US’s war after having been the French’s war before).
All I can add is the wonderment as well at how we’ve devolved. I grew up in the “duck and cover” era. I served in the USAF including at a northern tier SAC base where we never knew when the alert horns blew if it was just an exercise or the real deal. You get a lot of black humor when folks are sitting in shelters, not knowing if there would be anything left when we walked back outdoors.
We were never as afraid as it appears the government wants us to be today. Any thoughts as to why this is so?
I grew up in that same “duck and cover” era and remember it well. There was fear certainly, but, as I’ve written in the book and at TomDispatch, we’re now ruled by a Fear Inc. It’s been shot continually into the national adrenaline. It’s as if we feed off it now.
As for the Vietnam War, it’s one touchstone I return to often… but lately I’ve been writing about the Soviet experience in Afghanistan and as an imploding empire as well. It has a lot to teach us.
Welcome, dakine01, perfect question for Tom. Why do other countries react to terrorism without the panic and crackdown on rights and overblown counterproductive response of the superpower?
Welcome Tom to the small group of antiwars ‘folks’ who are left in the U.S. We should get together more often to cry in our beer. Good interview with Scott Horton on antiwar.com.
Chalmers Johnson thinks there’s no turning back. Agree?
In your book, you point out that Rome had 37 foreign bases, and the British empire 36. Yet we have the 700 some that you cite, plus I suspect hundreds more. How does this work as a measure of empire?
eCAHN… Glad you heard me! It is a strangely demobilized moment.
liberalarts, as you may know, Tom dedicates the book to Johnson. I think you’ve hit the key question, but it’d also be good to hear from Tom why Johnson got the dedication.
Yes, I’ve learned enormously from Chalmers. In my other life — as a book editor — I edited and published his Blowback Trilogy… a great honor. But I prefer to be slightly more optimistic. I do think history has its surprises.
Rhetorical Q? U.S. has to make a worthy adversary for its global military occupation, even if none exists.
And there was also the absolutely non-stop TV announcers saying “Nothing will ever be the same again.” Without them setting the stage, we might have had a different result.
As a technical note, there is a “Reply” button in the lower right hand of each comment. Clicking the “Reply” will pre-fill the commenter name and comment number being replied to. (It makes it easier to follow the conversation for everyone)
Note: If you’ve done a hard refresh of your browser, some browsers do not like to wok the “Reply” correctly until the page completes re-loading.
For those feeling demobilized. Is it sometimes a little self-inflicted? Will you be here?
Peace of the Action
Washington, D.C., July 4-17
Brown Bag Lunch Vigils
Everywhere, third Wednesday of every month
National Conference to Bring the Troops Home Now
Albany, July 23-25
PDA Grassroots Leadership Conference
Cleveland, July 23-25
Veterans for Peace National Convention
Portland, Maine, August 25-29
As I just said, I learned so much working with him. He’s the man who made clear something we just don’t like to talk about here — that we garrison the world, that we have a literal empire of bases. As Nick Turse recently reported at TomDispatch, we have 400 bases, from micro outposts to macro places like Bagram and Kandahar Airfield, there and are still building!
not rhetorical — Tom has enlightening answers to seemingly dumb questions all the time
Good reminder re reply button
I’ve also been around since duck & cover, plus protesting Viet Nam, which seemed like a War created to “cover” other activities of the empire. Now it seems as if we just go to War, so that the MIC can make money. This nation doesn’t have much else that we actually do or create within our borders. That seems to be overarching reason why we go to war and stay in wars long after we should have left: it makes money for the 1% at the top. Just what Ike warned us about.
Yes, the Bush administration leaped for the moment and the headlines — “21st Century Pearl Harbor!” “War!” etc… and, as you said, everything has changed, helped enormously…
Can you talk a bit about what aspects of our society and our institutions encourage people to view war — and stopping wars — as “someone else’s business”?
Genuine Q, since I never studied foreign relations in school. Do they teach in such courses that a major objective of foreign policy should be to ‘impose your country’s will on other countries’? Any academics in the crowd?
What are the top changes you would make to our language? And is there some way we can stop saying Homeland? And is there any way to get opponents of militarism to stop calling what they oppose Defense?
Touche! *g*
I’m guessing they call it securing and stabilizing.
Yes, we’re best these days in Hollywood and in the military-industrial complex in creating things that go boom in the night. It’s our money-making 21st century skill! And with it goes — something I write about in The American Way of War and at the site constantly — permanent war without end, without any concept of peace or victory.
Welcome Tom. Unfortunately, I have not read your book, but I’m putting it on my list. Do you have an opinion on what the underlying reason(s) for the wars are?
Tom, what do you think about Grayson’s antiwar efforts?
I don’t know if you can attach numbers to this or not, but to what extent do you think non-Americans come to know our country through our bases, as opposed to through our movies or our tourists or some other way?
I have not read your book yet, but I’m interested in this in particular. The failed Soviet state turned into a gangster state, and it’s my understanding that Russia, despite obscene wealth for some, is not working very well. I also understand that a lot of international corporations are either pulling out of Russia or refusing to go there because of the violence and gangsterism there.
Sadly seems like we could easily head in that direction.
You know I just wrote a long essay which is at the top of TomDispatch right now about our latest wonder weapon, the drone. They are piloted over the Afghan and Pakistani borderlands from maybe 7,000 miles away in the U.S. That sense of detachment from the battlefield makes it the perfect weapon of our moment — Americans are remarkably detached from their wars today. No draft, no citizen’s army and war is now significantly a distant, mercenary, for-profit affair.
The MIC doesn’t really care if we win or lose a war. In fact, it inures to the MIC’s benefit to not win and just to stay fighting forever. US citizens don’t get that. We’re fed a lot of rah-rah jinogistic crap, which some buy (Go Team USA), which has little to do with why we’re in battle: to make money for the 1%.
I asked because Sebastion Junger used that exact phrase on his book salon last week, it wrung a bell, and I was wondering just how widespread it was. Maybe it’s just specifically used by neocons, and others use the more euphonious construct you suggest?
But we may have drones in our skies soon, and certainly over the Mexican border. What could go wrong?
Yes, aren’t the drones being piloted from somewhere in Nevade or Utah? Talk about a cosmic disconnect. So easy. No muss, fuss or guilt for those who are piloting them.
I don’t know
As for the book, it’s literally just out, so no one, except reviewers like David Swanson has had a shot at it yet. Your question is a good one, but a tough one. There’s profits, of course. And careers. And imperial mission. But increasingly, I actually do think, as the title of my book says, it’s just the American way of life — and it has a strange momentum all its own. We’d have to work hard at this point to stop it and Americans, unlike in the Vietnam era, are remarkably demobilized.
Tom points out in his book that a sign along the highway tells the drone operators in Nevada to drive carefully as it’s the most dangerous part of their day.
There was a reporter on Washington Journal one morning recently, waxing eloquent about the wonders of drones and how everyone & his brother wants them. My email Q was: how soon before the U.S. prez orders assassination by drone of a U.S. citizen on U.S. soil. For some reason, they didn’t pick that one to ask on air.
Nevada and elsewhere in the West for the Air Force (though overseen from the Middle East) and for the CIA, perhaps from Langley, Virginia. Remember the drone war over Pakistan is a “civilian” air war, perhaps the first in history. It’s all CIA all the time!
