http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20080505_the_pentagon_vs_america/
May 5, 2008
By Scott Ritter
I recently heard from an anti-war student I met while I was speaking
at a college in northern Vermont. The e-mail included the following query:
"I told you about how I wanted to build a career around social
activism and making a difference. You told me that one of the most
important things was to make myself reputable and give people a
reason to listen to you. I think this is some of the best advice I've
received. My issue however is that you mentioned joining the military
as a way to do this and mentioned how that is how you fell into it.
... We talked extensively about all of our criticisms of the military
currently and our foreign policy. ... What I don't understand is, how
can you [advise] someone who wants to make a difference with the
flawed system, to join that flawed system?"
The question is a valid one. Throughout my travels in the United
States, where I interact with people from progressive anti-war
groups, I am often confronted with the seeming contradiction of my
position. I rail against the war in Iraq (and the potential of war
with Iran) and yet embrace, at times enthusiastically, the notion of
military service. It gets even more difficult to absorb, at least on
the surface, when I simultaneously advocate counter-recruitment as
well as support for those who seek to join the armed services.
The notion that the military and citizens of conscience should be at
odds is a critical problem for our nation. That confrontation only
exacerbates the problems of the soldier and the citizen, and must be
properly understood if it is to be defeated. Let us start by
constructing a framework in which my positions can be better assessed.
First and foremost, I do not view military service as an obligation
of citizenship. I do view military service as an act of good
citizenship, but it can under no circumstance be used as a litmus
test for patriotism. There are many ways in which one can serve his
or her nation; the military is but one. I am a big believer in the
all-volunteer military. For one thing, the professional fighting
force is far more effective and efficient than any conscript force
could ever be.
There are those who argue that a draft would level the playing field,
spreading the burdens and responsibilities associated with a standing
military force more evenly among the population. Those citizens
whose lives would be impacted through war (namely those of draft age
and their immediate relatives) would presumably be less inclined to
support war.
Conversely, the argument goes, with an all-volunteer professional
force, the burden of sacrifice is limited to that segment of society
which is engaged in the fighting, real or potential. Two points
emerge: First, the majority of society not immediately impacted by
the sacrifices of conflict will remain distant from the reality of
war. Second, even when the costs of conflict become discernable to
the withdrawn population, the fact that the sacrifice is being
absorbed by those who willingly volunteered somehow lessens any moral outcry.
I will submit that these are valid observations, and indeed have been
borne out in America's response to the Iraq war tragedy. However,
simply because something exists doesn't make it right. The collective
response to the Iraq war on the part of the American people is not a
result of there not being a draft, but rather poor citizenship. An
engaged citizenry would not only find sufficient qualified volunteers
to fill the ranks of our military, but would also personally identify
with all those who served so that the loss of one was felt by all.
The fact that many Americans today view the all-volunteer force not
so much as an extension of themselves, but more along the lines of a
"legion" of professionals removed from society, illustrates the
yawning gap that exists between we the people and those we ask to defend us.
Narrowing this gap is not something that can be accomplished simply
through legislation. Reinstating the draft is illusory in this
regard. There is a more fundamental obstacle to the reunion of our
society and those who take an oath in the military to uphold and
defend the Constitution. Void of this bond, the inherent differences
of civilian and military life will serve to drive a wedge between the
two, regardless of whether the military force is drafted or volunteer.
Lacking a common understanding of the foundational principles upon
which the nation was built, a citizenry will grow to view military
service as an imposition, as opposed to an obligation. Simply put,
one cannot willingly defend that which one does not know and
understand. The fundamental ignorance that exists in America today
about the Constitution creates the conditions which foster the divide
between citizen and soldier that permeates society today. America
must take ownership of its military, not simply by footing the bill,
but by assuming a moral responsibility for every aspect of military
service. The vehicle for doing this has been well established through
the Constitution: the legislative branch of government, the Congress,
which serves to represent the will of the people.
Congress, especially the House of Representatives, was never
conceived of as separate and distinct from the people, but rather as
one with the people, directly derived from their collective will via
the electoral process. Unfortunately today, few Americans identify
with Congress. An "us versus them" mentality pervades. This mentality
creates the crack in the moral and social contract which exists
regarding a citizenry and its military. Congress is responsible for
maintaining the military. Congress is the branch of government
mandated with the responsibility for declaring war. When the bond is
strained between the people and Congress, the bond between citizen
and soldier is broken. Congress, left to its own devices, will begin
to view the military not as an extension of its constituents, but
rather as a commodity to be traded and used in a highly politicized fashion.
This is the reality we find ourselves in today (and indeed which has
existed for some time). The 2006 midterm elections highlight this
reality, where a strong anti-war sentiment upon the part of the
voters resulted in a Democratic majority in both the House of
Representatives and the Senate. Having assumed the mantle of
legislative power, however, those who were elected on the coattails
of anti-war sentiment were able to shun their anti-war constituents.
They did so by taking full advantage of the reality that the anti-war
movement was in fact not a movement at all, but rather a concept
pushed forward by a disparate mass without much political viability.
