![]() |
|
||
|
America’s ‘Strong Commitment to Error’Posted on Feb 3, 2009John Kenneth Galbraith, the distinguished and irreverent Canadian-born but U.S.-nationalized economist, observer of American national mores, preconceptions and faults, and a sometime U.S. government official, wrote the following of his government experience in Washington and New Delhi in the 1960s. He was not the only one, he said, who fell afoul “of a major feature of our foreign policy. That is its institutional rigidity, which holds it on course even when it is visibly wrong. So it was on Vietnam, as is now accepted. So it was on ... military alliances with the poor lands. ... So it was [and continues to be] on such matters as the enlargement of NATO or the continuing trade and travel sanctions on Cuba, or, as this is written [in 1999], on a sensible response to the more liberal tendencies now evident in Iran. ... [It is] a rigidity with its strong commitment to error.” Indeed, a decade later, one might be justified in speaking of an absolute, inevitable and chronic institutional commitment to error. From in the 1920s to the mid-1930s, the principal postulated enemy in U.S. naval war planning and exercises continued to be the British Royal Navy, as had been the case for more than a century of American history. The U.S. Navy today operates 11 large aircraft-carrier battle groups, which are, as William S. Lind has written, “still structured to fight the Imperial Japanese Navy,” although the only currently available wars at the moment are those with non-state insurgent forces in the desert of Iraq and the mountains of Afghanistan. Advertisement The F-35 is even more costly than the F-22, and according to one Air Force critic quoted by Chalmers Johnson, “has a distinction that even the F-22 cannot claim, namely that it is tailored to meet [a Soviet] threat that ceased to exist at least three years before [the F-35’s research and development] program began.” The aircraft was promised to Congress in 1998 at a unit cost of $184 million. Its scheduled cost in 2008 is $355 million a unit, and its development is two years behind schedule. Its original cost projections also assumed that it would be sold and partially paid for by an array of NATO allies led by Britain, Norway and the Netherlands (none of which would receive a version that could be operated independently of U.S. Air Force personnel)—a demonstration that NATO Europe is not acquainted with the 19th century American showman P.T. Barnum’s maxim that “there’s a sucker born every minute.” However, these foreign sales are not yet totally nailed down, so Barnum’s wisdom might prevail at Washington’s expense instead. This digression into military procurement is relevant to Galbraith’s warning, since it provides a further demonstration of the institutional incapacity of the United States international policy establishment to change course, no matter how flagrant the need to do so, and this incapacity is perhaps the biggest of all the problems faced by President Barack Obama. The new machinery of counterinsurgency, nation-building and democratization in radicalized, failing or “failed” states, so as to “win” the war on terrorism, was put into operation by the U.S. more than a year ago, at about the time Iraq tactics were changed to enlist Sunni tribesmen in the Awakening movement, and the ethnic segregation of Baghdad began to bring a significant (if impermanent?) drop in violence there. Despite the evidence that the Afghanistan situation bears little resemblance to Iraq, a version of the “surge” is planned there, using the Obama-ordered reinforcement of existing U.S. troops by 30,000 soldiers. The plan seems to be to pacify Baghdad first. There have been calls for building a “Green Zone” in Kabul to house U.S., allied and foreign institutions, as well as the Afghan government. Despite the deteriorating political and military situation in neighboring Pakistan and the political situation in Kabul, as well as current Taliban success in conquering much of the Afghan countryside, it seems that the plan now is to secure Kabul with the new forces, and to do there what was done (or left half-done) in Iraq. The institutional rigidity of U.S. foreign policy has been locked in place. The ideas—there are many—about negotiations, local, regional or multinational, seem ruled out. Here we go again. Visit William Pfaff’s Web site at www.williampfaff.com. © 2009 Tribune Media Services Inc. Elsewhere: . CommentsAre you a Truthdig member yet? Login now, or register with Truthdig. Add Your Comment
|
A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion. Editor, Robert Scheer. Publisher, Zuade Kaufman.
