Neurotik wrote;
In one thread someone had the link to an US-official site, that stated so. (I remember it because I had to figure out what the word “slant-drilling” means. See how useful Your posts are! 
) I’ll try to find it.
Again, this is correct, if intepreted correctly. It is neither my interests nor your interests, nor the interests of the majority of Americans that are being defended. What is called the “national interest” is the interest of those who run and control the state. To quote the spectacularly vulgar Thomas Friedman, State Department spokesman at the New York Times,
“The hidden hand of the market will never work without a hidden fist - McDonald’s cannot flourish without McDonnell Douglas, the builder of the F-15. And the hidden fist that keeps the world safe for Silicon Valley’s technologies is called the United States Army, Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps.”
Source: “A Manifesto for the Fast World,” The New York Times Magazine, March 28, 1999
In this rare honest moment for Friedman, he explains the main purpose of the U.S. military, which is to protect the interests of the powerful. These interests are most often directly at odds with the interests of the people of America, as was made clear on 9/11/01. It does not serve my interests to kill 4 million in Indochina, or to provide training and arms to Latin American fascists so that they can slaughter their populations. It did not serve my interests when the U.S. invaded Grenada to oust a government that posed the threat of becoming a good example; it did not serve my interests when the U.S. mined the harbours of Nicaragua and trained and supplied a terrorist army to kill 30,000 Nicaraguans; it did not serve my interests when the U.S. bombed Libya, killing about 100 people. It did not serve my interests when the U.S.S. Vincennes shot down an Iranian passenger plane in 1988, killing all 290 aboard. And on and on… While the projection of force, and destruction of human life does not serve my interests, it does serve the interests of the powerful. It makes the world much more dangerous, but it does entrench and expand the power of the powerful. To take one example, the captain of the U.S.S. Vincennes was awarded a medal by President Bush for “outstanding service in the commission of a meritorious conduct” for the downing of Iran Air Flight 655, an act he described in the following: “One thing is clear, and that is that the Vincennes acted in self-defense… .” You see, passenger airlines pose a clear and present danger to the security of the United States.
You are reinforcing my image of rightists as frightened little men. Worried about an invasion of Canada, are you?
At any rate, it is a logical impossibility that the U.S. military machine can have as its purpose the defense of “countries other than itself.” This is true because of the simple fact that the U.S. consistently undermines the best means that has been devised for providing security to states that cannot defend themselves, namely international law. Without a doubt, most of the world is in a much more precarious position because of U.S. actions. That you happen to be on the right side of the gun is more a matter of luck than anything. Those on the other side of the gun, which is most of the world, have a much different opinion.
Since the main obstacle to peace in the Middle East for the past three decades has been the U.S., there would be a much higher probability of peace were it not for U.S. aggression and intervention.
However, you present us with a tacit false dichotomy. The question should not be posed as one of either having a massive killing machine and having no military. There are plenty of degrees in there that you left out, such as having a military for purely defensive purposes. I am not opposed to having a military. We could be virtually immune from foreign attack with a military budget of $10 billion and a different foreign policy. The problem is that security has nothing to do with U.S. policy. As was explained by a U.S. military officer:
“Look, if you think the mere threat of the end of the world is going to change thinking in Washington and Moscow, they you haven’t spent much time in either of those cities.”
Source: As quoted in “A Path Were No Man Thought” by Carl Sagan, et. al. This was said during a 1983 meeting with concerened scientists on the threat of nuclear winter.
What would the world be like if the U.S. only used its military for defense? Well, it would be so different it wouldn’t even be recognizable. Taking just a very few points more or less at random of how the world would be different: Guatemalan ('53), Iranian ('54), Chilean ('73), Congolese ('61) and Brazilian ('63) democracies would not have been overthrown; 4 million people in Indochina would not have been killed; Vietnamese civil society would not have been devastated; Vietnam would not have been covered in chemical weapons; Suharto would not have been able to kill 1/2 to 1 million Indonesians in 1965, and then to invade East Timor in 1975 with another 200,000 killed; El Salvador and Guatemala would not have been able to kill 200,000 people in the 1980’s; 30,000 people killed in Nicaragua by the U.S. proxy terror army in the 1980’s would not have died; the couple thousand Panamanian civilians killed by the U.S. in 1989 would have been able to live; Iraq would not have had its water treatment facilities and the rest of its infrastructure destroyed, leading, along with sanctions and near-daily bombings, to close to 2 million deaths and counting; the plant that produced half of the pharmaceutical supplies of Sudan would not have been destroyed. And so on. …and on and on.