Wait a minute. I thought the newest super dooper wonder weapon was supposed to be something that uses noise to disable (and that it was even going to be put on drones to make it even ore super dooper wondrous for us all) /s
If we were mobilized at Vietnam Era levels, but we had today’s degraded system of election funding, party control, and corporate media (I imagine you’ll agree that the media was more open to antiwar images and voices back then), what would the net result be? Peace?
Indeed. But conservatives will opine that if you have done nothing wrong or have nothing to hide, then you need not fear the drone.
Yeah, right. Pull the other one – eh?
I asked John Yoo if that’d be legal. He said sure.
Actually, as Glenn Greenwald over at Salon was writing just in the last day, there are several Americans on the U.S. hit list. Sooner or later it will happen. As for the drones, they are our present wonder weapons — you’ll find them in the book and at TomDispatch. The thing about wonder weapons — the tank, the plane, nuclear weapons, smart bombs etc. — is that they never deliver their “promise,” but by the time that’s evident they are deeply embedded in our world, with their supporters, their lobbies, and new generations on the way.
See, there’s an obvious point we all miss.
Have heard some sadly funny stories about CIA & military f-ups owing to not getting the time differences accurate, so I hope they at least have plenty of geographic clocks in drone HQ.
John Yoo thinks everything involving presidential power in war is legal!!
Remind me not to attend any weddings!
Ah yes, the CIA: my favorite agency.
Well, the CIA’s been involved in so much that it’s hard to know where to begin or end the list. No surprises that it the CIA’s involved with drones.
Why was McChrystal fired? Did he want to be fired? Will it change anything?
We’ve just also had a supreme court ruling, among all their simply fabulous rulings, that almost any kind of anti-war activity could be considered terrorist activity. I would suspect that this could only add to the demobilization of society. What do you think might work to motivate people to be vigorous in our opposition?
Actually, I’m proud to say that TomDispatch is the only website in this country that I know of which has been keeping track of wedding parties in Iraq and Afghanistan wiped out by the U.S. Air Force in these years. Up to about 7 wedding parties, hundreds of former revelers and almost no attention. When the Taliban knocks off a wedding party (as a suicide bomber did recently) it’s far more significant news. Their barbarity. For us, well a mistake and “collateral damage”
Other countries did react with panic and civil liberties/human rights violations. And ghastly hooliganism. I remember an apartment building in Germany housing mostly Turks that went up in flames. People were beaten and stomped and grabbed off the streets and dragged away, sometimes by government agencies.
The USAF is STILL arguing at air power can win wars, after a century. So of course, drone ❤ers will be arguing the same a century from now.
Tom, you point out in your book, that it’s not just the CIA, but 17 competing and catastrophically bad “intelligence” agencies in the U.S. government. What are the 17? How secret are their budgets and missions? Which ones do war? And who’s paid enough to think this is a good idea?
Thanks for doing that. People who blog here at FDL “get” that the media is slanted and biased. Sadly, most citizens don’t.
As far as I can tell, it won’t change anything for the better, since — as the White House has made clear — it was a change of “personnel,” not policy — and the new commander, General David Petraeus is a god of the Washington chattering class. If he asks for more troops in 2011 for Afghanistan, Obama will be in a pickle.
We’re so far from rule of law. We’re rule by fiat.
Is this detachment why it’s so easy for the corporate interests pushing various wars to sustain them? That is, since most Americans (including most journalists) aren’t in the military, much less in any danger of ever having to fire a gun in anger (or even a drone from thousands of miles away in a high-tech campus), are they less likely to understand what wars involve, yet at the same time be lulled by a vague sense of guilt for not having served in the military into letting the Pentagon and its various corporate sponsors have carte blanche?
Yes, as I’ve written elsewhere, “air power” is really a military religion. Historical reality about what air power can actually do doesn’t get in the way of the faith, which remains remarkably strong and is being transferred to drones which Leon Panetta, CIA Director recently called “the only game in town” when it comes to disrupting al-Qaeda.
Did Germany launch wars or invade other countries in response to terrorism? If so, I missed them. Except of course for participating in U.S. wars under the NATO umbrella.
Thank you, Tom, for joining us.
Frankly, I do not imagine that there is ANYTHING which “we” may learn to sway “us” from this course of permanent war …
Others will have to stop “us”, for “we” cannot and will not, stop ourselves.
When “we” proclaim that “this” war is “endless” and that the “battlefield is everywhere” … how is it “we” can imagine or, “believe”, that war will not come home?
That is a question America would be wise to ponder.
DW
I’d been wondering about that. Is there an atrocity scorecard, theirs versus ours? Maybe that might help Americans understand why Afghans are so pissed at us.
We need a drafted military, and we’re not going to get one.
Is the basic difference between an atrocity and an accident who does it? Same for terrorism and surgical strikes?
What ever happened to the story of US-led forces shooting students, some of them handcuffed? This was before the story of digging bullets out of murdered women, but it never made the corporate media in a lasting way. What is the process of disremembering these things?
Only small numbers of Americans are involved in our wars. Most Americans simply aren’t. The wars — and the military — were/was reorganized that way in the wake of Vietnam. It seemed (and was) easier to pursue “frontier” wars that way. In the Vietnam era, the draft made a huge difference — and not just because it instilled fear in young men. It also reminded everyone that our wars were actually a part of our lives and, in the end, helped to stop that war (I believe).
Actually, the Nazis regularly referred to the resistance groups they fought in France and elsewhere as “bandits” and “terrorists” (or the equivalent).
My metaphor is: like the drunk at the party, if they only say (do) it one one more time, and a little bit louder, surely everyone will understand. It’s also the neocon bible: if the U.S. can’t intimidate all its enemies by use of force, it means the U.S. isn’t using enough force.
You’re right, no chance of it…
Won’t Petraeus do whatever Obama wants? Or will he finally make his move? I thought the lesson here was that kissing up is a better career move than bullying. I think he wants to be president, but I think he’s an habitual kissup: http://asskissinglittlechickenshit.com
Here’s a plug from me…fair warning!
Be sure to check out my new book, just out – The American Way of War. Here are two comments on it:
Andrew Bacevich, author of The Limits of Power and the upcoming Washington Rules: “Tom Engelhardt is the I. F. Stone of the post–9/11 age — seeing what others miss, calling attention to contradictions that others willfully ignore, insisting that Americans examine in full precisely those things that make us most uncomfortable.”
Adam Hochschild, author of King Leopold’s Ghost: “They may have Blackwater/Xe, Halliburton, aircraft carrier battle groups, deadly drones by the score and the world’s largest military budget, but we have Tom Engelhardt — and a more powerful truth-seeking missile has seldom been invented… For anyone not yet familiar with his work, this is your chance to meet one of the most forceful analysts alive of our country’s dangerous, costly addiction to all things military.”
I has thought that liberalarts was referring to post-Nazi Germany, i.e. to more recent terrorist attacks. Now, if you’re suggesting that the appropriate benchmark for U.S. foreign policy is what the Nazis did…
That wasn’t the statement. The statement was that other countries didn’t, don’t, react with panic, etc. Actually, other countries do. I recall, rather recently, some ugly stories coming out of Sri Lanka, for instance. Workied with a young man whose Tamil parents fled the island for the relative safety of India. He has no real home.
