Summary: National elections should discuss who we are and how we have changed. Such as the results of the war on terror. Not the effects on the terrorists (who seem either unaffected or even stronger from our wars) but on our national character. It will be the most important issue never mentioned during the campaign.
“He who fights with monsters should look to it that he himself does not become a monster. And when you gaze long into an abyss the abyss also gazes into you.”
— Aphorism 146 in Nietzsche’s Beyond Good and Evil(1886).
Torture by the CIA, aided by doctors. Torture in Abu Ghraib prison. A mass campaign of assassination, even including American citizens. Killing machines flying over the Middle East, like Skynet’s in the The Terminator films
“The French … The Israelis … The Americans … {these deeds} proving that he who fights terrorists for any period of time is likely to become one himself.”
— Martin van Creveld in The Transformation of War: The Most Radical Reinterpretation of Armed Conflict Since Clausewitz
We concealed this transformation from ourselves (it is obvious to others) with hypocrisy, as described in “The Uses of al-Qaeda” by Richard Seymour in the London Review of Books, 13 September 2012.
“Alan Krueger’s authoritative What Makes a Terrorist: Economics and the Roots of Terrorism
“This excludes state violence, narrowing the field to insurgency or subversion of various kinds, but not all insurgent groups that Krueger – or the State Department – calls ‘terrorist’ make it a strategic priority to target civilian populations. Insofar as they do, they don’t necessarily differ in their methods from state actors.
“In the ‘war on terror’, a cardinal claim of ‘civilised’ states was that, unlike their opponents, they did not target civilians. Suicide attacks cause indiscriminate slaughter and are an indicator of barbarism; surgical strikes are the gentle civilisers of nations. There is little evidence for a distinction of that sort in the prosecution of recent wars.”
These policies didn’t just happen. They were not inevitable. Bush and Cheney made these policy changes amidst our terror after 9/11. We saw what was happening, but closed our eyes. Understanding how we got here can help us find a way back. For details about this history, see one of the most valuable books about America’s decay: The Dark Side: The Inside Story of How the War on Terror Turned Into a War on American Ideals
.“The lesson for Bush and Cheney was that terrorists had struck at the United States because they saw the country as soft. Bush worried that the nation was too “materialistic, hedonistic,” and that Bin Laden ‘didn’t feel threatened’ by it.
“Confronted with a new enemy and their own intelligence failure, he and Cheney turned to some familiar conservative nostrums that had preoccupied the far right wing of the Republican Party since the Watergate era. There was too much international law, too many civil liberties, too many constraints on the President’s war powers, too many rights for defendants, and too many rules against lethal covert actions. There was also too much openness and too much meddling by Congress and the press.
Cheney in particular had been chafing against the post-Watergate curbs that had been imposed on the president’s powers since the mid-1970s, when he had served as Gerald Ford’s chief of staff. As Vice President, Cheney had already begun to strengthen the power of the presidency by aggressively asserting executive privilege, most notably on his secrecy-enshrouded energy task force. He’d told Bush, who later repeated the line, that if nothing else they must leave the office stronger than they found it. Now Cheney saw the terrorist threat in such catastrophic terms that his end, saving America from possible extinction, justified virtually any means. …
“Beginning almost immediately after September 11, 2001, Cheney saw to it that some of the sharpest and best-trained lawyers in the country, working in secret in the White House and the United States Department of Justice, came up with legal justifications for a vast expansion of the government’s power in waging war on terror.
“As part of that process, for the first time in its history, the United States sanctioned government officials to physically and psychologically torment U.S.-held captives, making torture the official law of the land in all but name.
“The lawyers also authorized other previously illegal practices, including the secret capture and indefinite detention of suspects without charges. Simply by designating the suspects ‘enemy combatants,’ the President could suspend the ancient writ of habeas corpus that guarantees a person the right to challenge his imprisonment in front of a fair and independent authority. Once in U.S. custody, the President’s lawyers said, these suspects could be held incommunicado, hidden from their families and international monitors such as the Red Cross, and subjected to unending abuse, so long as it didn’t meet the lawyers’ own definition of torture. And they could be held for the duration of the war against terrorism, a struggle in which victory had never been clearly defined. …
“{A}lmost precisely on the sixtieth anniversary of the famous war crimes tribunal’s judgment in Nuremberg, which established what seemed like an immutable principle, that legalisms and technicalities could not substitute for individual moral choice and conscience, America became the first nation ever to authorize violations of the Geneva Conventions. …
“{T}o understand the Bush Administration’s self-destructive response to September 11, one has to look particularly to Cheney, the doomsday expert and unapologetic advocate of expanding presidential power.
