[Peace-discuss] Bacevich: Vietnam vs. Munich, and Creating an "Iraq/Afghanistan Syndrome"

Tue Aug 3 21:21:09 CDT 2010

Yes.

On Aug 3, 2010, at 9:13 PM, Robert Naiman wrote:

> There are two separate issues here. One is Bacevich's particular take
> on the causation story. This is something about which reasonable
> people with essentially the same interests and values can, and often
> do, vigorously disagree. For example, how much importance should one
> attach to the Israel Lobby, the oil industry, the weapons
> manufacturers, etc. in the Iraq war? As Chomsky pointed out, noting
> the obvious, it's hard to pull apart the contributions of multiple
> causes that are pointing in the same direction.
> 
> The other is the question of whether Bacevich is against the Empire.
> That is beyond reasonable dispute. He is, resolutely.
> 
> On Tue, Aug 3, 2010 at 8:59 PM, Brussel Morton K. <mkbrussel at comcast.net> wrote:
>> You are nitpicking.  Most of what Bacevich says is true  ["And the pressure
>> comes from what President Eisenhower called the military-industrial complex,
>>  The pressure comes from the national security apparatus."], but you don't
>> like his word "norms" . You put the worst possible meaning on what he may
>> mean by that term. The bottom line for me is that he does not agree with the
>> American policies, wants to see them reversed, and, I would say, has come
>> out strongly against American imperialism in general, economic and military.
>> He's explicitly said so, and so written. He may still be a capitalist pig,
>> but your arguments fail in the sense that he objects to the aspects of that
>> capitalism that leads to imperialism, not recognizing, you think,  that that
>> is impossible.  Finally, you condemn him because he does not come right out
>> and say that Obama is part and parcel of the MI  (+ media and academic)
>> complex.
>> IMHO, your last paragraph below ["…are we interested in inventing fictional
>> accounts that aggrandize the patriotic self-image of people like
>> Bacevich?"] is absolute rubbish, and I'm almost embarrassed that see you
>> stoop in that direction.  You invidiously presume to know Bacevich's mind
>> and character.
>> Again, what is most important for me at this time is to stop the killing,
>> stop the occupations, stop the violation of human rights, … ; I'll stick up
>> for those who manifestly work  and write for those ends, despite their other
>> perceived defects, lack of understanding, or wanting to change other, or
>> even associated, aspects of the "system".
>> Your approach contributes to rendering progressive politics impotent . Its
>> cock-sure stridency, and intolerance, alienates.
>> --mkb
>> 
>> 
>> On Aug 3, 2010, at 7:44 PM, David Green wrote:
>> 
>> Every or almost every aspect of Bacevich's analysis is wrong. Two examples
>> from the interview on DN:
>> 
>> "We wish to dominate. We wish to ensure that norms that work to the
>> advantage, or perceive to work to the advantage, of the United States
>> prevail across the world. And we are, I think, uniquely, in this moment,
>> determined to rely on military power to enforce those norms."
>> 
>> What norm is that? The norm that we control the world's resources? Does
>> Bacevich define these "norms?"
>> 
>> "But you asked the question, where does the pressure come from? And the
>> pressure comes from what President Eisenhower called the military-industrial
>> complex. The pressure comes from the national security apparatus. There are
>> people in institutions who are deeply invested in maintaining the status
>> quo. There are budgets, there are prerogatives, there are ambitions, that
>> ostensibly get satisfied by maintaining this drive for American globalism,
>> again, backed by an emphasis on military power. So I don’t discount for a
>> second that the President would have had to, you know, shove aside some
>> fairly stubborn resistance to make that course change on Afghanistan, and he
>> chose not to do it."
>> 
>> Yes, there is that, but in service of what or whom? It's the "industrial"
>> aspect that's more important than the military as a fighting force. And it's
>> economic interests that go beyond both to determine our elites' interest in
>> controlling oil. The resistance that the President would have to "shove
>> aside" (and won't, because he doesn't want to) is that of more than the M-I
>> complex, and they also have to do with "credibility" in terms of our use of
>> violence.
>> 
>> So are we interested in understanding why we're in Afghanistan and how to
>> explain that to people, or are we interested in inventing fictional accounts
>> that aggrandize the patriotic self-image of people like Bacevich? It's
>> really just a pragmatic argument. Bob's suggestion won't work, it just won't
>> work, can't work. Ever.
>> 
>> DG
>> 
>> 
>> ________________________________
>> From: Brussel Morton K. <mkbrussel at comcast.net>
>> To: naiman.uiuc at gmail.com
