Sometimes, War Is a Racket....

There's been some comment on Toad-In-The-Hole's speech at the West Point commencement exercises yesterday, most of it centering on the pasty-faced old fart's apparent dissing of the Geneva Conventions and the Constitution. The notice is well-deserved, but there ought to be mention of something else.

What goes almost unnoticed these days--precisely because it is so common to this White House--is the rank jingoism of everyone's least-favorite fascist. Not only does he perpetuate this absurd "war on terror" nonsense, but his point in doing so is to emphasize that a good part of the rest of the world simply doesn't measure up to us:

As Army officers on duty in the war on terror, you will now face enemies who oppose and despise everything you know to be right, every notion of upright conduct and character, and every belief you consider worth fighting for and living for.

I note, with some cynicism, that the Wacko from Wyoming doesn't say, "fighting for and dying for." (I will also but mention that the cretinous trolls residing in the White House speechwriters' office have a peculiarly colloquial way with words destined for a very formal event... yet another means by which to distinguish Cheney and Bush from their presidential betters.) However, let us gloss over those minor quibbles and return to the main point. Here's a fellow who actively and repetitively evaded military service during the last "long war" lecturing newly-commissioned Army officers on the utter depravity and monstrosity of the enemy. Not only does this have the smell and feel of the sort of propaganda film shown to enlisted men and the public in WWII, it encourages these new officers to do something no professional soldier should ever do, for his own sake and the sake of his men: fail to respect one's enemies.

Such talk is designed to inflame passions, rather than to stimulate thoughtful contemplation of one's military purpose. For that reason, this address was directed not toward the new soldiers, but to the general public, and yet, those soldiers will take with them some measure of Cheney's words, given his place in the civilian structure controlling the military.

These days, it's the sort of talk that seems to spring from an enormous well of stupidity and racism, and is intended to appeal to the basest instincts of those in society who would prefer not to think for themselves and who find such simplistic stereotypes comforting. If that's what this administration thinks of its military leaders, lord, help us.

Beyond that, it's rather clear from this sort of barroom bullshit that Cheney is being his usual manipulative self, and that such talk is part of a calculated effort to mold public and military opinion to corrupt ends. He would very much like to see the present wars expanded throughout the Middle East, particularly, into Syria and Iran, and Cheney's dishonesty--in failing to reveal his true intentions and the cronyism behind those intentions--is particularly diabolical given his audience, for it is they who will eventually suffer physical, mental and moral wounds as Cheney's agents in the pursuit of his and Bush's corrupt ambitions. It is they who will find themselves in moral and legal jeopardy if they take Cheney's advice to heart.

Toward the end of his The New American Militarism: How Americans Are Seduced By War, Andrew Bacevich writes:

Enthusiasts (mostly on the right) who interpret America's possession of unrivaled and unprecedented armed might as proof that the United States enjoys the mandate of heaven are deluded. But so too are those (mostly on the left) who see in the far-flung doings of today's U.S. military establishment substantiation of Major General Smedley Butler's old chestnut that "war is a racket" and the American soldier "a gangster for capitalism" sent abroad to do the bidding of Big Business or Big Oil.

Professional soldiers never want to consider seriously the possibility that their service has been used for corrupt purposes. And yet, the mere presence of Bush and Cheney in the White House ensured that they would be. Bush and Cheney are not the first to have done so, but they are the most brazen and mendacious and outrageous in doing so. They are the inevitable consequence of a political process that has been progressively cheapened--in large part due to the influence of the corporate news media--to the detriment of both soldiers and society at large. If one needs any proof of that, the recent capitulation of Democrats to Bush's demands--after the clear import of the 2006 elections--is evidence enough that the system is broken.

In 2005, Bacevich likely thought that Smedley Butler was wrong about how Butler and the military of this country had been used, or, alternately, that Butler's lessons did not apply to the modern military. I don't know if, in that estimation, he was considering that Butler's experience included being asked by the corporate enemies of FDR to overthrow the government on their behalf because they felt that Butler's reputation was sufficient to bring the military rank-and-file to the cause. They were wrong in their errant presumption that Butler valued Wall Street over the Constitution, but, the conspiracy clearly showed, beyond any doubt, that Wall Street viewed the military as its cat's paw.

