[Peace-discuss] Disturbing but unfortunately accurate !

Mon Oct 9 15:57:40 UTC 2017

Disturbing but unfortunately accurate !

By Andrew J. Bacevich, an author, most recently, of
<https://www.amazon.com/dp/0553393952/ref=nosim/?tag=tomdispatch-20>
America's War for the Greater Middle East: A Military History. Originally
published at  <http://www.tomdispatch.com/blog/176335/> TomDispatch

Consider, if you will, these two indisputable facts.  First, the United
States is today more or less permanently engaged in hostilities in not one
faraway place, but
<http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/scary-fact-america-dropped-26171-
bombs-7-countries-2016-18961> at least seven.  Second, the vast majority of
the American people could not care less. 

Nor can it be said that we don't care because we don't know.  True,
government authorities withhold certain aspects of ongoing military
operations or release only details that they find convenient.  Yet
information describing what U.S. forces are doing (and where) is readily
available, even if buried in recent months by barrages of presidential
tweets.  Here, for anyone interested, are press releases issued by United
States Central Command for just one recent week:

<http://www.centcom.mil/MEDIA/PRESS-RELEASES/Press-Release-View/Article/1324
264/september-26-military-airstrikes-continue-against-isis-terrorists-in-syr
ia-and/> September 19: Military airstrikes continue against ISIS terrorists
in Syria and Iraq

<http://www.centcom.mil/MEDIA/PRESS-RELEASES/Press-Release-View/Article/1317
427/september-20-military-airstrikes-continue-against-isis-terrorists-in-syr
ia-and/> September 20: Military airstrikes continue against ISIS terrorists
in Syria and Iraq

<http://www.centcom.mil/MEDIA/PRESS-RELEASES/Press-Release-View/Article/1318
986/iraqi-security-forces-begin-hawijah-offensive/> Iraqi Security Forces
begin Hawijah offensive

<http://www.centcom.mil/MEDIA/PRESS-RELEASES/Press-Release-View/Article/1319
013/september-21-military-airstrikes-continue-against-isis-terrorists-in-syr
ia-and/> September 21: Military airstrikes continue against ISIS terrorists
in Syria and Iraq

<http://www.centcom.mil/MEDIA/PRESS-RELEASES/Press-Release-View/Article/1320
711/september-22-military-airstrikes-continue-against-isis-terrorists-in-syr
ia-and/> September 22: Military airstrikes continue against ISIS terrorists
in Syria and Iraq

<http://www.centcom.mil/MEDIA/PRESS-RELEASES/Press-Release-View/Article/1322
796/september-23-military-airstrikes-continue-against-isis-terrorists-in-syr
ia-and/> September 23: Military airstrikes continue against ISIS terrorists
in Syria and Iraq

<http://www.centcom.mil/MEDIA/PRESS-RELEASES/Press-Release-View/Article/1322
828/operation-inherent-resolve-casualty/> Operation Inherent Resolve
Casualty

<http://www.centcom.mil/MEDIA/PRESS-RELEASES/Press-Release-View/Article/1322
838/september-25-military-airstrikes-continue-against-isis-terrorists-in-syr
ia-and/> September 25: Military airstrikes continue against ISIS terrorists
in Syria and Iraq

<http://www.centcom.mil/MEDIA/PRESS-RELEASES/Press-Release-View/Article/1324
264/september-26-military-airstrikes-continue-against-isis-terrorists-in-syr
ia-and/> September 26: Military airstrikes continue against ISIS terrorists
in Syria and Iraq

Ever since the United States launched its war on terror, oceans of military
press releases have poured forth.  And those are just for starters.  To
provide updates on the U.S. military's various ongoing campaigns, generals,
admirals, and high-ranking defense officials regularly testify before
congressional committees or brief members of the press.  From the field,
journalists offer updates that fill in at least some of the details - on
civilian casualties, for example - that government authorities prefer not to
disclose.  Contributors to newspaper op-ed pages and "experts" booked by
network and cable TV news shows, including passels of retired military
officers, provide analysis.  Trailing behind come books and documentaries
that put things in a broader perspective.