We see very clearly what the consequences are for people when we examine a few of these cases. In the case of Guatemala, for example, Arbenz had to be overthrown since he was threatening to pay United Fruit Company for its unused land and give it to landless peasants. The subsequent military dictatorship created what can only be described as a charnel house in Guatemala, where torture, disappearances and assassination were the norm. In the case of Nicaragua, the Sandinistas had to be destroyed since they had made the most progress toward helping the poor of their country in Latin America, with health, literacy campaigns, etc. While the bload-soaked Somoza dictatorship was supplied with a flood of U.S. support, the Sandinistas had to be gotten rid of. The list could go on all day.
The story is the same around the world. The U.S. acts to prop up regimes that provide what is called a “favourable business climate.” (Indonesia was described as a “paradise for investors,” and further, as “a totalitarian state set on top of Dodge City” by the business press.) Since democracy and human rights are antithetical to this climate, the U.S. most often ends up crushing left-leaning movements and supporting fascist states that suppress labour and pro-democracy movements. The consequences are simply devastating. And this is not even accounting for the vast numbers of institutionally murdered by the imperialist system.
One of the most important institutions for maintaining Washington’s Latin American police states is the School of the Americas. I highly recommend checking out this site, to see what kind of carnage we are paying for:
I haven’t the slightest doubt that your counterpart in the USSR would have said the exact same thing about a Russian who criticized the Soviet system.
The great American journalist I.F. Stone would preface his lectures on journalism with the words, “There are only two words you need to know if you want to be an honest journalist: governments lie.”
Certainly, the U.S. does not have a monopoly on deceit. The history of states is simply replete with examples of lying to justify actions state managers want to carry out. U.S. history is probably more saturated with government lying, simply due to the fact that what Americans think is very important. It is much more important to control what people think in a free society than in a society where you can just execute anybody who speaks out.
As for Cuba, though, we are getting away from the point. The assertion was made that the Cuban blockade was an act of defense. This is so incredible a claim that I hardly know where to start. It is clear why those who would justify this act would want to call it “defense.” Pretty much everybody agrees that acting in self-defense is legitimate. Nobody would argue against defending yourself against armed attack. But, here we get into what Orwell called “doublespeak.” If you want to justify something, simply slide the concept of something that people praise over what you want to justify. Since people agree that defense is legitimate, simply call whatever you want to do “defense.” Thus, the Department of War was renamed the Department of Defense in 1947, when it became clear that the U.S. military would never again be used for defense (and it never has).
Let us break with convention, and be clear about the meaning of words. What does “defense” mean? Well, it means several things. But, when people use “defense” to justify what they want to do, they are importing the connotations of defense as being the universally recognized right to defend oneself against armed attack. Other uses of the word are simply doublespeak, as when Rumsfeld defends the bombing of Iraq as “defense” since Iraqi missiles are firing at a hostile power over its own airspace. In this case, at least, it is clear what kind of deceit is going on here. It is the same, to a greater or lesser extent, for every military act the U.S. has carried out since WWII. And, actually, I don’t consider U.S. entry into WWII to be an act of defense. I think it was legitimate, even obligatory, but it was not defense.
Back to Cuba. Cuba posed no threat to the U.S., nor could it ever have posed a threat to the U.S., bad Hollywood films notwithstanding. Immediately after the 1959 revolution, the U.S. began attacking Cuba, long before there was any Cuban-Soviet relationship. The U.S. had plans to invade Cuba by the early 1960’s, and its attacks were relentless and ongoing. Cuba had little choice but to defend itself by importing nuclear weapons. The invasion was only prevented after Cuba was blocked from defending itself because of Soviet protection. (The agreement of the U.S. not to invade Cuba was as good as the rest of the treaties the U.S. has broken. It was only the threat of Soviet retaliation that prevented an outright invasion.)