“Appearing on Meet the Press on the first Sunday after the attacks, Cheney gave a memorable description of how the administration viewed the continuing threat and how it planned to respond.
‘We’ll have to work sort of the dark side, if you will …We’ve got to spend time in the shadows in the intelligence world. A lot of what needs to be done here will have to be done quietly, without any discussion, using sources and methods that are available to our intelligence agencies – if we are going to be successful. That’s the world these folks operate in. So it’s going to be vital for us to use any means at our disposal basically, to achieve our objectives.’
“Soon afterward, Cheney disappeared from public view. But his influence had already begun to shape all that followed.”
Advice from history, which we ignored
One of our greatest leaders, John Quincy Adams, gave us sound advice in his speech at the House of Representatives on 4 July 1821. It applies just as well to our time as to his.
“{I}f the wise and learned philosophers of the elder world… should find their hearts disposed to enquire what has America done for the benefit of mankind? Let our answer be this: America … has held forth to them the hand of honest friendship, of equal freedom, of generous reciprocity.
-
- She has uniformly spoken among them … the language of equal liberty, of equal justice, and of equal rights.
- She has … respected the independence of other nations while asserting and maintaining her own.
- She has abstained from interference in the concerns of others, even when conflict has been for principles to which she clings …
“Wherever the standard of freedom and Independence has been or shall be unfurled, there will her heart, her benedictions and her prayers be. But she goes not abroad in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own. She will commend the general cause by the countenance of her voice, and the benignant sympathy of her example.
“She well knows that by once enlisting under other banners than her own, were they even the banners of foreign independence, she would involve herself beyond the power of extrication, in all the wars of interest and intrigue, of individual avarice, envy, and ambition, which assume the colors and usurp the standard of freedom. The fundamental maxims of her policy would insensibly change from liberty to force.”
Conclusions
We have forgotten Adam’s advice. But we can learn from our failures and dark deeds. We can exert ourselves to regain control of the government and its militaristic foreign policy. Our elites have largely drawn the lines of debate for the 2020 election. But our voices can still be heard. Let’s make this campaign a first step on this long road to building a better America.
For More Information
Ideas! For shopping ideas, see my recommended books and films at Amazon. Also, see a story about our future: “Ultra Violence: Tales from Venus.”
Please like us on Facebook, follow us on Twitter. See all posts about torture, about assassination, and especially …
- Bloodlust – a natural by-product of a long war?
- No longer a danger, but a reality: bloodlust in our minds, an inevitable side-effect of a long war.
- A descent into darkness by our special operations forces.
- Our deeds in Egypt show the darkness & folly of our foreign policy.
- Can we defeat ISIS by “killing them all”? We’ve learned nothing since 9/11.
- Obama’s last gift to America: a global assassination program.
- We celebrate the death of a foe. It shows our weakness. – The assassination of ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi.
- Let’s cheer another successful assassination!
Books about our mad wars
The Changing Face of War: Combat from the Marne to Iraq
Kill Anything That Moves
Yes to the diagnosis. Indeed, yes to the proposal:
Let’s make this campaign a first step on this long road to building a better America.
Yes, but… the worry is about how. I may be more optimistic than you in the long term, but am probably more pessimistic about seeing the pending election as offering any real prospect of change. It will surely be a choice between two candidates who are very similar on the dimension you note?
And it may even be, as was the case in the late phase of decline of the Soviet Union, a choice between two geriatrics from the past. Is there not, one asks, not even one plausible contender under the age of 60? Imagine if its Biden or Clinton vs Trump?
Churchill was 65 in 1939, I wonder is the older statesman (or woman) a part of this point in the economic/social cycle?
I see the inner city urban lefties just jumping all over climate change in Australia, the rural heartland is devastated, but the media seems to have moved onto the pregnant inner cities lefties who fear the smoke may have damaged their unborn kids. What about the guys and girls who were 100 yards or less from the flames in the bush, whole families.