But here's the truth of it.  None of it matters.

Like traffic jams or robocalls, war has fallen into the category of things
that Americans may not welcome, but have learned to live with.  In
twenty-first-century America, war is not that big a deal. 

While serving as defense secretary in the 1960s, Robert McNamara
<https://quotefancy.com/quote/1322097/Robert-McNamara-The-greatest-contribut
ion-Vietnam-is-making-right-or-wrong-is-beside-the> once mused that the
"greatest contribution" of the Vietnam War might have been to make it
possible for the United States "to go to war without the necessity of
arousing the public ire." With regard to the conflict once widely referred
to as McNamara's War, his claim proved grotesquely premature.  Yet a
half-century later, his wish has become reality.

Why do Americans today show so little interest in the wars waged in their
name and at least nominally on their behalf?  Why, as our wars drag on and
on, doesn't the disparity between effort expended and benefits accrued
arouse more than passing curiosity or mild expressions of dismay? Why, in
short, don't we give a [expletive deleted]? 

Perhaps just posing such a question propels us instantly into the realm of
the unanswerable, like trying to figure out why people idolize Justin
Bieber, shoot birds, or watch golf on television. 

Without any expectation of actually piercing our collective ennui, let me
take a stab at explaining why we don't give a @#$%&!  Here are eight
distinctive but mutually reinforcing explanations, offered in a sequence
that begins with the blindingly obvious and ends with the more speculative.

Americans don't attend all that much to ongoing American wars because: 

1. U.S. casualty rates are low. By using proxies and contractors, and
relying heavily on airpower, America's war managers have been able to keep a
tight lid on the number of U.S. troops being killed and wounded.  In all of
2017, for example, a  <http://icasualties.org/oef/> grand total of 11
American soldiers have been lost in Afghanistan - about equal to the number
of shooting deaths  <https://www.dnainfo.com/chicago/2017-chicago-murders>
in Chicago over the course of a typical week. True, in Afghanistan, Iraq,
and other countries where the U.S. is engaged in hostilities, whether
directly or indirectly, plenty of people who are not Americans are being
killed and maimed.  (The estimated number of Iraqi civilians killed this
year alone  <https://www.iraqbodycount.org/database/> exceeds 12,000.) But
those casualties have next to no political salience as far as the United
States is concerned.  As long as they don't impede U.S. military operations,
they literally don't count (and generally aren't counted).

2. The true costs of Washington's wars go untabulated.  In a
<http://www.edchange.org/multicultural/speeches/ike_chance_for_peace.html>
famous speech, dating from early in his presidency, Dwight D. Eisenhower
said that "Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket
fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are
not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed."  Dollars spent on
weaponry, Ike insisted, translated directly into schools, hospitals, homes,
highways, and power plants that would go unbuilt.  "This is not a way of
life at all, in any true sense," he continued.  "[I]t is humanity hanging
from a cross of iron." More than six decades later, Americans have long
since accommodated themselves to that cross of iron.  Many actually see it
as a boon, a source of corporate profits, jobs, and, of course, campaign
contributions.  As such, they avert their eyes from the opportunity costs of
our never-ending wars.  The dollars expended pursuant to our post-9/11
conflicts will ultimately number in  <http://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/>
the multi-trillions.  Imagine the benefits of investing such sums in
upgrading the nation's aging  <https://www.infrastructurereportcard.org/>
infrastructure.  Yet don't count on Congressional leaders, other
politicians, or just about anyone else to pursue that connection. 

