Monday, May 08, 2017
What Obsessing About
You-Know-Who Causes Us To Miss
Twenty-four key issues that neither the Washington elite nor the
media consider worth their bother
Donald Trump's election has elicited impassioned affirmations of
a renewed commitment to unvarnished truth-telling from the prestige
media. The common theme: you know you can’t trust him,
but trust us to keep dogging him on your behalf.
The New York Times has even unveiled a portentous new
promotional slogan: “The truth is now more important than
ever.” For its part, the Washington Post grimly warns that “democracy dies in
darkness,” and is offering itself as a source of illumination now that the
rotund figure of the 45th president has produced the political equivalent of a
total eclipse of the sun. Meanwhile, National Public Radio fundraising
campaigns are sounding an increasingly panicky note: give, listener, lest you be
personally responsible for the demise of the Republic that we are bravely
fighting to save from extinction.
If only it were so. How wonderful it would be if President
Trump’s ascendancy had coincided with a revival of hard-hitting, deep-dive,
no-holds-barred American journalism. Alas, that’s hardly the case.
True, the big media outlets are demonstrating both energy and enterprise in
exposing the ineptitude, inconsistency, and dubious ethical standards, as well
as outright lies and fake news, that are already emerging as Trump era
signatures. That said, pointing out that the president has (again)
uttered a falsehood, claimed credit for a nonexistent achievement, or abandoned
some position to which he had previously sworn fealty requires something less
than the sleuthing talents of a Sherlock Holmes. As for beating up on
poor Sean Spicer for his latest sequence of gaffes -- well, that’s more akin to
sadism than reporting.
Apart from a commendable determination to discomfit Trump and
members of his inner circle (select military figures excepted, at least for
now), journalism remains pretty much what it was prior to November 8th of last
year: personalities built up only to be torn down; fads and novelties
discovered, celebrated, then mocked; “extraordinary” stories of ordinary people
granted 15 seconds of fame only to once again be consigned to oblivion -- all
served with a side dish of that day’s quota of suffering, devastation, and carnage.
These remain journalism’s stock-in-trade. As practiced in the United
States, with certain honorable (and hence unprofitable) exceptions, journalism
remains superficial, voyeuristic, and governed by the attention span of a two
year old.
As a result, all those editors, reporters, columnists, and
talking heads who characterize their labors as “now more important than ever”
ill-serve the public they profess to inform and enlighten. Rather than
clearing the air, they befog it further. If anything, the media’s current
obsession with Donald Trump -- his every utterance or tweet treated as
“breaking news!” -- just provides one additional excuse for highlighting
trivia, while slighting issues that deserve far more attention than they
currently receive.
To illustrate the point, let me cite some examples of national
security issues that presently receive short shrift or are ignored altogether
by those parts of the Fourth Estate said to help set the nation’s political
agenda. To put it another way: Hey, Big Media, here are two dozen mattersto
which you’re not giving faintly adequate thought and attention.
1. Accomplishing the “mission”: Since the immediate
aftermath of World War II, the United States has been committed to defending
key allies in Europe and East Asia. Not long thereafter, U.S. security
guarantees were extended to the Middle East as well. Under what
circumstances can Americans expect nations in these regions to assume
responsibility for managing their own affairs? To put it another way,
when (if ever) might U.S. forces actually come home? And if it is
incumbent upon the United States to police vast swaths of the planet in
perpetuity, how should momentous changes in the international order -- the rise
of China, for example, or accelerating climate change -- affect the U.S.
approach to doing so?
2. American military supremacy: The United States
military is undoubtedly the world’s finest. It’s also far and away
the most generously funded, with policymakers
offering U.S. troops no shortage of opportunities to practice their
craft. So why doesn’t this great military ever win anything? Or put
another way, why in recent decades have those forces been unable to accomplish
Washington’s stated wartime objectives? Why has the now 15-year-old war
on terror failed to result in even a single real success anywhere in the
Greater Middle East? Could it be that we’ve taken the wrong
approach? What should we be doing differently?