To speak up is to end your career, I spoke up in my 30’s and 40’s and despite well above average student reviews year on year, I stayed casual in my University faculty, it was my choice I made it and I don’t regret it. I was 20% poorer economically for it, still I had 3 kids with my wife all workers or on their way to being workers.
For conservatives, unless you are of independent means you can’t get much work if not elected or after election. Gerald Batten came out and said he was 65 a pensioner and saying what millions of ordinary British thought and felt, but couldn’t say or they would lose their jobs.
Maybe the old ones just don’t have to say it mealy mouthed, they just spit it out as they see it, left or right.
Today’s nitpick: added by doctors. “AIDED”
“America became the first nation ever to authorize violations of the Geneva Conventions. …”
It was personally sad to suffer attack from friends when I pointed this out. It makes me wonder how many people actually consider and critique what actions our government is taking in OUR name, and the possible, even likely consequences.
“She has abstained from interference in the concerns of others, even when conflict has been for principles to which she clings …But she goes not abroad in search of monsters to destroy…she would involve herself beyond the power of extrication, in all the wars of interest and intrigue, of individual avarice, envy, and ambition, which assume the colors and usurp the standard of freedom. The fundamental maxims of her policy would insensibly change from liberty to force.”
The lesson unlearned.
John,
“The lesson unlearned.”
That’s a powerful point I missed. We followed Adam’s advice for a long time, then forgot it.
Also, thanks for catching the typos!
Yes, that last quote is profound and prescient.
Thanks for the book references also, shall be following them up as usual.
Powerful stuff, Larry. Not good for getting votes, but you already knew that. America currently does not love people who speak truth to it. Which is, of course, part of the self-delusional problem.
The country is overdue for “a banquet of consequences” to paraphrase Robert Louis Stevenson. Not sure when it will occur but the longer it takes the bigger the banquet.
The only non-neocon candidates in this pres. election are Gabbard, Sanders and Yang. Gabbard and Yang are out of the money. There’s a chance for Sanders if he can somehow avoid getting mugged on the way to the convention like last time. Seems like a long shot since the corporations, the media, the intelligence agencies and the DNC (or do I repeat myself?) all hate his guts. Or maybe he’ll get droned. Pretty sure that’s legal now as long as you have lawyer write a memo about it.
Let’s get rid of that pussy e pluribus unum crap and borrow a real American motto from WarHammer: “Blood for the blood god, skulls for the skull throne!”
That’s why I’ll be voting for Bernie.
Jupiter,
You’ll be voting for the figurehead Bernie. He’s 78. Others – whom you don’t know – will be running America.
This is America today: voting has become a form of identity (like a badge), rather than choosing an executive or representative to do things. It makes us pleasant peasants, a gift to our elites.
The goal of the Sanders campaign is to build political organization (e.g. Organizer-in-Chief) rather than think it’s just about getting the right person in the White House who’ll fix everything. Seems like the correct attitude from my perspective.
Jupiter,
“The goal of the Sanders campaign is to build political organization”
That is good idea, and one which would make America stronger. Britain does this well, as the opposition has a “Shadow Cabinet” – who speak for them on major public policy issues.
So who will Sanders appoint as his VP? Key Cabinet minsters? Chief of Staff? National Security Advisor? Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers?
Of all of these, VP is the most important. The easiest way to get an unelectable person in the White House – appoint him as VP, Sanders wins, Sanders resigns due to ill health (which is likely in any case). It is an easy way to sidestep getting approval of the proles.
By political organization, what is meant is organizing regular citizens around common political goals that cannot be brought about by the executive alone.
Sanders health isn’t worrying to me, he’s kept a staggering pace for the past 4 years and shows no mental decline. Compare that with our current president whose decline is apparent.
The entire point of building a broad political movement is that it will continue regardless of the fate of any one political figure. Sanders is the best candidate to advance the goals of this broad movement while he can. His presidency is not the end goal.
Jupiter,
“By political organization, what is meant is organizing regular citizens around common political goals that cannot be brought about by the executive alone.
These are called political machines. Very effective devices by which elites rule.
They do, but it happens as part of a very different system. Its not a Presidential system, but a Parliamentary system.
The Prime Minister and Cabinet are not the same as the President and the US Secretaries. The PM is just the leader of the party which won most seats in Parliament. There are no primaries and no direct election for PM. The leaders of each party are simply appointed by that party in whatever way they choose.
