permenant war

[Enforcer Talen]

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f ... 245802.DTL

ALL WAR ALL THE TIME
The battle on terrorism is an excuse to make fighting permanent

Robert Higgs Sunday, July 6, 2003

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



I'll concede that having a permanent war might seem an odd thing to want, but let's put aside the "why" question for the time being, accepting that you wouldn't want it unless you stood to gain something important from it. If, however, for reasons you found adequate, you did want to have a permanent war, what would you need in order to make such a policy viable in a democratic society such as the United States?

First, you would need that society to have a dominant ideology -- a widely shared belief system about social and political relations -- within which having a permanent war seems to be a desirable policy, given the ideology's own content and the pertinent facts accepted by its adherents. Something like American jingo-patriotism cum anti-communism might turn the trick.

It worked pretty well during the nearly half-century of the Cold War. The beauty of anti-communism as a covering ideology was that it could serve to justify a wide variety of politically expedient actions both here and abroad. The Commies, you'll recall, were everywhere: not just in Moscow and Sevastopol,

but maybe in Minneapolis and San Francisco. We had to stay alert; we could never let down our guard, anywhere.

Second, you would need periodic crises, because without them the public becomes complacent, unafraid, and hence unwilling to bear the heavy burdens that they must bear if the government is to carry on a permanent war. As Sen. Arthur Vandenberg told Harry Truman in 1947 at the outset of the Cold War, gaining public support for a perpetual global campaign requires that the government "scare hell out of the American people."

Each crisis piques the people's insecurities and renders them once again disposed to pay the designated price, whether it takes the form of their treasure, their liberties or their young people's blood. Something like the (alleged) missile gap, the (alleged) Gulf of Tonkin attacks on U.S. naval vessels, or the (actual!) hostage-taking at the U.S. Embassy in Tehran will do nicely, at least for a while. Crises by their very nature eventually recede, and new ones must come along -- or be made to come along -- to serve the current need.

Third, you would need some politically powerful groups whose members stand to gain substantially from a permanent war in terms of achieving their urgent personal and group objectives. Call me crass, but I've noticed that few people will stay engaged for long unless there's "something in it for them."

During the Cold War, the conglomeration of personally interested parties consisted of those who form the military-industrial-congressional complex. The generals and admirals thrived by commanding a large armed force sustained by a lavish budget. The big defense contractors enjoyed ample returns at minimal risk (because they could expect that, should they screw up too royally, a bailout would be forthcoming). Members of Congress who belonged to the military oversight and appropriations committees could parlay their positions into campaign contributions and various sorts of income in kind.

Presiding over the entire complex, of course, the president, his National Security Council, and their many subordinates, advisers, consultants, and hangers-on enjoyed the political advantages associated with control of a great nation's diplomatic and military affairs -- not to speak of the sheer joy that certain people get from wielding or influencing great power.

No conspiracy here, of course, just a lot of people fitting into their niches, doing well while proclaiming that they were doing good (recall the ideology and the crisis elements). All seeking only to serve the common public interest. Absolutely.

The foregoing observations have been widely accepted by several generations of students of the Cold War. Yet now, you may protest, the Cold War is over, the USSR nonexistent, the menace of communism kaput. Under post-Cold War conditions, how can we have a permanent war? Well, all we need to do is to replace the missing piece.

If the ideology of anti-communism can no longer serve to justify a permanent war, let us put in its place the overarching rationale of a "war on terrorism." In fact, this substitution of what President Bush repeatedly calls "a new kind of war" amounts to an improvement for the leading actors, because whereas the Cold War could not be sustained once the USSR had imploded and international communism had toppled into the dustbin of history, a war on terrorism, with all its associated benefits, can go on forever.

After all, so long as the president says he has intelligence information to the effect that "they" are still out there conspiring to kill us all, who are we to dispute that the threat exists and must be met? The smoke had scarcely cleared at Ground Zero when Vice President Dick Cheney declared on Oct. 19, 2001, that the war on terrorism "may never end. It's the new normalcy."

Just as during the Cold War hardly any American ever laid eyes on an honest- to-God Commie, although nearly everybody believed that the Commies were lurking far and wide, so now we may all suppose that anyone, anywhere might be a lethal terrorist in possession of a suitcase nuke or a jug of anthrax spores.

Indeed, current airport-security measures are premised on precisely such a belief -- otherwise it makes no sense to strip-search Grandma at Dulles International Airport.