Most citizens don’t care, really. They’re not interested, except possibly during election cycles. Although there is enough info out there – even though much is slanted and biased, it’s still there – but people simply don’t care.
Bringing Hollywood back into the conversation, I think a lot of the public’s willing culpability to ignore the wars is enhanced by Hollywood violence, both on tv and in the movies. We’ve all become desensitized and also just see extreme violence of all kinds as completely “normal.”
Plus it seems like the DOD (or some agency) is paying for very violent but warlike video games to get kids hooked so that they’ll want to take it from virtual to “real” reality.
Building on that above question about whether Chalmers Johnson is right that there’s no turning back . . . If we defund Social Security and Medicare in order to pay for wars, will there then be no turning back? Are you watching this effort which involved pseudo-popular rallies today?
I suspect he’ll do what he wants. He’s a consummate politician — but that may not mean the presidency. He’s taking some kind of an incredible gamble and, while he’ll undoubtedly try to stay on Obama’s good side, he is a man who is looking out for himself. It’s clear in his remarkable and strange career.
So Sri Lanka is your basis of comparison for the U.S.?
And, by the way, a number of those games began as military training games and they are deeply intertwined with the military (as well as military recruiting).
Considering ’24′ was the model for conducting interrogations.
I missed it.
Yes other countries go nuts (but do less damage of course). But many do not. Canada is next to us and relatively sane. When terrorists went after Danish cartoonists, Denmark didn’t dismantle human rights (or, of course, launch a war).
Yes, like the video games, it was strangely intertwined with the Bush administration and its “enhanced interrogation” mania.
Tom, if you miss questions and want to answer them, just scroll upwards and find them, or wait a minute and I’ll try to go find some.
liberalarts asked Chalmers Johnson thinks there’s no turning back. Agree?
When a man in a suicide vest blows up a wedding party it might fairly be said to be a deliberate
attack on a wedding party.
How many of the 7 US attacks on wedding parties that you’re keeping count on would you say to be deliberate attacks on wedding parties?
I know next to nothing about video games, but when I go to see a film in a movie house, there’s always an ad for a video game that simulates war. And then right after it there’s usually a recruitment movie for one of the armed forces. It’s as blatant as that. My sweetie usually has to “shush” me because I start protesting loudly in the theatre. But everyone else is pretty much: meh. Bidness as usual. Very sad; very chilling. Everyone’s desensitized and don’t care.
eCAHNomics asked Genuine Q, since I never studied foreign relations in school. Do they teach in such courses that a major objective of foreign policy should be to ‘impose your country’s will on other countries’? Any academics in the crowd?
You know, it’s strange what isn’t news in this country. The other day the CIA gave the former Blackwater, now Xe, the mercenary corporation a $100 million dollar contract to guard its Af/Pak facilities. (As the State Dept. had done earlier.) A good example of the momentum of war, American-style, from which small numbers continue to profit immensely and for which the rest of us pay drastically. This story was reported but it was totally ho-hum in this country.
I had a q about what Tom thought about Grayson’s antiwars efforts that I didn’t see an a to, but I might have missed it.
David Swanson asked What are the top changes you would make to our language? And is there some way we can stop saying Homeland? And is there any way to get opponents of militarism to stop calling what they oppose Defense?
Indeed. Good case in point with the Danes.
I don’t think that people don’t care. It’s just that whether they care or not doesn’t make any difference. The citizenry has no impact on policy. Suppose the House of Representatives was changed so that it was only open to candidates who earned $120k a year or less, would people start to participate more? Would they start to develop a connection to their politics? I think they would.
And the recruitment ads before movies, I’ve noticed, are always the loudest and the longest… and you’re trapped there holding your seat and waiting for the film to begin
VMT asked Do you have an opinion on what the underlying reason(s) for the wars are?
eCAHNomics asked Tom, what do you think about Grayson’s antiwar efforts?
Most citizens don’t connect the dots; nor do they get how much money is being poured into these operations… and for what purpose. More bidness as usual. Meh…
Exactly. Also very jingoistic and rah rah for Team USA. So you’re supposed to feel all patriotic-y or something.
You may be right. “Care” may not be the right word. Americans don’t think they can do anything about it. What’s most striking to me is that in the Obama era there are no demonstrations. The Bush people weren’t listening. But a Democratic administration with worries about the loyalty of its base? Nothing is more striking than that.
David Swanson asked If we were mobilized at Vietnam Era levels, but we had today’s degraded system of election funding, party control, and corporate media (I imagine you’ll agree that the media was more open to antiwar images and voices back then), what would the net result be? Peace?
I’m sorry I don’t know what the reference is to. Grayson? Just something I don’t know about.
Perhaps. But in my very small microcosm, I can emphatically state that almost none of the people I know probably any time being “concerned” about the war. They simply don’t think about it at all. It’s beyond their frame of reference, and imo they don’t care. It doesn’t affect them personally, and they don’t have to “give up” anything.
there is no personal involvement, as there was, for ex, during WWII where most citizens pulled together and made sacrifices.
Tom,
I am interested, like David Swanson here, in the underlying reasons for the wars. I rather suspect that we are being exposed to “philosophies of convenience,” philosophies which are used by politicians and their pundits in order to maintain the war machine, but which have no real value in themselves except insofar as they promote war. Otherwise, I suspect, what they’re doing is entirely pointless, and the wars are all to promote careers and to move weapons contracts.
What is Obama’s “philosophy of convenience”?
Have you noticed it’s always the National Guard now, presumably because some suckers might think they’re not going to war? Noticed progressive blogs are taking their ads too?
Thanks for coming.
According to an official report of the U.S. Government (http://oversight.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=4994:chairman-tierney-releases-majority-staff-report-warlord-inc&catid=84:press-room-snsfa&Itemid=47), the U.S. is paying a lot of public money to the Taliban which public funds are then available to kill American soldiers.
Has Pres. Obama adopted a policy which requires the U.S. to pay the enemy to kill U.S. soldiers?
America still thinks Obama is a “progressive” despite numerous reasons which show otherwise. I’ve had many arguments in the discussion sections of DailyKos.com about this.
I also asked a question at 64 about the recent ruling by the Supreme Court that just about any anti-war activity could be considered terrorist activity. Do you think that’ll further chill opposition? And what do you think might mobilize people against all the war.
Well there have been demostrations, and some of them have had reasonably decent turn-outs, but you never ever hear anything about them. There was a reasonably large-ish demo in San Francisco, for ex, in March on the anniversary of the start of the War in Iraq. Did you hear about it?
I only heard a little, and I only saw one mention of it online, ironically enough on a rightwing site that dissing it. So, there you go.
There have been other protests and marches recently in other places.
Nothing’s that simple or direct. It wasn’t in the Vietnam era either, whether demonstrations went on from the early 60s through the early 70s, after all. And the thing is we don’t know what would happen if Americans got out in the streets. We don’t know what effect it would have in Washington, or in the military overseas. And evidently we won’t know either.