Where anti-war sentiment did in fact cross over from the ranks of the
progressive left and into the mainstream of American society, it was
quickly quashed through the dishonest logic that if one truly
supported the troops (as most red-blooded Americans swear they do),
then one must by extension support the mission. This flawed
connectivity empowered Congress to sidestep the issue of withdrawing
American forces from Iraq, and enabled it to continue rubber-stamping
funding for a war which long ago lost any connection, perceived or
otherwise, to the general security of the American people.
And so U.S. service members continue to fight and die in Iraq, a
conflict which grows more unpopular with the American people each
passing day. The question thus emerges: What is the appropriate
response on the part of the American citizenry? While we insulate
ourselves from political duplicity, the soldiers ultimately pay the
price for the cowardice of those whom we elect to represent us in
higher office. This seems to be the path taken by most Americans, who
have grown numbly indifferent to the incessant stream of
disappointment over the continued failure of Congress to truly
represent the will of the people. We have therefore built a wall
which separates we the people from the one aspect of republican
governance which is, by design, supposed to give us voice.
In doing so, we likewise create a buffer between citizen and soldier,
as those who are constitutionally mandated to fund the care,
equipping and utilization of the military now operate in ambiguity
created by the vacuum of citizen apathy. Thus liberated from the
moral compass provided by the people, Congress has lost its ability
to defend its own role in governance, and over time has demeaned its
constitutional mandate by transferring powers inherent to the
legislative branch to an executive branch which has assumed the role
of caretaker of the military. By vesting absolute power in the hands
of the executive, Congress has all but assured that America has
become a nation no longer governed by the rule of law, but rather the
rule of man. This sort of tyranny is what Americans fought a
revolution to free themselves from 233 years ago.
An executive that operates in accordance with a unitary theory of
governance is one that views the capacity to defend the state as
being in fact the capacity to defend the realm. As such, one sees a
gravitation of emphasis: Rather than focusing on external threats to
the collective, the realm becomes obsessed with internal threats to
its ability to retain power. The Patriot Act is a clear-cut example
of how a unitary executive has undermined and corrupted the
legitimate law enforcement mechanisms of the land by vesting the
executive with powers normally associated solely with the legislative
branch. In this regard, we see the armed forces similarly abused,
with the creation of military command structures (namely U.S.
Northern Command) which exist not to protect the people, but rather
protect the realm from the people. This is not a stated objective,
but rather one inferred from the fact that, for the first time since
the imposition of posse comitatus in 1876, the United States has
positioned its armed forces so that they can participate in normal
state law enforcement. In short, instead of serving as a force of
protection for the American people from external threats, the
military views the American people as the threat, "targets" which
need to be investigated as potential threats to the military.
An example of just how far off track the executive branch,
facilitated by an all too complicit legislative branch, has strayed
when it comes to the common defense is the Pentagon's controversial
Counterintelligence Field Activity, ostensibly created in a post-9/11
world to "… protect the [Defense] department by supporting the
detection and neutralization of foreign espionage." The CFA operates
under the umbrella of U.S. Northern Command, created in the aftermath
of the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks to ostensibly safeguard the
American homeland. A major aspect of the CFA's work is something
known as the Joint Protection Enterprise Network, or JPEN.
The JPEN network enables the Defense Department to share unverified
information with civilian police departments, the FBI and other
government agencies such as the National Security Agency (NSA).
Originally dubbed Project Protect America, the JPEN system came into
being in July 2003 with the full support of then-Secretary of Defense
Donald Rumsfeld. The heart and soul of the JPEN system is the "Threat
and Local Observation Notice," or TALON report, the brainchild of
then-Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz. In the conduct of
its work, the CFA created and distributed thousands of TALON reports
via the JPEN system on the activities of private U.S. citizens, with
a particular focus of those engaged in anti-war protests.
The CFA is slated in the near future to be morphed into a larger
Defense Intelligence Agency-run Counterintelligence and Human
Intelligence activity. Far from limiting the scope and scale of the
activities currently undertaken by the CFA, this new organization
will simply increase the level of illegal and unconstitutional
activities currently undertaken by the CFA against the American
"target." The fact that the U.S. military now views the American
citizenry as its target, as opposed to the object of its defense,
shows just how broken the circle of trust is between citizen and
soldier. Additional TALON reports are being assembled on anyone
deemed to be a potential threat to the U.S. military, including all
who are involved in "counter-recruitment" activities designed to
provide alternatives to military service for today's youths. This
myopic approach toward installation and facility security undertaken
by the Pentagon is not only intellectually weak but constitutionally
prohibited. The legislative branch, operating amid constituent
apathy, continues to fail in its mission of upholding the rule of law.
In similarly deplorable fashion, the Pentagon has allowed itself to
be hijacked by the radical right wing of the Republican Party. The
fact that Fox News has become the channel of choice for the U.S.
military speaks volumes about the mind-set which has gripped those
who lead it. The military has always been a conservative institution.