3. America’s empire of bases: The U.S. military
today garrisons the planet in a fashion without
historical precedent. Successive administrations, regardless of party,
justify and perpetuate this policy by insisting that positioning U.S. forces in
distant lands fosters peace, stability, and security. In the present
century, however, perpetuating this practice has visibly had the opposite
effect. In the eyes of many of those called upon to “host” American
bases, the permanent presence of such forces smacks of occupation. They
resist. Why should U.S. policymakers expect otherwise?
4. Supporting the troops: In present-day America,
expressing reverence for those who serve in uniform is something akin to a
religious obligation. Everyone professes to cherish America’s “warriors.” Yet such
bountiful, if superficial, expressions of regard camouflage a growing gap between those
who serve and those who applaud from the sidelines. Our present-day military
system, based on the misnamed All-Volunteer Force, is neither democratic nor
effective. Why has discussion and debate about its deficiencies not found
a place among the nation’s political priorities?
5. Prerogatives of the commander-in-chief: Are there
any military actions that the president of the United States may not order on
his own authority? If so, what are they? Bit by bit, decade by
decade, Congress has abdicated its assigned role in
authorizing war. Today, it merely rubberstamps what presidents decide to do (or
simply stays mum). Who does this deference to
an imperial presidency benefit? Have U.S. policies thereby become more
prudent, enlightened, and successful?
6. Assassin-in-chief: A policy of assassination,
secretly implemented under the aegis of the CIA during the early Cold War,
yielded few substantive successes. When the secrets were revealed,
however, the U.S. government suffered considerable embarrassment, so much so that
presidents foreswore politically motivated murder.
After 9/11, however, Washington returned to the assassination business in a big
way and on a global scale, using drones. Today, the only secret is the
sequence of names on the current presidential hit list, euphemistically known as the White
House “disposition matrix.” But does assassination actually advance U.S.
interests (or does it merely recruit replacements for the terrorists it
liquidates)? How can we measure its costs, whether direct or
indirect? What dangers and vulnerabilities does this practice invite?
7. The war formerly known as the “Global War on
Terrorism”: What precisely is Washington’s present strategy for defeating
violent jihadism? What sequence of planned actions or steps is expected
to yield success? If no such strategy exists, why is that the case? How
is it that the absence of strategy -- not to mention an agreed upon definition
of “success” -- doesn’t even qualify for discussion here?
8. The campaign formerly known as Operation Enduring
Freedom: The conflict commonly referred to as the Afghanistan War is now
the longest in U.S. history -- having lasted
longer than the Civil War, World War I, and World War II combined. What is the
Pentagon’s plan for concluding that conflict? When might Americans expect
it to end? On what terms?
9. The Gulf: Americans once believed that their
prosperity and way of life depended on having assured access to Persian Gulf
oil. Today, that is no longer the case. The United States is once
more an oil exporter. Available and accessible
reserves of oil and natural gas in North America are far greater than was once believed. Yet the assumption that the
Persian Gulf still qualifies as crucial to American national security persists
in Washington. Why?
10. Hyping terrorism: Each year terrorist attacks kill far fewer
Americans than do auto accidents, drug
overdoses, or even lightning strikes. Yet in the allocation
of government resources, preventing terrorist attacks takes precedence over
preventing all three of the others combined. Why is that?
11. Deaths that matter
and deaths that don’t: Why do terrorist attacks that kill a handful of
Europeans command infinitely more American attention than do terrorist attacks
that kill far larger numbers of Arabs? A terrorist attack that kills citizens
of France or Belgium elicits from the United States heartfelt expressions of
sympathy and solidarity. A terrorist attack that kills Egyptians or
Iraqis elicits shrugs. Why the difference? To what extent does race
provide the answer to that question?
12. Israeli nukes: What purpose is served by
indulging the pretense that Israel does not have
nuclear weapons?
13. Peace in the Holy Land: What purpose is served
by indulging illusions that a “two-state
solution” offers a plausible resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict?