Potential terrorists are "out there," no doubt, in the wonderful world of Islam, an arc that stretches from Morocco across North Africa, the Middle East,

and Southwest Asia to Malaysia, Indonesia and Mindanao, not to mention London,

Amsterdam and Hamburg. And that's good, because it means that U.S. leaders must bring the entire outside world into compliance with their stipulated rules of engagement for the war on terrorism. It's a fine thing to dominate the world, an even finer thing to do so righteously.

Better yet, the potential omnipresence of the terrorists justifies U.S. leaders in their efforts to supercharge the surveillance-and-police state here at home, with the USA Patriot Act, the revival of the FBI's COINTELPRO activities, and all the rest. Adios, Bill of Rights. The merest babe should understand that these new powers will be turned to other political purposes that have nothing whatever to do with terrorism. Indeed, they have been already. As the New York Times reported on May 5, "The Justice Department has begun using its expanded counterterrorism powers to seize millions of dollars from foreign banks that do business in the United States" and "most of the seizures have involved fraud and money-laundering investigations unrelated to terrorism."

The war-on-terrorism rationale has proved congenial to the American public, who have swallowed bogus government assurances that the so-called war is making them more secure. Much of this acceptance springs, no doubt, from the shock that many Americans experienced when the terrorist attacks of September 11 proved so devastating. Ever alert, the president's national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, asked the National Security Council immediately afterward "to think seriously about "how you capitalize on these opportunities" to fundamentally change American doctrine and the shape of the world in the wake of September 11.

The president's most powerful and influential subordinates -- Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz and their coterie -- then set in motion a series of actions (and a flood of disinformation) to seize the day, measures that culminated in the military invasion and conquest first of Afghanistan and then of Iraq, among many other things.

Likewise, the military component of the military-industrial complex has entered into fat city. During fiscal year 2000, before Bush had taken office, Department of Defense outlays amounted to $281 billion. Just four years later, assuming that Congress gives the president what he has requested for fiscal year 2004, the department's budget will be at least $399 billion -- an increase of 42 percent.

No wonder the generals and admirals are dancing in the corridors at the Pentagon: all this loot, and wartime citations and promotions to boot!

The flush times for the officer corps have spilled over handsomely onto the big arms contractors, whose share prices have been bucking the trend of the continuing stock-market meltdown nicely during the past couple of years. With only a single exception, all the major weapons systems have survived funding threats, and their manufacturers can look forward to decades of well-paid repose as they supply models B, C, D, and so forth, as well as all the remunerative maintenance and repairs, operational training, software upgrades, and related goods and services for their Cold War-type weaponry in search of an suitable enemy. In the immortal words of Boeing vice president Harry Stonecipher, "The purse is now open."

Amid the all-around rejoicing, however, the power elite appreciate that nearly two years have elapsed since Sept. 11, 2001, and the public's panic has begun to subside. That won't do. Accordingly, earlier this month, the government released a report that there is a "high probability" of an al Qaeda attack with a weapon of mass destruction in the next two years.

So there you have it: The war on terrorism -- the new permanent war -- is a winner. The president loves it. The military brass loves it. The bigwigs at Boeing and Lockheed love it. We all love it.

Except, perhaps, that odd citizen who wonders whether, all things considered, having a permanent war is truly a good idea for the beleaguered U. S. economy and for the liberties of the American people.

Robert Higgs is senior fellow at the Independent Institute. His books include "Crisis and Leviathan" and "Arms, Politics and the Economy."

[Joe]

All I can day is, thank heavens that people like this were not in power during the Cold War.

[Bob McDob]

It's all the old Clauswitzian ideals. War is good for the state, war furthers the aims of the state, war makes states strong. War is where a boy becomes a man. War is where heroism and the nobility of the human spirit come through. War will record and glorify the victors, carrying them on wings towards Valhalla.

Hail Caeser.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

The idea postulated here is different than accusation, really, of a creation of a state of Perpetual War as a philosophical ideal, but more rather essentially accusing the USA of being some sort of conquest empire which sustains itself on military conflict. A simple look at our economic organization can see that this is not so and that we are a trading hegemon, dismissing the article's accusations as totally irrelevant.

[RedImperator]

The idea postulated here is different than accusation, really, of a creation of a state of Perpetual War as a philosophical ideal, but more rather essentially accusing the USA of being some sort of conquest empire which sustains itself on military conflict. A simple look at our economic organization can see that this is not so and that we are a trading hegemon, dismissing the article's accusations as totally irrelevant.

That's Marina-speak for "He's totally full of shit", right?