Yet when wearing the uniform of the United States serves more as a
front for defending a political ideology (a rabid one at that) rather
than upholding and defending the Constitution, the military does
itself a disservice. The disconnect between those who serve in the
military and those whom they are sworn to protect can be fatal when
one realizes the recruiting pool no longer identifies with the
military as a legitimate expression of patriotism and citizenship.
The scope of this ideological hijacking is broad, yet barely
recognized. One can glimpse just how deep and nefarious this
ideological shift is when one considers the extent to which
evangelical Christians have infiltrated the U.S. Air Force Academy,
proselytizing their heavily politicized religion to the future
officers and leaders of that service. The past comments of Lt. Gen.
William Boykin, a decorated Army Special Operations veteran who
described America's post-9/11 "war on terror" as a conflict between
"Christian" America and "radical Islam," are widely embraced within
the U.S. military. President Bush has echoed Boykin in his speeches
and statements, and the military's favorite presidential candidate,
Republican Sen. John McCain, has become the embodiment of Boykin's
philosophy. The Constitution prohibits the notion that America be
defined as a Christian nation. To allow the military, sworn as it is
to uphold and defend that document, to posture itself as Christian,
becoming in effect the "sword of God," is unthinkable and unforgivable.
The implications of such posturing are far-reaching, especially from
the military recruitment standpoint. The all-volunteer military
succeeds when it attracts to its ranks those who have a sincere
desire to serve their nation. It succeeds greatly when those it
attracts come from the broadest possible cross section of the
American demographic. There has always been an economic aspect to the
all-volunteer force; service is not slavery, and the military has
always promised the security of a middle-class lifestyle to those who
choose to enlist. But military service, properly motivated, has never
been solely about the money. It is about defending a greater good,
the people of the United States of America and their values and
ideals as defined by the Constitution.
It has become increasingly difficult to motivate enough of today's
youths to serve in the armed services based upon the call of duty
alone. One of the primary reasons for this shortfall is the
unfortunate perception, not improperly derived, that military service
is not in keeping with the concept of "doing the right thing." This
perception, born of an unpopular war and the dishonest foreign
policies of successive administrations, is further exaggerated by the
reality that the military not only operates as a separate and
distinct part of American society (this has always been the case)
but, due in large part to post-9/11 hysteria, has been positioned to
view the American people as a threat. The inherent problems of the
military trying to recruit from a population base which is under
attack from the military are self-evident. Genuine patriotism was
once a viable recruitment pitch. Now, economic incentives, false
promises and pseudo-patriotism are used as the bait to lure the
youths of today into America's legions. Like the legions of the past,
these new warriors march not on behalf of the citizens they are sworn
to protect, but rather the emperor who commands them. This may be
viewed as an overly harsh statement, but there is no other way to
describe the abuses of a unitary executive who positions himself
above the Constitution and Congress in a time of war.
Having described the current state of the military and military
service in this manner, why would I ever encourage a citizen of
military age to consider service in the armed forces? First and
foremost, one needs to understand that the entire military system has
not been corrupted. There are still men and women of honor who serve
with dedication and pride. They are, in fact, in the majority. It
takes only a few bad apples to spoil the lot, however, and our
military today, thanks to a nebulous mission and lower recruiting
standards, is full of bad apples. Likewise, to quote a Russian
general, "a fish stinks from its head," and nothing smells worse
today than the "head" of the United States. Our commander in chief
has disgraced the office he was entrusted with, and in doing so has
severely damaged the foundation of American civil society as well as
the institutions sworn to uphold and defend it.
The solution, however, cannot be "cut and run." Simply identifying
the problem and pointing a finger at the perpetrators will do nothing
to resolve these critical issues. Our military cannot change unless
we the people re-establish the link between ourselves and the
legislative branch of government and rebuild the bond of trust
between citizen and soldier. This cannot happen in stages, but rather
must occur simultaneously. While the vast majority of America
struggles to regain its moral and ethical compass through the
re-establishment of the rule of law as set forth by the Constitution,
we need to continue to maintain a military which is capable of defending us.
This requires good people to serve, even if the conditions of their
service are not ideal. Do I want to have an intelligent, morally
grounded soldier on the front line in Iraq, making the decisions
about the use of force in the framework of an illegal and unjust
occupation, or do I want to relinquish that job to a former felon
lacking even a high school diploma? Do I want the troops of today led
by Bible-wielding zealots or Constitution-wielding patriots? While we
struggle to re-establish the bond between citizen and soldier, we
have an absolute requirement to ensure we continue to field a
military composed of citizen soldiers. The only way to prevent our
military from becoming the new Roman Legion is to staff it with
citizens of principle who reject such an abominable label. We are a
nation at war, not just abroad, but with ourselves. Now, more than
ever, we need citizens of standing to answer the call to service, not
in the name of a criminal president or an illegal war, but rather in
defense of the Constitution and all that it stands for, against all
enemies, foreign and domestic.
.
0 comments:
Post a Comment