Copyright © 2009 Truthdig, L.L.C. All rights reserved. |
By wadosy, February 9 at 6:24 pm #
here’s a map of the pipeline schemes. 2644 x 2040
Report thisBy Folktruther, February 9 at 4:19 pm #
KDelphi-all the central Asian ‘Stans are small backward countries who are en route to Caspian oil and gas, which has to be piped through them. They are sometimes referred to collectively as pipelineistan. They have traditionally been in the Russia orbit, although are now in the Shanghai Cooperation Oraganization headed by China.
All China wants is access to the gas of Turmanistan and Ian oil. China is currently building another 8 thousand kilometer pipeline, this time to southern China. This organization may become a power later on because Iran, pakistan and India are observers and want to join. But for now all Russia and China want to do is to get the US out.
It was Zbig, Obama’s mentor, who originally suggested getting in in the first place, another loony idea in THE GREAT CHESSBOARD.
Your quote of Russia allowing ‘non-military aid’ to a war is simply the usual diplomatic bullshit when powers are jockying for favorable agreements.
Report thisBy wadosy, February 7 at 3:07 pm #
“compulsory jurisdiction”
...and we bomb them into submission if they rebel, huh?
very good, although your proposal doesnt seem all that different from bill kristol’s “benevolent global hegemony”, which has, so far, demonstrated its benevolence by causing the needless deaths of maybe a million people.
Report thisBy prgill, February 7 at 12:39 pm #
In 2001 the Central Asian states, sometimes referred to as “the Stans” (Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan, less Turkmenistan which for some reason did not elect to join the group), formed, with the People’s Republic of China and the Russian Federation a Central Asian Cooperation area, somewhat like NATO.
A number of Central and South Asian states, including Pakistan, India and Afghanistan are “observers”, and Iran has applied for full membership. The group is called the Shanghai Cooperation Organization or (SCO). (The Wikipedia article on the subject offers a good introduction.)
The bottom line is that Afghanistan as a military theatre would be an “over-stretch” for America without specific support from the SCO and specifically from China and Russia. Like North Korea, it may be better from a policy point of view to get Afghanistan’s immediate neighbors, all of whom value stability and self-governance, to adress the issue of stability in Afghanistan as a regional issue.
If we could only set up a world where regional issues are resolved in the region, subject to recognition of “compulsory jurisdiction” of the International Court of Justice and enforcement authority of the Secretary General of the United Nations acting through the Security Council, we may yet create a workable system of world governance.
Report thisBy KDelphi, February 7 at 3:41 am #
Folktruther—I will have to learn more about them…do you suppose that they will give other small countries in the area courage to do the same? (At least ones that dont have a dictator US puppet) I would rather deal with Russia or China, militarily,than the US, any day…
I read that the Russians wil “allow US convoys through, if the aid is non-destructve”—-what do you make of that? I am not absolutely certain that the email I got was worded like that…
Report thisBy Folktruther, February 6 at 11:01 pm #
KDelphi- It looks like the valiant Kyrgyzs are standing strong in preferring to be bribed by the Russians rather than the Americans. Getting all these bases out of Central Asia destoys the possiblility of a military seizure of their oil and gas. In any case, they are in the back yard of Russia and China.
So the Afghan pipeline is getting deader and deader, which may induce some sanity in US foreign policy.
Your lack of knowldege about the valiant Kyrgyzs is shared by most of the rest of the world. Landlocked mountains cut them off from everyone else. The name according to Wikapedia meas ‘forty girls’ or ‘forty tribss.’ This doesn’t seem right but what is right only the Kyrgyzs know. Hopefully.
Report thisBy KDelphi, February 6 at 7:58 pm #
Folk—I am afraid that the Kyrgyzs will cave to a “higher bid” from the US, no?? I must admit to knowing nothing about the country. Yes, Kuwait is a puppet.
Paul_GA—Yes, and, MORAL bankruptcy also.
Report thisBy Da Bronx, February 6 at 7:54 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
I suppose o9ne could say the same thing about our internal policies.