 <https://www.amazon.com/dp/0553393936/ref=nosim/?tag=tomdispatch-20>
<https://www.amazon.com/dp/0553393936/ref=nosim/?tag=tomdispatch-20>
Description:
https://www.tomdispatch.com/images/managed/bacevichamericaswar.jpg
<https://www.amazon.com/dp/0553393936/ref=nosim/?tag=tomdispatch-20> 3. On
matters related to war, American citizens have opted out.  Others have made
the point so frequently that it's the equivalent of hearing "Rudolph the
Red-Nosed Reindeer" at Christmastime.  Even so, it bears repeating: the
American people have defined their obligation to "support the troops" in the
<http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/175912/tomgram%3A_rory_fanning,_why_do_we_k
eep_thanking_the_troops/> narrowest imaginable
<http://www.tomdispatch.com/blog/175423/tomgram%3A_andrew_bacevich,_playing_
ball_with_the_pentagon/> terms, ensuring above all that such support
requires absolutely no sacrifice on their part.  Members of Congress abet
this civic apathy, while also taking steps to
<http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/gop-leaders-quietly-remove-language-repea
ling-post-911-military-authorization-from-defense-bill/article/2629075>
insulate themselves from responsibility.  In effect, citizens and their
elected representatives in Washington agree: supporting the troops means
deferring to the commander in chief, without inquiring about whether what he
has the troops doing makes the slightest sense.  Yes, we set down our beers
long enough to applaud those in uniform and
<http://www.bostonherald.com/sports/patriots/the_blitz/2017/09/devin_mccourt
y_explains_why_patriots_knelt_during_national_anthem> boo those who decline
to participate in mandatory rituals of patriotism.  What we don't do is
demand anything remotely approximating actual accountability.

4. Terrorism gets hyped and hyped and hyped some more. While international
terrorism isn't a trivial problem (and wasn't for decades before 9/11), it
comes
<https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/you-re-more-likely-die-choking-be-kill
ed-foreign-terrorists-n715141> nowhere close to posing an existential threat
to the United States.  Indeed, other threats, notably the impact of climate
change, constitute a far greater danger to the wellbeing of Americans.
Worried about the safety of your children or grandchildren?  The opioid
epidemic constitutes an infinitely greater danger than "Islamic radicalism."
Yet having been sold a bill of goods about a "war on terror" that is
essential for "keeping America safe," mere citizens are easily persuaded
that scattering U.S. troops throughout the Islamic world while dropping
bombs on designated evildoers is helping win the former while guaranteeing
the latter.  To question that proposition becomes tantamount to suggesting
that God might not have given Moses two stone tablets after all.

5. Blather crowds out substance. When it comes to foreign policy, American
public discourse is - not to put too fine a point on it - vacuous, insipid,
and mindlessly repetitive.  William Safire of the New York Times once
characterized American political rhetoric as BOMFOG, with those running for
high office relentlessly touting the Brotherhood of Man and the Fatherhood
of God.  Ask a politician, Republican or Democrat, to expound on this
country's role in the world, and then brace yourself for some variant of
WOSFAD, as the speaker insists that it is incumbent upon the World's Only
Superpower to spread Freedom and Democracy.  Terms like leadership and
indispensable are introduced, along with warnings about the dangers of
isolationism and appeasement, embellished with ominous references to Munich.
Such grandiose posturing makes it unnecessary to probe too deeply into the
actual origins and purposes of American wars, past or present, or assess the
likelihood of ongoing wars ending in some approximation of actual success.
Cheerleading displaces serious thought.