The Cabinet consists of people who are almost all (99%+) Members of Parliament. There is no process of confirmation of ministers, the PM simply appoints them. So the Secretary of Defense in the US will not sit in either house, and must be confirmed by them. By contrast, the UK Defence Minister sits in the Commons, represents a particular constituency, and was appointed at the whim of the Prime Minister.
The same thing applies to the opposition. So, in the present Parliament, you have a Conservative Cabinet with the various Secretaries of State, all of them (except one who sits in the Lords) MPs, sitting in the Commons, and all of them appointed by Johnson.
The Opposition similarly has a shadow Cabinet consisting of MPs all appointed by Corbyn.
It therefore works very differently in terms of accountability. The Ministers may have to appear before committees, all of which will be staffed by members of the Commons. They may have to answer questions in the Commons from their colleagues, all of whom are, like them, elected from some local constituency.
When there is a general election (as happened in December), all the MPs are up for re-election at once, and the leader of the party with a majority of seats (or the one who can deliver a working majority by coalition) gets to form a government. In December this was Johnson who got a majority of around 80 seats. If it had been Corbyn, he would have moved in the next day complete with his previously shadow Cabinet.
It has pros and cons compared to the US system. The founders of the US system of course learned greatly from it and applied what they took to be the lessons. It has worked pretty well since 1688 in recognisably similar form. I’m not sure if its on balance any better though, and still less sure if it would work for a country as large and as diverse as the US.
Until recently there was no fixed term to a parliament or government. There was a maximum term after which there had to be an election. But the PM could call one any time before that. This was changed by the Fixed Term Parliaments Act, widely criticised, which made it much harder for a government to fall or to hold an election outside of the fixed term.
If you have a government without a decent majority, as happened under Theresa May, you can get paralysis. You also have a lot fewer checks and balances. But yes, it does have advantages.
Here is Yang’s Foreign Policy page: https://www.yang2020.com/policies/foreign-policy-first-principles/
One of the bullet points under “As President, I will . . . ” is
“Sign a repeal to the AUMF, returning the authority to declare war to Congress, and refuse to engage in anything other than emergency military activity without the express consent of Congress.”
Ric,
I’m amazed at the lack of seriousness with which people choose candidates to run the nation. Nobody would choose a plumber or hire a secretary with so little attention to their relevant training and work experience.
It shows our disinterest in the responsibility of citizenship, and that we’re choosing our leaders based on their marketing. Their sales pitch. This is one of the reasons our elites believe that they are better suited to rule than the US public, and for their contempt for us.
Doc,
Interesting article about Yang.
“Andrew Yang’s War on Meritocracy”
By Philip Wallach.
“The dark horse presidential candidate has a vision, a message, and an admirable ability to imagine a better politics.”
https://www.the-american-interest.com/2020/01/14/andrew-yangs-war-on-meritocracy/?utm-access=rstreet
Dear Larry,
Forgive my slow response. A minor quibble: Adams’s, not Eve’s husband Adam’s. Then my ignorance is worse than your typos. I never read or knew of Adams’s quote. I am very grateful. Thank you so much.
The rest of your post from the beginning is magnificent! You’re correct as are Van Creveld and Lind. I was too gullible and ignorant to even heed the warning of Col. David Hackworth.
I fell for warmonger lies, the Neocon lies and should have known better.
America indeed is not following the wisdom of our Founders. Although I never read Adams’s quote I am familiar with Washington’s Farewell Address. He pretty much said the same about the conduct of our nation.
Since I live in a closed primary state and things are settled on R side, I plan on changing my voter registration from NPA to D. There is much activity on that side and I think Sanders deserves the nomination. I remember what you wrote, “What matters is not Trump or Sanders but what happens after.”
Sometimes I feel like you are preparing a time capsule for a future researcher. He, she or some Post-Singularity entity will exclaim, “Cassandra of 21st Century!”
Best regards
Longtrail,
“I think Sanders deserves the nomination.”
You’ll be voting for a 79 – 82-year-old figurehead – a marketing icon. You have little knowledge who really will be running the nation. But it won’t be Sanders.
If this works, next they’ll be running Max Headroom, The Marlboro Man, or Neo for President.
I get your drift. However I’m playing the hand dealt. Maybe after the “Banquet of Consequences” younger and better candidates come forward.
It can’t be me. I’m 65.6 and in cancer treatment.