The Nub of It
This is the most extraordinary aspect of our political culture. Rep. Davis’ assumption is that we are going to be fighting a series of “wars.” That is just a given. And the only question is whether we will fight our wars “wisely” or unwisely. We are a nation more or less permanently at war, and we really do not debate whether that should be the case. Enforced Beltway orthodoxy requires that this is a given and anyone who challenges that premise will be deemed extremist and insane (see e.g., Ron Paul, Mike Gravel, “paleoconservatives,” the “anti-war left”, “isolationists,” etc.).
The Grand Beltway Consensus, one that encompasses both parties, is that War is how we rule the world. The only debates allowed are how many we should fight, where we should fight them, and how “wisely” we prosecute them. And the principal reason that we don’t really debate the fact that we are a Nation permanently at war is because such a tiny percentage of our population — and an even tinier percentage of our Beltway opinion-making elite — actually bears the burdens of those wars (at least directly).
One might even add that for some the wars have to have a certain flashiness about them. One still sees idiot right-wingers referring to the Clinton years as “holiday from history,” meaning, when we failed to do enough killing of and worrying about foreigners. During those years we occupied Haiti, bombed Serbia, blew up a Sudanese factory, lobbed cruise missiles into Afghanistan and, most crucially, bombed some or other part of Iraq on a daily basis while fomenting double-digits worth of coup attempts there. And subsidized the influx of 100,000 new Israeli settlers to the West Bank and Gaza while supposedly fostering the progress of the Oslo Accords. But none of the above had that zing to it, that je ne sais quoi that comes with constant car-bombs and deployment extensions. And while Bill Clinton had to duck and cover when he visited Greece, there were still a few countries where an American leader could visit without provoking riots or risking a war-crimes arraignment. If all of the above isn’t a splendid indifference to global intercourse, I don’t know what is.
Comment by X. Trapnel —
August 1, 2007 @ 3:02 pm
It’s stuff like this that really makes me despair. It feels like there might have been a genuine opportunity in the immediate aftermath of the cold war to challenge this assumption, but I can’t imagine it happening now.
Comment by Mona —
August 1, 2007 @ 3:54 pm
I asked Greenwald in his comments section once, what his position on a draft is. (Mine is unalterable opposition.) He said he has to come out against it because of the liberty interest involved, but it is awfully tempting for the reason he states again in his quote that Jim includes:
Comment by Gsnorgathon —
August 1, 2007 @ 4:14 pm
Military service should be limited to millionaires over the age of 60. That’d take care of things.
Comment by Hesiod —
August 1, 2007 @ 4:56 pm
In ancient Rome, the Temple of >a href=”http://www.livius.org/ja-jn/janus/janus.html”>Janus Quirinus closed its doors, officially, only twice in the Republic’s entire 500 year history.
The significance of this is that it only closed its doors when Rome was at peace. Completely at peace.
Comment by Hesiod —
August 1, 2007 @ 4:57 pm
In ancient Rome, the Temple of Janus Quirinus closed its doors, officially, only twice in the Republic’s entire 500 year history.
The significance of this is that it only closed its doors when Rome was at peace. Completely at peace.
Comment by Thoreau —
August 1, 2007 @ 6:07 pm
Can we take another vacation from history? Please?
Comment by Joshua Holmes —
August 1, 2007 @ 8:46 pm
Raimondo has been writing about the consensus for the national security state for a long time. He calls it the “War Party”. It knows no party, crosses all sorts of partisan lines, and cannot be questioned without questioning “our brave men and women”. Any suggestions on how to stop them would be great.
Addendum: we will never close the doors of the Temple of Janus unless we start to see military service for what it really is: mob muscle. Opposing war does no good without opposing the military, and opposing the military does no good unless we shame those who fight in it.
Comment by JP —
August 1, 2007 @ 9:14 pm
One might even add that for some the wars have to have a certain flashiness about them.
–Sure, if “one” took what Greenwald said to heart. The premise that war almost always occurs because of greedy, self-interested but distant elites is a page out of Marx. Like Greenwald, Marx forgot that the proles he’s speaking for see the importance of military force and the wisdom of using that to protect their well-being.
During those years we occupied … etc.
–Don’t forget Somalia, Bosnia and the odd border incident with the North Koreans.
This is the most extraordinary aspect of our political culture.
–Hardly. Greenwald can’t really think this is a uniquely American phenomenon. The French don’t have it out like a pack of hand-wringing pacifists over this sort of gibberish. They bomb colourful idiots who declare war on France (and thus French citizens, the unwashed as well as their horrid warmongering elite) or threaten French interests in other parts of the globe and get on with life.
Any way, I second Gsnorgathon’s motion. Nothing could be more terrifying to al-Qaeda than never ending waves of the venture capital geriatric set. Particularly the kvetching religious Jews Jim loves. That’s a lot of yappy, well-groomed heads to carve off in one sitting.
“Esther, can you tell Ahmed to bring me ‘nother piece Jello before he parks the Lexus?”
Comment by sean —
August 1, 2007 @ 9:37 pm
Well, Joshua Holmes, surely you would acknowledge that this particular website has done its bit to pour scorn on American soldiers. Although, in truth, whether Mr. Henley and his comrades are more contemptuous of American soldiers than of the rest of their fellow citizens is kind of debatable. It makes for a strange and repellent combination, a sort of venomous pacifism, a desire for violent coercion in the cause of freedom, which fortunately doesn’t seem to have much resonance in the larger world.
Comment by Joshua Holmes —
August 1, 2007 @ 11:31 pm
Well, Joshua Holmes, surely you would acknowledge that this particular website has done its bit to pour scorn on American soldiers.
Actually, I haven’t seen much scorn poured on the average soldiers. There has been much scorn heaped on soldiers committing overt war crimes. There has been castigation for political leaders and generals. But I see no scorn for the average grunt.
It makes for a strange and repellent combination, a sort of venomous pacifism, a desire for violent coercion in the cause of freedom, which fortunately doesn’t seem to have much resonance in the larger world.
This is meaningless gibberish.
Comment by Walt —
August 2, 2007 @ 9:41 am
JP, sean: Your problem is that you have already lost. You had your chance, and you fucked it up. At this point, no one cares what you think.
Comment by JP —
August 14, 2007 @ 6:45 am
Walt: tables turned! :O