We keep building bigger and bigger prisons to house more and more criminals.
When it doesn’t work, stop?
Report thisBy wadosy, February 6 at 5:25 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
we’re trapped by peak oil and global warming: israel has to be secured from sea level rise—-which might not happen for a couple hundred years, or might not happen at all—- before their protector, america, runs out of gas, and it looks like oil production has peaked, globally.
of course, sane people in government cant say anything about the threat posed by peak oil, since peak oil was the neocons’ most pressing motive for doing 9/11, and the neocon philosophy seems to have metastasized throughout the american body politic.
as peak oil became evident—-in $147/bbl oil prices—- it’s not by chance that a mechanism was in place to crash the economy, thus crashing oil demand, thus obscuring peak oil as motive for 9/11.
seeing as how israelis are willing to do about anything to secure themselves, and immolate themselves—-and as many others as they’re capable of immolating—- with their “samson option” if they fail, it looks like we’re locked into this baloney… especially in view of this neocon “nuke primacy” stuff and israel’s influence on america.
global samson option.
wonderful.
Report thisBy Mike3, February 5 at 12:54 pm #
Hi prgill: actually, “full-spectrum dominance” is not my creation; that is America’s official policy regarding the rest of the world. It’s an earlier version and cousin of: “shock and awe”. The difference being that “F-S-D” is less well known. Just as wicked and even more sinister.
Report thisBy Paul_GA, February 5 at 10:55 am #
If this country does not end this “commitment to error” on its own, circumstances will soon force that end upon it, whether the denizens of Mordor-on-the-Potomac like it or not.
Can you say, “depression”? Can you say, “national bankruptcy”?
Report thisBy prgill, February 5 at 7:27 am #
Brilliant thread…, sorry I missed most of it.
Where is the outrage when it is needed? Co-opted by a political process that defends the “wealth machine” that supports the “establishment infrastructure”. I’m not sure there is anything we can do about this, short of consciously destroying what we have built over the past 100+ years.
More modestly, perhaps we could start by SERIOUSLY questioning the wisdom of maintaining a million-man armed force in pursuit of “full spectrum dominance”. (I like the concept, Mike3, very new age.)
The second “thing” we could do would be to reaffirm our belief that all nations should be bound by the compulsory jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice and the enforcement authority of the Secretary General of the United Nations. This would be very difficult in practice, but would clearly signal our willingness to abide by the rules that govern the rest of humanity.
Report thisBy cyrena, February 4 at 11:39 pm #
Felicy:
• “(My husband had to take a university class from Teller and said it was like watching reruns of Strangelove 3 times a week for an entire semester.)”
I swear I know EXACTLY what your husband is saying. That’s EXACTLY what it feels like, and Teller isn’t the only one of his ilk. You wouldn’t believe the multiple changes and logistical/bureaucratic gymnastics I went through to AVOID those Strangelove type professors/lecturers, and I’m actually too embarrassed to admit them on a public forum.
I was mostly successful though. In the end, I DID have to succumb to one, so I just used the time to do something else while everybody else watched the re-runs. Pissed me off though, since I still had to pay the tuition for that class, AND do the strangelove work, which is the same as psychological torture in my opinion.) But, I survived. I’m sure your husband did too.
Report thisBy Ted Swart, February 4 at 10:41 pm #
What a depressing analysis on Pfaff’s part. So, how on earth, can this situation be changed? What happened to “change we can believe in”?
Report thisBy michael roloff, February 4 at 4:54 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
Well, I would say that the United States ever since around 1950 has been brilliant in assuring itself of all the enemies it needs to keep the military industrial complex in business and reaching into every congressional districts with porcine potlatches… Iran, Guatemala, Cuba, Afghan destabiliztion by Carter/ Brzezinski, Chile, Iraq ... ah why do they hate us??
Report thisBy Folktruther, February 4 at 3:06 pm #
Not to worry, truthdiggers, the Kyrgyzs are riding to the rescue of the American population. The bombing of the Afghan population is done from an airbase in Kyrgyzstan, the Switzerland of Central Asia, and the Kyrgyzs are now getting more money from Russia to kick out the US.