By the way, I don’t think the media of the 1960s was more open to antiwar images and voices. I lived through that. Frustration over the media led to the flourishing of a rather striking “underground” or alternate press (the equivalent of the online world of TomDispatch and David Swanson’s War Is a Crime websites today).
Tom, Rep Alan Grayson is an outspoken congressman from Orlando FLA who has not only put in a bill to defund the wars, but has for the first time I’ve ever seen publicly urged people to lobby his colleagues to vote No on any more funding, and set up a webpage for Emailing his colleagues on that. See http://congressmanwithguts.org
The Obama administration has done more to marginalize people from their politics than perhaps any administration ever has. They ran on the only meaningful platform available and then brutally threw it away. What’s the point in getting involved now, particularly when there is no other meaningful policy platform left?
Alan Grayson, member of congress from FL, ‘War is making you poor Act.’
Not any antiwar activity, but any activity that can be construed as aiding a terrorist group or any group so labeled
I think, unlike the Bush people who were mad visionaries with a full geopolitical vision of how the world worked (they were wrong of course), Obama and his people (including Bush second term holdover Robert Gates) are managers of the imperium and of the wars they inherited. I think they have essentially no vision of these wars and their meanings at all.
Thank you. I’ll check it out after this ends…
I didn’t say the corporate media during the Vietnam War wasn’t godawful – just better than today. Where are the images of burning children today? Where is the coverage of the marches? Where are the antiwar voices?
Yes, I exaggerate. There are some, but not many. If you think about it, there was a giant antiwar movement in the streets against the Iraq War before it happened and a number of huge anti-Iraq war demonstrations in the first Bush term. It died down. And, in truth, there has never been a significant anti-Afghan War movement here, though there should be.
I agree. There was an insane passion in the Bush Admin, and it certainly seemed as if they had a vision (with which I wholeheartedly disagreed). I often feel like Obama has turned into the Stepford President. His “coolness” and calm demeanor anymore is grating, and it certainly seems as if he’s just some factotum carrying out other people’s dictats. Obama certainly seems very unengaged and doesn’t seem to care. Emotions aren’t the “be-all,” but I get no sense of any vision or leadership in Obama, himself.
OK, so what’s the “management philosophy” in operation now?
You may be right and making another important point here.
Interesting that the one thing they will not question is the need to continue and escalate something they have no meaningful conception of.
It was just worse than it’s now remembered. A lot of that coverage came late — after the demonstrations and were a response to them. Coverage of antiwar demonstrations was frustratingly limited at the time. I can remember well.
Thanks so much, Tom and David, for all the great work you do. It seems we are stuck upon the dilemma as to whether or not the U.S. can turn back from its insistence upon permanent war and militarism. This is an open question, though it doesn’t look too promising.
Still there are contradictions between running such an empire and the originating ideas of the Enlightenment that animated the idea of an American republic. The perpetuation of torture and the necessity to protect the secret police/paramilitary/covert arms of government is one of those contradictions.
Today is the International Day of Support for Victims of Torture, though one would barely know it. The desultory fashion in which the human rights agencies built up for this day demonstrates that a certain amount of demoralization has set in. In addition, the economic depression and the tremendous fall in donations to these NGOs has precipitated a wild grab for what money is left in the pot, turning agencies into competitors against each other for what funding in left. This is not good for the causes they represent.
Today, the U.S. lacks a meaningful pole of organized opposition, especially a large, radical political party. Do either of you see any possibility of a new political party or mass organization arising that would challenge the economic, political and military status quo?
Thanks again for your terrific and important work!
I can easily see the extension being drawn to anti-war activities, peace activities. Including the humanitarian aid activists going to Gaza and the IHH, the Turkish humanitarian group sponsoring them. If I give money for a ship to sail in a flotilla, will I be considered aiding terrorism?
What you may find interesting is not so much the bill that will never pass the Senate and the President, as the fact that Grayson can tell the leadership of his party to go to hell and raise millions of dollars online doing it, which is what allows him to keep doing it.
There were protests against the Afghan initial invasion, but that resistance got syphoned off in the anti-Iraq war protests, some of which, as you state, were huge and world-wide. Of course, those protests, while worthwhile, accomplished little.
And so, many feel like: what’s the point? Which IS the point, of course. Sigh.
We have a winnah. If there ever was a prez without vision, it’s O. Think he knows nothing except what side his bread is buttered on.
Yes, it’s striking, if you go back to the Obama administration’s reconsideration of Afghan policy last Fall, the only options on the table were “more” options — i.e. Gates/Petraeus/McChrystal’s counterinsurgency “strategy” (which was chosen) or Vice President Biden’s “counterterrorism-plus” (basically drones, less U.S. troops, but many more trainers for the pathetic Afghan army and policy, and special ops forces). Either involved escalation. There was no “less” or “none” seriously considered by the serious folks who run our wars.
This is of course true, eCAHN, but Obama must at least pretend to have a philosophy lest he appear to be a blithering idiot when asked simple philosophical questions like “why?” This is the point of my asking about Obama’s “philosophy of convenience.”
Again getting back to permanent employment and lotsa $$$ for the MIC. Unending war is good for bidness.
Most people don’t even think about politics. The country is run by about 18% of the population actually engaged with our political culture. The low information voter does one thing. If he gets really mad, then he simply votes for the other party. That’s the only level of meaningful political participation they bother with. Vote one way one election and vote the other way if political life starts to feel a little out of whack.
Jeff,
Isn’t it interesting that all the human rights groups opposing torture refuse to acknowledge the existence of the wars that create the torture?
Why? Because they don’t want to offend the Democrats any more than they have to.
I think we’re going to get further with a party-independent people’s movement than with a new party, and that even replacing one of the two parties with a new one wouldn’t get us terribly far at the moment, in comparison with a drive to make representatives independent of all parties.
This was debated in a session at the USSocial Forum on Thursday: video http://www.davidswanson.org/node/2792
Quite likely yes
Seriously, you mean Obama has a “philosophy” of any kind? Coulda fooled me, but I’d like to hear more about that.
Less or none involves looking like the U.S. lost the war. I think that is the only consideration, i.e., don’t get tarred with losing. What other motivation do you think they might have?
Demoralization is another good word. On the Chalmers Johnson question of whether there’s any turning back. Even he believes there’s a kind of turning back. That is, this can’t go on forever. Sooner or later our wars — our investing our wealth in Afghanistan/Iraq and everything that goes with it — will break us. This is of course the story of empire. It was — something I started to bring up earlier — the story of the Soviet Empire. The amazing thing was that when the Soviets put their dough into their military and their Afghan war disaster and imploded, Washington declared victory and then — with no enemy in sight — headed down the same path. That will seem, someday, a particular act of imperial madness.
Obama sent the first 17,000 before giving any thought to Afghanistan strategy, according to Obama. What do the families of the dead from those 17,000 tell themselves the point was?
O doesn’t have a philosophy, he has talking points, among which, about Afghanistan, the first on the list would be ‘not providing a home for terrorists who will attack us.’
Yes, agree with you there. Most people, even folks who have *some* connection to politics, are pretty out to lunch and don’t pay attention much at all. At least when there’s elections, this portion of the population does a little homework to make a somewhat more informed choice.