>> Cc: Peace-discuss List <peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net>
>> Sent: Tue, August 3, 2010 6:46:30 PM
>> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Bacevich: Vietnam vs. Munich, and Creating an
>> "Iraq/Afghanistan Syndrome"
>> 
>> Thanks for sending this on, Bob. Some on this list think Bacevich is a
>> stooge, a closet imperialist. Quoting:
>> Bacevich is an imperialist goof.
>> 
>> For his generally benighted view, see his book "American Empire" (2002),
>> where he wrote about "the imperative of America's mission as the vanguard of
>> history, transforming the global order and, in doing so, perpetuating its
>> own dominance [guided by] the imperative of military supremacy, maintained
>> in perpetuity and projected globally" (p.215ff.)
>> 
>> This is the sort of person who ends up as professor of "international
>> relations" at Boston University (where Howard Zinn was hounded out).
>> 
>> His objection to American policy in the Mideast on Democracy Now! today is
>> that it isn't working. We're not killing enough Asians to make our writ run,
>> and it's too expensive.
>> 
>> … [ironic praise for something the author agrees with here.] Continuing:
>> 
>> The totality of the interview is the sort of objection that Nazi generals
>> might have made of the Russian campaign.
>> 
>> The antiwar movement continues to be in serious trouble when people who
>> purport to be against the war praise Bacevich.  --CGE
>> Quite remakable.
>> What is to be emphasized here are the virulent attacks on those who do not
>> precisely say what these guys want them to say (or admit), even when they
>> are saying things that would get the U.S. government to change its
>> behavior. It is all devious, they say.  It appears as a kind of absolutely
>> rigid ideological response not so different from when the Communist party
>> line eminating from Lenin and Stalin condemned those like Rosa Luxemberg,
>> Mensheviks, Trotskyities, socialists of various stripes, etc. in the early
>> part of the 20th century. They would have been happy to see these deviants
>> burned at the stake. (Trotsky indeed was assasinated, and others also fell.)
>> --mkb
>> On Aug 3, 2010, at 5:16 PM, Robert Naiman wrote:
>> 
>> Campaigning for President, Senator Obama said: "I don't want to just
>> end the war, but I want to end the mindset that got us into war in the
>> first place." But as Andrew Bacevich notes in his new book,
>> "Washington Rules: America's Path to Permanent War," as President,
>> Obama has done the opposite: he has promoted and acted on behalf of
>> the mindset that leads to war. Bacevich's book is a call for Americans
>> to reject the Washington consensus for permanent war, global
>> counterinsurgency and global military power projection, and to demand
>> instead that America "come home," as Martin Luther King called for in
>> 1967, and focus on resolving its own domestic problems rather than act
>> as a self-appointed global police and occupation force. Because of his
>> personal background and establishment credentials, Bacevich may be
>> able to move Americans currently beyond the reach of the peace
>> movement. This is important, because a key task for ending our current
>> wars and preventing future ones is to break the current
>> near-monolithic support for permanent war among the dominant
>> institutions of the Republican Party - a stance that effectively
>> disenfranchises the substantial minority of Republican voters who
>> oppose the permanent war.
>> 
>> This is why Bacevich's new book is potentially important for the U.S.
>> peace movement. Get the book, read it, give it to a Republican friend,
>> and talk to them about it. Join Just Foreign Policy on September 24th
>> for a "Virtual Brown Bag" with Andrew Bacevich, and try to virtually
>> bring your Republican friend.
>> 
>> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-naiman/bacevich-vietnam-vs-munic_b_669502.html
>> 
>> http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/8/3/17494/90841
>> 
>> http://www.justforeignpolicy.org/node/662
>> --
>> Robert Naiman
>> Policy Director
>> Just Foreign Policy
>> www.justforeignpolicy.org
>> naiman at justforeignpolicy.org
>> 
>> Urge Congress to Support a Timetable for Military Withdrawal from
>> Afghanistan
>> http://www.justforeignpolicy.org/act/feingold-mcgovern
>> _______________________________________________
>> Peace-discuss mailing list
>> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
>> http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Peace-discuss mailing list
>> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
>> http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Robert Naiman
> Policy Director
> Just Foreign Policy
> www.justforeignpolicy.org
> naiman at justforeignpolicy.org
> 
> Urge Congress to Support a Timetable for Military Withdrawal from Afghanistan
> http://www.justforeignpolicy.org/act/feingold-mcgovern