In 2007, it would appear that Bacevich's opinions have changed somewhat, and the reasons for that change, and the results of that change are, frankly, tragic:

... responsibility for the war's continuation now rests no less with the Democrats who control Congress than with the president and his party. After my son's death, my state's senators, Edward M. Kennedy and John F. Kerry, telephoned to express their condolences. Stephen F. Lynch, our congressman, attended my son's wake. Kerry was present for the funeral Mass. My family and I greatly appreciated such gestures. But when I suggested to each of them the necessity of ending the war, I got the brushoff. More accurately, after ever so briefly pretending to listen, each treated me to a convoluted explanation that said in essence: Don't blame me.

To whom do Kennedy, Kerry and Lynch listen? We know the answer: to the same people who have the ear of George W. Bush and Karl Rove -- namely, wealthy individuals and institutions. Money buys access and influence. Money greases the process that will yield us a new president in 2008. When it comes to Iraq, money ensures that the concerns of big business, big oil, bellicose evangelicals and Middle East allies gain a hearing. By comparison, the lives of U.S. soldiers figure as an afterthought.

Memorial Day orators will say that a G.I.'s life is priceless. Don't believe it. I know what value the U.S. government assigns to a soldier's life: I've been handed the check. It's roughly what the Yankees will pay Roger Clemens per inning once he starts pitching next month.

Money maintains the Republican/Democratic duopoly of trivialized politics. It confines the debate over U.S. policy to well-hewn channels. It preserves intact the cliches of 1933-45 about isolationism, appeasement and the nation's call to "global leadership." It inhibits any serious accounting of exactly how much our misadventure in Iraq is costing. It ignores completely the question of who actually pays. It negates democracy, rendering free speech little more than a means of recording dissent.

This is not some great conspiracy. It's the way our system works.

There is, in this, an undercurrent of frustration and helplessness that transcends the expected emotional depths of grief. Prof. Bacevich has had an unhappy epiphany, provided to him by Democrats, the very same Democrats handed a mandate, only a few months ago, to clean up all the messes that Bush and Cheney and their wrecking crew have made. One wishes that Bacevich's remarks will induce a similar epiphany in the Democrats, but, that seems doubtful in the instant.

No matter if one voted to turn over Congress' right to declare war to the idiots and the insane in the White House, simple recognition now that the war was based in deceit and motivated by greed should be enough to revoke that right, should promote the understanding in the leadership of Congress that their first obligation is to respect the wishes of the country's majority and end the war, using all means available to them. It is the country's foremost problem at the moment and no other work should be done until that problem is ended.

If Bush threatens to veto a bill that forces him to obey the will of the people, send that bill up to him, anyway. Then do the political work necessary to override that veto. If not successful, craft an even more direct and forceful bill and send that to him. He and Cheney are as stubborn and stupid as mules, and that's the political equivalent of whacking them between the ears with a two-by-four. Do it over and over and over again until they get the point. Initiate investigations into Cheney's energy task force secrets and expose the true reasons for the war. Put a general call out to the whistleblowers still lurking in the woodwork of government. Guarantee to protect them from retaliation and get their testimony about the corrupt workings of this administration.

If the members of Congress--and particularly, the Democratic members--do not stand together to resist and check this administration's willful usurpation of power, Bush and Cheney will do to this country what they have already done to the military. Quite simply, if their political power is not blunted, they will destroy the country's foundations.

If the Democrats do not act forcefully to carry out the will of the people--the purpose for which they were elected--they will simply confirm Prof. Bacevich's observations and will enable further use of the military by Bush and Cheney for corrupt purposes. Anything less than such an effort is to aid and abet racketeering on an international scale.

And, on edit: if you ladies and gentlemen of Congress, having sunk too deeply into the morass of Washington politics to find yourselves in view of a satisfactory role model for the above task, I suggest you consider this young lady. You, too, have criminals in your midst.


(photo of Arlington West, via truthout.org)