Most voters, though? Have no clue. Mainly only vote, if, as you say, they’re mad about something, or for something they want, such as the marijuana initiative coming up in CA. Too sad. Most people are busy, it’s true, but also quite lazy. And Hollywood does it’s job of distracting them, too.
What is your reaction to the report by U.S. Rep. John Tierney (http://oversight.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=4994:chairman-tierney-releases-majority-staff-report-warlord-inc&catid=84:press-room-snsfa&Itemid=47) and to Dexter Filkins’ article in The New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/22/world/asia/22contractors.html?scp=7&sq=dexter%20filkins&st=cse) about the Tierney report?
Obama campaigned on sending more troops and, in June 2008, said that he had advocated sending more for over a year.
Maybe that Obama thought there was a point to sending them.
For all of you, I hope I’m catching most of your questions… If not ask again. At almost 66, this isn’t my natural form. But I’m trying to keep up.
Also for all of you reading and asking questions, if you haven’t already signed on for the emails that go out whenever my website, TomDispatch.com, posts a piece, you should consider doing so. Here’s what’s upcoming: Sunday night, Robert Dreyfuss, the Rolling Stone writer who runs The Dreyfuss Report blog at the Nation magazine website, offers a view of the post-McChrystal IED-laced landscape in Washington and Kabul. On Tuesday, author Stephen Kinzer, whose new book Reset is just coming out, writes of BP’s earliest “spill” – it took out a democracy elsewhere with terrible repercussions. And Thursday, Ann Jones, author of Kabul in Winter, who was just embedded with U.S. troops in Afghanistan, writes a blistering summary of the U.S. position there.
Just go to TomDispatch.com, put your e-address in the subscribe box at the right of the main screen, hit submit, and answer the confirmation email that will quickly appear in your email box (or spam folder!)
Perhaps the “Pragmatism of Expediency” or the “Expediency of Pragmatism”?
(What do you do, if the largest supplier of your military’s fuel needs, 80%, pokes a hole in the bottom of the ocean and “stuff” starts leaking out?)
Change the subject. Something bright … something that shines.
(What do you do if the only people who want “endless” war are those making a financial “killing” on it?)
Give the corporate wealthy everything … and go after Social Security, decide Gitmo doesn’t matter and destroy the rule of law.
It is quite “comprehensive”, actually, this “management philosophy” of empire …
It has been decades in the building.
And now, we rule the world …
Tomorrow … the universe! (“Looking forward” … as they say)
DW
OBL noticed and decided it was a wonderful model for bringing down empires.
Exactly. It’s amazing, but American corporations, including the MIC, only focus on short-term gains. There is no long-range thought at all.
Is this view of “turning back” the most optimistic outlook?
Tom,
What do you make of David Obey’s position of blocking the $33.5 billion until teachers and jobs funded?
If Pelosi does all that in one bill, the Senate will strip out the teacher funding, but Pelosi also won’t pass it in the House, given all the Republicans voting No, and over 40 Democrats now voting No on war funding even with heavy lipstick applied to such a pig bill.
If she can do separate bills, then she aligns herself with the Republicans on our biggest public project: war.
How does this play out?
Heh – good call. True, dat.
The U.S. is paying Afghan security warlords to keep U.S. convoys safe. The warlords are paying off the Taliban, probably in the millions of dollars, to make it happen. Hence, we’re funding the Taliban and the creation of warlords and the armed gangs that go with them. This is, of course, utter madness! But catches the nature of the war as well. The Nation magazine has been reporting on this for a while and well!
True. Don’t underestimate America’s damage capacity. Especially compared to other countries. Canada has done some long term damage to French Canadian interests but we don’t hear about it. My atunement to Canada is family; tho I don’t follow closely, I do pay some attention. I gather Canadian border personnel are getting some of their own back by harassing Americans coming back from Canada. Unless I read the story wrong and it’s the other way around. Anyone know the anecdotes I’m talking about?
Anyway, we’re a huge country with huge military and police capacity. I remind that the Colorado river used to irrigate a lovely agricultural valley in Mexico, and all we had to do was damn the river to put an end to that. Gone.
Thanks for responding, onitgoes. To review: a “philosophy of convenience” is a philosophy proclaimed so that its “adherent” can appear to have a purpose (within the confines of polite company). A philosophy of convenience is not a real philosophy insofar as those promoting it don’t really believe what they’re saying.
Neoliberalism, for instance, is a philosophy of convenience — its promoters are really only interested in the profits which were a byproduct of neoliberal policy, and care about the “free market” only insofar as it delivers profit to those promoters.
Tom, didn’t Bush pay the “enemies” off in Iraq, in the same fashion, not to fight the US? Then the war escalated when the funds ran out?
How much do you travel abroad, Tom? What changes over the decades have you noticed in views toward Americans?
The question is, if that’s the backdrop of current American democracy, is there any way to get passed that dynamic and change it? I don’t have an answer to that question. However, it’s important to recognize that that’s the cause for why progressives are ignored.
It’s not, obviously, the only option. But at the moment I see nothing standing in the way of war momentum, especially since the Obama administration has essentially taken over the Bush administration’s Global War on Terror, lock, stock and barrel (though they dropped the name). The Washington Post reported recently, for instance, that while the Bush administration got U.S. Special Operations troops into 60 countries to fight, train etc., the Obama administration has them in 75! In other words, they expanded the war on terror! This is true of much the Obama administration has done.
Yes, and that was all eminently predictable, too. There was no other way to do it. Yet again, US citizens are asleep at the wheel and would have a hard time figuring out what it meant anyway.
Of course, we armed the Taliban in the first place; aided them in defeating the Soviets in Charlie Wilson’s War. And then against the advice of some, said: our work here is done. And left. As always, stupid, short-sighted, but people made money.
Thanks very much. Well, that’s helpful, and basically gets back to: Obama really doesn’t have a philosophy. But I get what you’re saying.
Yes, it’s true. The damage globally, including what we like to call “collateral damage,” is severe and ongoing — but it’s damage of a major sort to ourselves as well. In the process of making permanent war a norm for us, we’ve also visibly turned ourselves from a can-do into a can’t do nation at home — aging infrastructure, the Gulf, not a single mile of high-speed rail…you name it. Wouldn’t we be safer if we simply stopped our distant wars and spent our money here?
Which is why I have suggested that others will have to stop “us”, as we will not stop ourselves.
The question is this: Will it require a war on America to bring it to its senses?
DW
If an average U.S. citizen focused on this aspect, how much support do you think said citizen would provide to paying the Taliban who are killing U.S. troops?
Nope. All out of ideas, I’m sorry to say. I talk to friends and acquaintances and try to gently wake them up, and have met with some success. But then what? What do we do when we wake up and find out what’s really going on?? That’s the $60mill question.
It was really quite different. They paid off Sunni groups ready to fight the insurgency and al-Qaeda in Iraq, not those groups themselves!
I think BHO’s philosophy is as follows and would love to know what Tom thinks: If we can reduce violence enough to stay with bases and a pipeline and everybody around me happy and the polling good on my machismo, then we should do that, but we shouldn’t do it just by pulling back and lessening the damage, paying off the Taliban, etc. The only acceptable way to do it is, as in Iraq, to have an escalation first and credit the escalation. But if the escalation is going to make things so dramatically worse that we can’t plausibly credit it with the reduced violence, then we’re screwed. We’ll have to either risk looking weak or push ahead and Hope for something to Change. Hell, it worked for LBJ. I mean . . . oh, shit.