As remorselessly as white settlers once encroached upon territory
inhabited by Native American tribes, Israeli settlers expand their presence in the occupied territories
year by year. As they do, the likelihood of creating a viable Palestinian
state becomes ever more improbable. To pretend otherwise is the equivalent of
thinking that one day President Trump might prefer the rusticity of Camp David
to the glitz of Mar-a-Lago.
14. Merchandizing death: When it comes to arms
sales, there is no need to Make America Great Again. The U.S. ranks number one by a comfortable margin, with
long-time allies Saudi Arabia and Israel leading recipients of those
arms. Each year, the Saudis (per capita gross domestic product $20,000)
purchase hundreds of millions of dollars of U.S. weapons. Israel (per
capita gross domestic product $38,000) gets several billion dollars worth of
such weaponry annually courtesy of the American taxpayer. If the Saudis
pay for U.S. arms, why shouldn’t the Israelis? They can certainly afford to do
so.
15. Our friends the Saudis (I): Fifteen of the 19
hijackers on September 11, 2001, were Saudis. What does that fact
signify?
16. Our friends the Saudis (II): If indeed Saudi
Arabia and Iran are competing to determine which nation will
enjoy the upper hand in the Persian Gulf, why should the United States favor
Saudi Arabia? In what sense do Saudi values align more closely with
American values than do Iranian ones?
17. Our friends the Pakistanis: Pakistan behaves
like a rogue state. It is a nuclear weapons proliferator. It supports the Taliban. For years, it
provided sanctuary to Osama bin Laden. Yet U.S. policymakers treat
Pakistan as if it were an ally. Why? In what ways do U.S. and
Pakistani interests or values coincide? If there are none, why not say
so?
18. Free-loading Europeans: Why can’t Europe, “whole
and free,” its population and economy considerably larger than
Russia’s, defend itself? It’s altogether commendable that U.S.
policymakers should express support for Polish independence and root for the
Baltic republics. But how does it make sense for the United States to
care more about the wellbeing of people living in Eastern Europe than do people
living in Western Europe?
19. The mother of all “special relationships”: The
United States and the United Kingdom have a “special relationship” dating from
the days of Franklin Roosevelt and Winston Churchill. Apart from keeping
the Public Broadcasting Service supplied with costume dramas and stories
featuring eccentric detectives, what is the rationale for that partnership
today? Why should U.S. relations with Great Britain, a fading power, be
any more “special” than its relations with a rising power like India? Why
should the bonds connecting Americans and Britons be any more intimate than
those connecting Americans and Mexicans? Why does a republic now approaching
the 241st anniversary of its independence still need a “mother country”?
20. The old nuclear disarmament razzmatazz: American
presidents routinely cite their hope for the worldwide elimination of nuclear
weapons. Yet the U.S. maintains nuclear strike forces on full alert, has
embarked on a costly and comprehensive trillion-dollar modernization of its nuclear arsenal, and
even refuses to adopt a no-first-use posture when it comes to nuclear
war. The truth is that the United States will consider surrendering its
nukes only after every other nation on the planet has done so first. How
does American nuclear hypocrisy affect the prospects for global nuclear
disarmament or even simply for the non-proliferation of such weaponry?
21. Double standards (I): American policymakers take
it for granted that their country’s sphere of influence is global, which, in
turn, provides the rationale for the deployment of U.S. military forces
to scores of countries. Yet when it
comes to nations like China, Russia, or Iran, Washington takes the position
that spheres of influence are obsolete and a concept that should no
longer be applicable to the practice of statecraft. So Chinese, Russian,
and Iranian forces should remain where they belong -- in China, Russia, and
Iran. To stray beyond that constitutes a provocation, as well as a threat
to global peace and order. Why should these other nations play by
American rules? Why shouldn’t similar rules apply to the United States?
22. Double standards (II): Washington claims that it
supports and upholds international law. Yet when international law gets
in the way of what American policymakers want to do, they disregard it.
They start wars, violate the sovereignty of other nations, and authorize agents
of the United States to kidnap, imprison, torture, and kill. They do
these things with impunity, only forced to reverse their actions on the rare occasions when U.S. courts find them
illegal. Why should other powers treat international norms as sacrosanct
since the United States does so only when convenient?