6. Besides, we're too busy.  Think of this as a corollary to point five.
Even if the present-day American political scene included figures like
Senators
<http://progressive.org/dispatches/robert-la-follette-america-s-anti-imperia
list-prophet/> Robert La Follette or
<https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00G4JFCTK/ref=nosim/?tag=tomdispatch-20> J.
William Fulbright, who long ago warned against the dangers of militarizing
U.S. policy, Americans may not retain a capacity to attend to such
critiques.  Responding to the demands of the Information Age is not, it
turns out, conducive to deep reflection.  We live in an era (so we are told)
when frantic multitasking has become a sort of duty and when being
overscheduled is almost obligatory.  Our attention span shrinks and with it
our time horizon.  The matters we attend to are those that happened just
hours or minutes ago.  Yet like the great solar eclipse of 2017 - hugely
significant and instantly forgotten - those matters will, within another few
minutes or hours, be superseded by some other development that briefly
captures our attention.  As a result, a dwindling number of Americans -
those not compulsively checking Facebook pages and Twitter accounts - have
the time or inclination to ponder questions like: When will the Afghanistan
War end?  Why has it lasted almost 16 years?  Why doesn't the
<http://www.tomdispatch.com/blog/175337> finest fighting force in history
actually win?  Can't package an answer in 140 characters or a 30-second
made-for-TV sound bite?  Well, then, slowpoke, don't expect anyone to attend
to what you have to say.

7. Anyway, the next president will save us.  At regular intervals, Americans
indulge in the fantasy that, if we just install the right person in the
White House, all will be well.  Ambitious politicians are quick to exploit
this expectation.  Presidential candidates struggle to differentiate
themselves from their competitors, but all of them promise in one way or
another to wipe the slate clean and Make America Great Again.  Ignoring the
historical record of promises broken or unfulfilled, and presidents who turn
out not to be deities but flawed human beings, Americans - members of the
media above all - pretend to take all this seriously.  Campaigns become
longer, more expensive, more circus-like, and ever less substantial.  One
might think that the election of Donald Trump would prompt a downward
revision in the exalted expectations of presidents putting things right.
Instead, especially in the anti-Trump camp, getting rid of Trump himself
(Collusion!  Corruption!  Obstruction!  Impeachment!) has become the
overriding imperative, with little attention given to restoring the balance
intended by the framers of the Constitution.  The irony of Trump
perpetuating wars that he once roundly criticized and then handing the
conduct of those wars to generals devoid of ideas for ending them almost
entirely escapes notice.

8. Our culturally progressive military has largely immunized itself from
criticism.  As recently as the 1990s, the U.S. military establishment
aligned itself with the retrograde side of the culture wars.  Who can forget
the gays-in-the-military controversy that rocked Bill Clinton's
administration during his first weeks in office, as senior military leaders
publicly denounced their commander-in-chief?  Those days are long gone.
Culturally, the armed forces have moved left.  Today, the services go out of
their way to project an
<https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2017/09/29/air-force-academy-head-tells
-racists-get-oudelivers-stern-lecture-wake-racial-slurs-found-prep-schoo/715
755001/> image of tolerance and a commitment to equality on all matters
related to race, gender, and sexuality.  So when President Trump announced
his opposition to transgendered persons serving in the armed forces,
<http://www.cnn.com/2017/07/26/politics/trump-military-transgender/index.htm
l> tweeting that the military "cannot be burdened with the tremendous
medical costs and disruption that transgender in the military would entail,"
senior officers politely but firmly disagreed and
<https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/29/us/politics/mattis-trump-transgender-ban
.html> pushed back.  Given the ascendency of cultural issues near the top of
the U.S. political agenda, the military's embrace of diversity helps to
insulate it from criticism and from being called to account for a less than
sterling performance in waging wars.  Put simply, critics who in an earlier
day might have blasted military leaders for their inability to bring wars to
a successful conclusion hold their fire.  Having women
<http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/21/us/women-army-ranger-graduation/index.html>
graduate from Ranger School or
<http://www.cnn.com/2017/09/22/politics/marine-corp-female-infantry-officer/
index.html> command Marines in combat more than compensates for not winning.

A collective indifference to war has become an emblem of contemporary
America.  But don't expect your neighbors down the street or the editors of
the New York Times to lose any sleep over that fact.  Even to notice it
would require them - and us - to care.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/peace-discuss/attachments/20171009/a1220721/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 51005 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/peace-discuss/attachments/20171009/a1220721/attachment-0002.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image002.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 947 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/peace-discuss/attachments/20171009/a1220721/attachment-0003.jpg>