What is the justification for calling the Cuban blockade “defense”? Well, it is claimed that Cuba was a “client state” of the USSR. There is some of what pyschologists call “projection” going on here. Since the U.S. maintains its empire through client states that do the bidding of Washington, there is an assumption that any state that received Soviet support would act in a similar manner toward its benefactor. This, however, is childish over-simplification. Castro was nothing if not fiercely independent, hardly a puppet of Moscow. Although U.S. propaganda likes to paint Castro with the same brush as the various U.S. puppet dictators like Suharto or Pinochet, Castro has always been fiercely loyal to Cuba and the revolution. You can think what you like about the Cuban revolution, but to posit that Cuba would become a launching pad for Soviet aggression is a ridiculous over-simplification that exhibits an ignorance of history.
It is a virtual law of history that states will justify everything they do as “defense.” Hitler justified the invasion of Czechoslovakia as defense, claiming that the much weaker state was a “dagger pointed at the heart of Germany.” We recognize such hypocrisy when it is exhibited by official enemies, but we will not be served well by ignoring similar hypocrisy and deceit when it is exhibited by our own so-called leaders.
It is important to note that U.S. policy did not change after the Cold War was over. What did change were the pretexts used to justify the exact same policies. So, the noose on Cuba was made tighter, NATO continues to grow, the Pentagon system is still massive and growing, U.S. military is stationed all over the world, etc. We continue to pour hundreds of billions of dollars into producing useless military junk, now because of the latest pretext, the “war on terror.”
This is nothing new. Before the advent of the Cold War pretext, others were used, such as the pretext of the aggressive Germans in Latin America. After the Cold War, the Drug War provided a good pretext for a while, in such actions as the Panama invasion, or for providing the Columbian oligarchy with massive military support, etc. The terrible threat of Rogue States provided a pretty good pretext, such as was used to justify the first Gulf War. Now we have a pretext that is replacing the Cold War pretext in its extent and usefulness, namely the War on Terrorism. As our leaders constantly remind us, this means all war all the time, basically the same thing as before but now justified as a “war on terror.”
That the “war on terror” has been a spectacular failure does not diminish one iota its usefulness as a pretext for carrying out policies the state wants to carry out.
However, you also point out another reason for military spending, which is to subsidize the high-tech industry. Almost every dynamic sector of the economy is publicly subsidized via the Pentagon. This is merely the way the U.S. organizes and plans its economy. In other states, this is done through different means. It just happens that here public financing of unprofitable industry is done through the Pentagon system. It is a way for the poor to subsidize the rich, while ensuring that the vast bulk of public financing for high-tech industry does not benefit the public.
A spot on and sensible analysis Chumsky
You’re new here, aren’t you?
And I read the agreement post before Chumpsky’s post - just thought it’d be funny, given his usual whackiness.
In this case, though, I agree with him almost entirely. I hate that the US military has become an imperialist army, and that the American people are so thoroughly trusting in the government that they absolutely and truly believe any justification or propoganda thrown at them by their government.
It’s ironic that we wonder how the Germans of the 30s and 40s could be swayed with all of that simplistic propoganda, and we fall for the same stuff in a more subtle form.
This is probably the only issue I tend to agree with whacko leftists about :). Actually, my dislike for the use of the US military as an imperialist force has prompted people to call me a “leftist” or “dove” on more conservative boards - which is pretty funny if you know me.
Yep, and also a long time reader academically trained in US foreign policy matters, not that that matters much as in the end we are all arguing from the non provable axioms of our world-views.
Since you last three are working from the the assumption that America is protecting the interests of the powerful and nothing more, among others, then, I’m sure you won’t mind if I ignore your ignorant screed.
First, from the available evidence of history and contemporary affairs that is a very reasonable conclusion to draw and does not indicate a blind assumption. Chumpsky has provided numerous examples of the USA not acting in his interests but in the interest of sectional elements and anyone with a cursory knowledge of current affairs could add a whole stack more.
If someone is happy for their State to act in such ways that’s between them and theirconscience I guess. Who knows, in the broad sweep of the centuries they may turn out to be right and millions had to die for some rosy future to materialise.
Some of us, however, are not comfortable with that kind of calculation and would prefer our interests were seen as part of the greater interest of the rest of the planet and given a choice would like to see less bloody and confrontational and less short term and sectional policies pursued in the “national interest.”