23. Double standards (III): The United States
condemns the indiscriminate killing of civilians in wartime. Yet over the
last three-quarters of a century, it killed civilians regularly and often on a
massive scale. By what logic, since the 1940s, has the killing of
Germans, Japanese, Koreans, Vietnamese, Laotians, Cambodians, Afghans, and
others by U.S. air power been any less reprehensible than the Syrian
government’s use of “barrel bombs” to kill Syrians today? On what basis
should Americans accept Pentagon claims that, when civilians are killed
these days by U.S. forces, the acts are invariably accidental, whereas Syrian forces
kill civilians intentionally and out of malice? Why exclude incompetence
or the fog of war as explanations? And why, for instance, does the United
States regularly gloss over or ignore altogether the noncombatants that Saudi forces
(with U.S. assistance) are routinely killing in
Yemen?
24. Moral obligations: When confronted with some
egregious violation of human rights, members of the chattering classes
frequently express an urge for the United States to “do something.”
Holocaust analogies sprout like dandelions. Newspaper columnists
recycle copy first used when Cambodians were slaughtering other Cambodians en
masse or whenever Hutus and Tutsis went at it. Proponents of action --
typically advocating military intervention -- argue that the United States has
a moral obligation to aid those victimized by injustice or cruelty anywhere on
Earth. But what determines the pecking order of such moral
obligations? Which comes first, a responsibility to redress the crimes of
others or a responsibility to redress crimes committed by Americans? Who
has a greater claim to U.S. assistance, Syrians suffering today under the boot
of Bashar al-Assad or Iraqis, their country shattered by the U.S. invasion of
2003? Where do the Vietnamese fit into the queue? How about the
Filipinos, brutally denied independence and forcibly incorporated into an
American empire as the nineteenth century ended? Or African-Americans,
whose ancestors were imported as slaves? Or, for that matter,
dispossessed and disinherited Native Americans? Is there a statute of
limitations that applies to moral obligations? And if not, shouldn’t
those who have waited longest for justice or reparations receive priority
attention?
Let me suggest that any one of these two dozen issues -- none
seriously covered, discussed, or debated in the American media or in the
political mainstream -- bears more directly on the wellbeing of the United
States and our prospects for avoiding global conflict than anything Donald
Trump may have said or done during his first 100 days as president.
Collectively, they define the core of the national security challenges that
presently confront this country, even as they languish on the periphery of
American politics.
How much
damage Donald Trump’s presidency wreaks before it ends remains to be
seen. Yet he himself is a transient phenomenon. To allow his
pratfalls and shenanigans to divert attention from matters sure to persist when
he finally departs the stage is to make a grievous error. It may well be
that, as the Times insists, the truth is now more important
than ever. If so, finding the truth requires looking in the right places
and asking the right questions. © 2017 TomDispatch.com
Andrew J.
Bacevich, a professor of history and international relations at
Boston University, is the author of America’s War
for the Greater Middle East: A Military History, which
has just been published by Random House. He is also editor of the
book, The Short
American Century (Harvard Univ. Press), and
author of several others, including: Breach of Trust:
How Americans Failed Their Soldiers and Their Country (American Empire Project);Washington
Rules: America’s Path to Permanent War, The New American
Militarism: How Americans Are Seduced by War, The Limits of
Power: The End of American Exceptionalism (American Empire Project), and The Long War: A
New History of U.S. National Security Policy Since World War II.
Donations can be sent
to the Baltimore Nonviolence Center, 325 E. 25th St., Baltimore, MD
21218. Ph: 410-323-1607; Email: mobuszewski [at] verizon.net. Go to http://baltimorenonviolencecenter.blogspot.com/
"The master class
has always declared the wars; the subject class has always fought the battles.
The master class has had all to gain and nothing to lose, while the subject
class has had nothing to gain and everything to lose--especially their lives."
Eugene Victor Debs
No comments:
Post a Comment