[Enforcer Talen]

yep.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

That's Marina-speak for "He's totally full of shit", right?

The article suggests that, somehow or another, we're operating like a conquest empire--we need war to sustain the functioning institutions of our society. That's BS. The last conquest empire was the Spanish Empire in the New World and it collapsed by the early 19th century. The Ottomans were slightly before them and managed to cling around until the 20th century. They made a literal profit off war by knocking off smaller countries and stealing stuff from them. That was also when Gold was more than a commodity but a currency (*snickers*).

Now, ah, when exactly have we done this? Well, I suppose it could be argued that we're going to do something like it in Iraq. But are we literally pumping oil out of the country for free? No. Okay, then it could only be vaguely similiar. Are we not putting money back into the country? No. In fact, the oil money won't even pay for the reconstruction... Hrmm.

Okay, then we have to go to Possibility Two: This is just a Cargo-Cult Quasi-Marxist Economic Dumbfuck theorist. He thinks that the USA is a shadowy quasi-Imperialist power which engineers wars to set up economic situations in foreign countries where we can exploit their wealth to our advantage through a system of local elites, and that this oppression of the Third World is what keeps the glorious marxist revolution from overcoming the First by bringing prosperity to us. So of course we need to make sure that we're constantly oppressing the third world and bringing in more profit and keeping the creaking system of capitalism afloat.

The problem, of course, is that Goods Need A Market. First world makes something, it has to be sold somewhere. If we're taking in all of the material wealth of the Third World for production then where does it go? The reality is that it's not concentrated in the First World to make the Military-Industrial complex and keep the workers from getting angry and revolting and fulfilling the dialectic; a lot goes back to the third world as part of the network of trade which actually does exist. And, oh, it becomes more complex when you realize that so many manufacturing goods are made in the third world now that one could almost argue that the reverse scenario is starting to occur--except, of course, that the third world has no military power to oppress us, and, oh, they're also not the Evil Western Civilization.

[Peregrin Toker]

That's Marina-speak for "He's totally full of shit", right?

The article suggests that, somehow or another, we're operating like a conquest empire--we need war to sustain the functioning institutions of our society. That's BS.

Well, while I don't see it as the USA "needing war" to sustain itself, the world's geopolitical structure requires some nations to be more powerful than other.

And while a nation doesn't necessarily need wars to exist, a superpower sometimes needs to keep itself on top by keeping other nations from achieving as much power as itself. The USA does this by assuring that the 2nd largest navy in the world always only is half the size of the US Navy.

(OK, feel free to call me a Machiavellist. Maybe I've just listened too much to my history teacher. )

[Einhander Sn0m4n]

I'll sum up my feelings with this. It describes my feelings to a T.

[RedImperator]

I'll sum up my feelings with this. It describes my feelings to a T.

Their knowledge of the Federal budget is limited. That is to say, they don't know what the fuck they're talking about. More of your taxes go into keeping the old folks in Atlantic City money than the military.

[Einhander Sn0m4n]

I'll sum up my feelings with this. It describes my feelings to a T.

Their knowledge of the Federal budget is limited. That is to say, they don't know what the fuck they're talking about. More of your taxes go into keeping the old folks in Atlantic City money than the military.

Agh, that figgerz. Maybe it was a bad example then.

[Iceberg]

That's Marina-speak for "He's totally full of shit", right?

The article suggests that, somehow or another, we're operating like a conquest empire--we need war to sustain the functioning institutions of our society. That's BS.

Well, while I don't see it as the USA "needing war" to sustain itself, the world's geopolitical structure requires some nations to be more powerful than other.

And while a nation doesn't necessarily need wars to exist, a superpower sometimes needs to keep itself on top by keeping other nations from achieving as much power as itself. The USA does this by assuring that the 2nd largest navy in the world always only is half the size of the US Navy.

(OK, feel free to call me a Machiavellist. Maybe I've just listened too much to my history teacher. )

And by making sure our carrier force is the size of the carrier forces of the entire rest of the world, combined.

[Bob McDob]

The US has like twelve times the carrier forces of the rest of the world, combined.

[StarshipTitanic]

Where are some numbers on the carriers of countries equiped with any? I can't seem to find a simple table or something.

[Knife]

The idea postulated here is different than accusation, really, of a creation of a state of Perpetual War as a philosophical ideal, but more rather essentially accusing the USA of being some sort of conquest empire which sustains itself on military conflict. A simple look at our economic organization can see that this is not so and that we are a trading hegemon, dismissing the article's accusations as totally irrelevant.

You go girl.