If I were an American I’d be no more happy about some of the things the State does in my name than I am about the SAS training the ousted rump of the Khymer Rouge in the 80’s but others might, just as legitimately, feel different.
Second - “protecting the interests of the powerful and nothing more, among others”
nothing more, among others? It does not compute.
Third - ignoring our threads simply involves, well, ignoring them. No need to post thanks, unless you want to possibly demonstrate how the interests of the United Fruit Company are coincident with the National Interest.
the “among others” refers to your assumption.
I point out that one - or even a dozen examples (and I would tend to agree that he UFC scandal was an errant position of the US government) does not establish that you are correct. Ineed, I believe if you honestly looked at all the military actions of the last century, you would not consider the US a bastion only of the rich and powerful, but rather an incredibly equalitarian nation, albeit one that does not believe in hand-holding.
As I said, you are proceeding from assumption to conclusions, taking whatever evidence you need along the way. I do not believe you are honestly looking at the situations and culture of the times when you proceed to conclusions.
Should you care to actually read my post you’ll note that I concede we all proceed on assumptions, me included. My assumptions have been tested against history to my satisfaction and continue to be tested, as I expect, do yours. Yet to you anything the US does that is bad is an abberation based on your assumptions. Who knows who is right. i though am prepared to entertain the possibility, you aren’t.
Welcome tagos
You think and write well!
I can see that You are from England.
You have not, Tagos adequately supported your position.
I DO know who is right, otherwise I would not be supporting my position. I am not, however, going to go out on a limb and work to make an argument when all you give is vague “down with the tyrants” speaches. I don’t give a fat damn about your preachy monologues.
Exactly correct, me bucko! Soince I believe all nations, even those governed by callous dictators, are madeof of ordinary people. Having been a final witness to the horrors of the Communist era, the failures of Radical politics, and the real Imperialist nations, I have ample evidence to support my ideas
Since the best you and Chumpsy have done thus far is to throw out unsupported Communist rallying cries, I am less than inclined to justufy myself to you.
Tagos, Chumpsky made the mistaken assumption - and you seem to agree with him - that because the government does not serve his interests, it does not serve the national interests. It’s a classical “I am the world” fallacy. Maybe the government doesn’t serve Chumpsky’s interests (though I’m skeptical of this). It also doesn’t serve, say, Timothy McVeigh’s interests. (I’m assuming here that the Oklahoma City bombing was not one of the goals of our government.) So what? Not serving the interests of each individual American is not the same as not serving the interests of the American people, taken en masse. It sure as hell represents my interests, and I’m not exactly a Kennedy.
To be honest, though, I think the government does generally serve the interests of the vast majority of Americans, even those who claim it doesn’t - that is, it serves the interests of those who wish to live in as free and safe a nation as possible. It also serves to provide a safe environment from which people can bitch about how evil their nation is, without mysteriously disappearing in the middle of the night, or being arrested for “civil disobedience”, or some such.
And on an unrelated note, thanks, SenorBeef, for the link to the battleship discussion. I don’t know if I agree with you, based on what I read, but it was an interesting POV.
Jeff
Excellent counter-argument.
I think they also suffer from the “I am detatched from everything I don’t like about the world” falacy. For example, a statement like “the war in Iraq serves the interests of Big Oil, Inc, not my interests” is false. Like it or not, your interests are directly tied to those of oil companies.
Cheap oil does serve almost everyone in the U.S.'s interest. Except for those promoting alternate energy/electric cars/ ect.
It wasn’t an agument. It was a statement of fact.
The free flow of energy and information may make their goals harder, but then, forcing either system upon the public is not a notable goal of the US government. People chose to use fossil fuels, and continue to pressure their elected officials about it.
I couldn’t agree more. The military industrial complex is like a swarm of vampires sucking us dry. That money could be put to much more productive use, even if we were to use only a fraction of it.
As it stands, the American military is not so much protecting America as it is holding America hostage.
Military spending in the USA accounts for 48.9% of all discretionary governmental spending.
• In the Fiscal Year (FY) 2001, the US spends:
$589, 802 on the military every minute
$35,388,120 on the military every hour
$849,314,880 on the military every day
That’s an outrage.
http://www.wagingpeace.org/articles/01.04/usmilitaryexpenditures.html