It’s crazy, isn’t it???
This may be the saddest post I’ve read on this site….I can’t report how much I opposed W, then voted for O. Where is the opposition?
Are those 75 violations of the Constitution?
Of the War Powers Act?
In a sense, though it’s taking forever, wars may bring the U.S. to its senses sooner or later, but I doubt there will be a war in the way you mean… some state, say, attacking us. I don’t think that’s in the cards. The greatest army on earth, as it happens, has been unable to subdue two ragtag, minority insurgencies or guerrilla wars. It’s amazing when you think about it.
I think we’d all be much better off spending the money here, esp on infrastructure, which would create jobs and potentially help reduce our dependency on BigOil and fossil fuels. However, I suppose I’d be a called a socialistNazi for suggesting such a disgusting approach to civic duty.
Sorry, I’m an innumerate. Incapable of figuring such a thing out!
Where is the opposition?
http://defundwar.org
http://caws.us
People don’t understand what’s been happening with the Obama Admin. People GOTV, and then went home to sleep a deep sleep believing that Obama meant what he said and was going to do what he said he would. He LIED, but the citizens haven’t figured it out yet.
David, As with whether drone wars, especially by civilian agencies over lands we’re not at war with (i.e. Pakistan), I suspect that right now the legalities, American or international, simply don’t matter. Not in Washington anyway. Much that we do is clearly illegal — not to say simply wrong. But none of this has any effect in Washington where, as we know from the Bush years and after, no one can be brought to justice. Ever.
You can get local costs from http://costofwar.com, then take the percentage that goes to Taliban, then multiply by 5 to cover interest on debt, care for veterans, impact on economy.
One of the most important lessons I learned in life, very late into my adulthood, is that there are many problems with NO solutions. Thinks U.S. wars are in that category.
What do you make of the ICC recently adopting Agression as one of the crimes it can prosecute, despite US opposition. Do you think it plans to ever actually prosecute? Only Africans?
We really don’t understand how to fight these battles. But then again, I also wonder if the inability to “beat” these enemies is deliberate. The MIC can make much more money if the wars drag on indefinitely.
I’ve always felt that the Bush family – perhaps via Rumsfeld – called off the hunt for Osama bin Laden in the Tora Bora Hills for 2 reasons: 1) the Bush family had no intention of capturing their good friends’ son, and 2) then there would have been no reason to keep waging war.
I NEVER believed that the USA would capture Osama, and I note that his name is hardly ever mentioned anymore.
Not too amazing. The history of counterinsurgencies is not very large, but very few of them have been ‘won,’ no matter how big the effort. Especially, when, like the Pashtuns, they are mainly defending their own ‘homeland.’
I do agree. One factor we haven’t been talking about — much American war policy is remarkably tied up with domestic politics (such as it is). I think Obama couldn’t imagine winding down two wars. I also think he expected that a surge would — to use their term — “blunt” the Taliban and bring them to the bargaining table. No one in Washington really expected the Taliban to surge themselves — and effectively at that! Each of his Afghan decisions, as I said when the night started, seemed the easy road at the moment he made it. Each has proved disastrous and created further complications, the latest of which was McChrystal.
Very sad; very wrong. Yet I really don’t see many other countries doing much about it.
Are other countries also making money off of these wars, too?
No solutions we care to think about, no less take. There are solutions to Afghanistan because the war there is pure madness. It makes no sense — forget morality — simply in terms of U.S. self-interest.
Tom, is the cost of one soldier in Afghanistan about $1 million / year? A lot of people have been looking at the costs of local projects being defunded, schools, libraries, etc., and making the comparison. For example: For this 4.5 million, we are sending 4 and a half troops to Afghanistan. NOBODY approves of the choice our govt is making when put in these terms. Well, except for the media.
Our essential “freedom”, relative to many other peoples, has been our freedom from the broad and direct experience of war, which also keeps us from understanding what we permit to be done in our name.
The greatest human conceit is to believe that what obtains today will obtain tomorrow.
There will be a tomorrow that shocks us to the core of our humanity, as a nation, such humanity as we have left, but the “change” will surprise us, as it has surprised every empire before us, and if we have created a world of barbaric practices, which we diligently are, then we are truly full of hubris to imagine or believe that we shall pay no cost for our arrogance and our ignorance.
If America is not stopped, and relatively soon, then such world as is left, will be pathetic indeed.
DW
Even getting people to start paying attention is difficult because our political class goes to enormous extremes to confuse those people who are paying attention. They have to deal with the Kabuki theater congress 50% of the time and a cloakroom congress the other 50%. And I haven’t even mentioned the media yet.
Well, some are — When Georgia (not the U.S. state but the former Soviet SSR) sends a few troops to Afghanistan, it’s probably to ensure U.S. military aid and support. It’s a profit-making decision for them. For the European countries, it’s another matter. I had a friend years ago who said to me: When the Europeans actually say no to the U.S., you’ll know the world is truly changing. It hasn’t quite happened yet. Most European countries don’t want to be there, but their governments haven’t had the will to oppose the U.S. that directly and simply get out — though several are finally heading in that direction, however slowly.
Oh certainly. You’re completely correct in that regard. I have learned how to (mostly accurately) filter what I hear/see in the media to actually know what’s what. But if you haven’t “studied” like I have, you’re really not going to get the “real story.”
I wasn’t referring to solutions to Afghanistan, but rather solutions to how to make those happen. No way to change the U.S. PTB, or so it would seem.
If McCain were president how big would the peace movement be? And how many wars would we have going?
Can we ever end wars with the war powers in the White House? Did Vietnam end when people forced Congress to get off its back?
You know who makes these comparisons very effectively — The National Priorities Project — http://www.nationalpriorities.org/ — I recommend them. Or go to TomDispatch and use the Google search window to find the work of its director, “Jo Comerford” — she makes such comparisons regularly and devastatingly
I’m curious to see what happens now in Australia. The ALP kicked out their PM, Kevin Rudd, and installed the first female Aus PM, Julia Guillard. Australia has troops in Afghanistan, and there’s opposition down there to this. There are some interesting parallels between Kevin Rudd’s Admin and Obama’s. Both began their terms in office with high voter approval, and then both disappointed their constituents by being more rightwing than promised.
Have you considered dedicating a book to George Orwell, given your focus on language lies?
They persuaded the mayor of Binghamtom NY to put an LED sign on City Hall with the local cost of war. My own mayor seems to not have the nerve.
Check out my piece: “Is America Hooked on War” which, adapted, begins my new book, The American Way of War. Here’s the first paragraph. You’ll see the relevance:
http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/175129
“War is peace” was one of the memorable slogans on the facade of the Ministry of Truth, Minitrue in “Newspeak,” the language invented by George Orwell in 1948 for his dystopian novel 1984. Some 60 years later, a quarter-century after Orwell’s imagined future bit the dust, the phrase is, in a number of ways, eerily applicable to the United States.
Before we run out of time, can you tell us the words and phrases we should drop first?
My proposal: Stop Calling it DEFENSE!
I totally agree with you, David. I know that I have not personally limited my anti-torture views, and repeatedly link them to U.S. militarist policy, the war crimes committed against Iraq and Afghanistan.
But you are correct about the political views of human rights groups, although I think there are exceptions (like the National Lawyers Guild, or CCR, at least in part).
I don’t know what I think of your idea of a party-independent movement vs a new party (or a reinvigorated Democratic Party, cleared via splits of its most pro-imperialist wing). I think in the end, one has to consider the question of power, and also of defense of such a movement against attacks by the State. Whatever happens, history tends to throw up new forms when need arises, and god knows the need has arisen in 20-21st century America. Perhaps you will be proven correct, or in the end a new party will take its place on the national/world stage, in any case, the direction things are headed now is not good.
To Tom, @146, I agree that the U.S. is following the road of the Soviets… only the U.S. had more capital banked up to play the role of far-flung imperial ruler. The implosion will be fierce, and I don’t wish us to wait until then. The destruction of the Soviet Union, few realize, caused millions of deaths, through disease, poverty, suicide, etc.
See Mass Privatization Linked To Higher Death Rate In Postcommunist Transition (at Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, no less!)
Since we only have 25 minutes left… one last plug…
Check out the review of my book, The American Way of War, that went up today at Mother Jones Magazine – “Dispatches from the Rambo Republic” http://motherjones.com/media/2010/06/tom-engelhardt-america-way-of-war
“In an epilogue [to The American Way of War] wryly titled ‘Premature Withdrawal,’ Engelhardt condemns pundits and strategists who keep the Warspeak machine in motion. ‘What, of course, makes their arguments particularly potent is the fact that they base them almost entirely on things that have yet to happen, that may, in fact, never happen,’ he writes. Engelhardt himself has been working for years to deflate such fantasies on TomDispatch…. In his latest book, as in his daily dispatches, he takes on our war-possessed world with clear-eyed, penetrating precision.”
And what new names should we apply to things like drones, bases, civilians, etc? What SHOULD we call things?
I’d add, stop saying there is a “war on terror”.
Or put another way, let’s return to “defense.” As Andrew Bacevich wrote about 9/11, a major part of the problem was that the “Defense Department” was so involved in projecting power globally that it never bothered to spend much effort thinking about defending our actual shores re: terror…
War is peace was my instant analysis of O’s Nobel PP lecture. It was thinly veiled, the kind of essay a college sophomore would have written on just-war theory.
Thanks. I just needed to vent. I know we’re both on the same page. On the hopeful side, it does feel like a critical mass is building out there in terms of the citizenry and change. On the other side, the political class is so incompetent that they’re running the country into a ditch. Those two realities are getting closer to colliding. The nightmare in the gulf is one manifestation of this trend. I hope when they do collide that the power structure itself has to change.
Of course, the Obama administration has stopped using that phrase entirely. And no wonder, among other things it resulted in one of the worst acronyms in history — GWOT (global war on terror). The problem is that they dumped the phrase, but not “the war.”
Yes absolutely NLG and CCR are exceptions, and of course there are a few exceptional bloggers like you.
What about this approach: create a progressive caucus with its own fundraising that can fund the campaigns of its members when the DCCC defunds them?
good point!
Thanks for that info. It would be helpful if more information about the former Soviet Union – what really happened, esp for the citizens – after the debacle in Afghanistan could be promulgated. Too many US citizens are clueless and have no idea how the same could happen here.
Yes, although it’s always tempting to note that there is a war of terror and fun to say it without being detected or censored.
I wouldn’t oppose renaming it the Offensive Dept., aka OD.
When was the last time the U.S. military did anything that was in the interest of the “small” people in the U.S.?
I hope you’re right. I keep thinking: surely NOW citizens have to wake up, but so far, not much has happened. I will keep doing what I can, though, as I’m sure you will, too.
It’s hard for ordinary citizens to get engaged in antiwar efforts when home prices are plummeting, the repossessor is at the door, and the pink slip came this week. All sop for the Shock Doctrine.
You know, one of the strange things in the Soviet War, something I’ll turn to soon, I think at TomDispatch.com, is that the Soviet leadership wanted to get out of Afghanistan for years and yet they couldn’t bring themselves to do it. From 1986 on — about 6 years in — they wanted out. But fretted about a “stable” Afghanistan etc. Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev called it “the bleeding wound,” but still they didn’t leave. It’s an eerie lesson for the Obama administration. If and when they decide they want out, they still may not be able to bring themselves to do it.
We could create a branch of the “Defense Dept” to deal with actual defense — which is sort of what “Homeland Security” is, but the rest of what the DOD is doign overseas would still make terrorist attacks more likely of course. I prefer to think of defense as including a shift to friendly relations and demilitarization, funding the defense of environment, health, education, etc
Just curious. What do you think, re: Chalmers Johnson, when it comes to stopping the American war machine? Do you see possibilities? You’re so much more engaged on the ground in Washington and elsewhere — admirably so. What’s your assessment?
Actually he gets criticized for talking at the level of a HIGH SCHOOL sophomore, which is too smart for Americans apparently. But if he’d said we were going to move power from BP to real people, he could have said it in Latin and we would have understood.
This is true enough… but the phenomenon precedes the 2008 economic collapse…
Thanks for that info. I do remember that now. And yes: quite the eerie reminder. I assume that there has to be some point of critical mass where, the US taxpayers just can’t squeeze out more tax dollars to keep paying for this insanity… even IF they rip off Soc Sec and Medicare. There has to be an end-point somewhere, and it ain’t gonna be pretty.
Up thru Bush I, they used to do these smaller wars – as in the first Gulf War or Grenada (wtf was that about anyway). But Bush the younger certainly took it all to another level. And Obama appears to be on the same demented path.
Thanks for reminding about that. Also, even after the Soviets left, they supported their puppet for years afterward. And the U.S. didn’t drop Afghanistan like a hot potato after the Soviet troops left. The U.S. continued to support covert activities against the Afghan communist-supported govt.
My assessment is glass half full.
This is out of date a bit and more could be added to it:
The tide is turning against war.
We’ve permanently shut down the Army Experience Center!
We’ve kept student information from recruiters in Maryland!
The war escalation supplemental funding has stalled!
The attack on Kandahar has been stalled!
The majority of the public is on our side!
Even our puppet president doesn’t want the war!
Dozens of reports and experts are on our side!
The economic and political crises are on our side!
Torture protesters have been acquitted!
Australians are with us!
The Israeli blockade of Gaza is breaking!
Petraeus has fainted in the face of congressional skepticism!
A congresswoman, under tough pressure from us, just told Petraeus he’s making us less safe!
A reporter asked the President when we’ll get out “and spare us the Bushisms”.
In an unprecedented act, a congressman just asked us to lobby his colleagues against war funding!
80 congressional candidates are opposing war funding!
The Pentagon has been reduced to making up stories about minerals!
U.S. soldiers have been charged with murder!
The International Criminal Court has defied the U.S. and put aggression on the list of offenses to be tried!
Brown Bag Lunch Vigils are growing!
Wikileaks is planning a new Afghanistan video release!
Resolutions against war spending are being passed by political parties, towns, cities, and labor councils.
Cities are putting Cost of War counters on city hall.
The new car smell is wearing off the new emperor, and people are snapping out of their dazed subservience!
WarIsACrime.org has more bloggers and increased traffic on the site, on Facebook and Youtube and (the place to stay up to the minute) Twitter!
Afghanistan War Weekly is posted every week!
The peace movement (this cannot be assumed) is turning against the war escalation funding!
Resources and whiplist are available at http://defundwar.org
Nationalistic competitive spectators can turn to soccer instead of war!
Do You Want to Be Part of This Movement When We Win?
Then join us at:
The US Social Forum
Detroit, June 22-26
Peace of the Action
Washington, D.C., July 4-17
Brown Bag Lunch Vigils
Everywhere, third Wednesday of every month
National Conference to Bring the Troops Home Now
Albany, July 23-25
PDA Grassroots Leadership Conference
Cleveland, July 23-25
Veterans for Peace National Convention
Portland, Maine, August 25-29
The PTB would call those ideas quaint.
Yes, the Department of Homeland Security is one of the stranger organization’s of the post-9/11 era. It is essentially a very ineffective actual Defense Department. In a way, it simply frees the Pentagon to focus elsewhere, as it was doing anyway.
Love it, David…
Amazon page with Tom’s books, all of them excellent and worth getting from your local independent bookstore:
http://tinyurl.com/259ax4e
It wasn’t as though the economy was humming during all of W’s admin. Was one of the slowest econ expansions in the post-WWII period, esp when regarded from labor’s POV. Most of the benefits went into corp profits.
The war essentially lasted three more years after the Soviet military withdrew in defeat.
The best website around (aside from FDL):
http://www.tomdispatch.com
SUBSCRIBE on right side.
Any last points anyone wants to make — or final questions for me? Only a few minutes left. Thanks to all of your for your questions, thoughts… For someone who doesn’t even IM, it’s been a kind of fascinating first experience…
One of my other analogies is that terrorism is like acne: everyone eventually dies of it if they don’t die of something else first and the probability of dying from either is about the same. So take regular precautions (wash your face, watch your diet; harden your targets), get a professional opinion during outbreaks (docs; police, spooks), and take stronger steps when required (antibiotics; police actions).
TomDispatch on Bush’s Third Term: You’re Living It
http://tinyurl.com/ydxpupm
I was ostrasized by pseudo-progressive party-subservient websites for writing this.
Tom edited and posted it.
Thank you for your work and for being here. Peace.
THANKS Tom!
Keep writing!
Keep inspiring!
Keep illuminating!
Stop reading the New York Times!
Looking forward to reading your new book. It’s in my shopping cart! Good luck on the sales and a real pleasure to have you here.
Thanks, Bev… much appreciate…
Thanks Tom.
Thank you for writing it. I have to tread carefully with my Democratic/lefite friends, or they either get very angry with me or think that I’ve finally gone right round the twist. Good post.
And you’ll be back at TomDispatch this summer! For sure… you’re one of the more striking writers/activists around. I’m staggered both by your output and the quality of the writing! If you have a chance, go to David’s site, WarisaCrime.org http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/ and check it out!
As we come to the end of this lively Book Salon,
Tom, Thank you for stopping by the Lake and spending the afternoon with us discussing your new book and the wars.
David, Thank you very much for Hosting this outstanding Book Salon.
Everyone, if you would like more information:
Tom’s website – http://www.tomdispatch.com/
David’s website – http://davidswanson.org/
Thanks all,
Hope it provokes you. Much appreciated!
My problem with progressive caucuses is that in the end they are weighted down by the pressures exerted by the party apparatus as a whole. Totally different funding streams (assuming a progressive caucus could find an adequate-enough stream) would only prefigure the transition to separate party organizations. Of course, not always. Instead, as in cases where organizational differences did arise, as in the case of the Mississippi Freedom Democratic Party in the 1960s, the opposition is ultimately merged back into the party as a whole, and made irrelevant, while many found the MFDP a transmission belt out of mainstream politics and into the then forming new parties of the New Left and nationalist groupings. The devolution of the New Left, the Old Left, and the various nationalist and radical feminist movements of that era are worth studying, not because they offer a deterministic foreshadowing of the fate of any movement today, but so we can possibly avoid the mistakes of the past.
Thanks so much, Tom. It was good to have the “conversation” today, and you did well for someone not used to it (as you indicated earlier). I have added your website to my favorites list and will definitely stay tuned. And I plan to read your books (some look good Christmas gifts). Keep on blogging and writing!
Great! Thanks for the websites. Excellent conversation today. Thanks to all who joined in; I learned a lot.
Thanks Tom, David, Bev, and varied commenters, for a very interesting Book Salon.
And thanks, Jeff, for coming and “chatting.”
Thank you, Tom, for the considerations you raise for the rest of us.
One hopes that the nation will have the wisdom to heed your cautions, eventually, as it might well make the world a better place were America not convinced that it is “our” role to control the world. It makes no sense, only dollars … for a few.
Namaste.
DW
and let me add my appreciation of how an exchange of different points of view really added to this experience.
If you go to Amazon from Tom’s website, Tom will get a slice of it.
Athenae is upstairs!
It’s Always The Hippies’ Fault, Somehow
We could have had bomb bomb mc war and now have all that oil in Iran. $$$$$$$$$$$
Americans we are a corrupt and imperialist nation and corp fascism loves to use patriotism and nationalism to con the masses for their wars for profits.
The southern folks even raise their children and call them heroes for fighting in our wars for profits. Brilliant but corrupt use of patriotism and nationalism by the industrial war machine for maintaining our wars for profits. The low IQ’s line up to volunteer for these corp fascists.
corp fascism now owns congress, white house, supreme court, media, industrial military complex, and soon most of lower court federal judges and of course the southern states.
Do you think the Germans and the Japanese knew they were imperialists? They fought to almost the last man to protect their imperialist nations.
Now we won’t be bombed out but we will have an economic meltdown. This economic meltdown is the only thing that will stop our imperialism. It is occurring now and called a bad recession which most Americans believe but not all Americans.
Next on the agenda of the wars for profits corp fascist machine is Iran. Mark my word on that one. We will get involved in their upcoming civil war. CIA involved now in secret.
Give credit where credit is due the corp fascists are ten times smarter than most Americans.
As the history of the world has shown those with the wealth make the rules and the rules they make, make them richer at the expense of the many.
The future of America’s experiment with capitalism: third world status. Remember Ike warned us way back in 1961 but few listened.
Capitalism and imperialism go hand and hand, can’t have one without the other. Only those that understand the system’s influence on human behavior will understand my words.
The purer the form of capitalism the faster the coming of third world status.
Have a nice day
.
I’m sorry you got dragged into this. My original reply was to David Swanson at 17. Hit Reply to the wrong comment. Couldn’t figure out what you were doing until I went back to the comment that started this exchange.
Englehart rocks, love that man’s works over the years.
I hope the book salon went well, and Pups were joyful at his appearance here.
Cuz it’s a major coup, AFAIK. Tom’s a hoss, and has been for a long time, thru AW dot com, where I first discovered him pre Iraq Invasion.
. .