Since the only entrace to landlocked Aghanistan is through Russia or Pakistan, both of which the US has now pissed off, the closing of the US airbase will help end that war. Hopefully.
Now if only Kuwait would cut off…ah, well no point in foolish dreaming. But it behooves the American people to learn to spell the name of our great ally, en route to learning how it is pronounced. Maybe when we shake off our current power system, we can send tham a nice present for subverting its regidity.
Report thisBy felicity, February 4 at 2:31 pm #
re: thebeerdoctor
Thanx, I did mean Kubrick and, by chance, there was a program on early this morn on the ‘bomb’ and it was argued that Teller’s real reason for pushing his Hbomb was because he was jealous of Oppenheimer and his Abomb. It also said that without Teller’s obsession, the ‘bomb’ would have probably been relegated to the genocide category of weapons and been outlawed.
(My husband had to take a university class from Teller and said it was like watching reruns of Strangelove 3 times a week for an entire semester.)
Report thisBy Mike3, February 4 at 1:55 pm #
Another good article from Mr. Pfaff. The fleet of Nimitz Class Aircraft Carriers: are there of course, not to defend against a Japanese navy attack, (Hirohito rides again), but to protect and give muscle to the American Empire. It does seem does it not, that “full-spectrum dominance”, is proving just a little bit expensive? Not that Joe-six-pack is too worried. He’s quite proud when another billion dollars of Americans tax money slides down the jetty into the water, to the sound of the national anthem. There is a lump in his patriotic throat when he thinks how much ass this big mother ****** can kick. I think the next one is being named after Bush senior.
So how long can all this madness go on? Is the Pentagon staffed now only by a gang of Dr. Strange Love’s? Can no one in power see that it’s all over? The collapse of the American economy, followed by its Empire, will bring down the global economy, which was only a euphemism for American power. The British did a clever thing, they gave their Empire away. And America was only too happy to take it off their hands. But what does it gain a man to control the whole world, but lose his own soul?
Report thisBy godistwaddle, February 4 at 1:38 pm #
Think about it. We have no more right to be in Afghanistan than we do in Iraq. We have no right to tell Iran it can’t have nukes or missiles. We have, really, no right to tell any other sovereign nation what it can or cannot do, other than attack us directly.
Report thisBy thebeerdoctor, February 4 at 1:36 pm #
re: felicity
Concerning Dr. Strangelove, I think you meant Kubrick not Kramer. But you are correct Strangelove is based upon real characters. Strangelove was a composite of Werner Von Braun and Edward Teller. General Ripper was a composite of Generals Edwin Walker and Curtis LeMay.
Report thisBy felicity, February 4 at 12:26 pm #
Ah yes, by the end of the 20th century the US had 70,000 nuclear weapons stock-piled. (Stanley Kramer didn’t model his Dr. Strangelove on fictitious characters.)
Whether applicable to Pfaff’s article or not, American ‘intelligence’s’ endemic weakness is because people think they know the ending and then they go back and find the evidence that fits their story. Then they slouch into group-think, an exercise the only purpose of which is to reinforce each other.
Report thisBy thebeerdoctor, February 4 at 8:22 am #
“And betimes I will to the Weird Sisters:
Report thisMore shall they speak; for now I am bent to know
By the worst means the worst. For my own good
All causes shall give way. I am in blood
Stepp’d in so far that, should I wade no more,
Returning were as tedious as go o’er.”
By prole, February 4 at 5:33 am #
There’s probably good reason why “NATO Europe is not acquainted with the 19th century American showman P.T. Barnum’s maxim that ‘there’s a sucker born every minute’” - because he never said it! Those immortal words were uttered by one David Hannum, another huckster of the day who was promoting a hoax of his own with which Barnum was then competing. So, if Barnum’s wisdom doth prevail, then it will have to be by a different maxim - or a different name. No matter, American history down to the present is full of Barnum’s (and Hannum’s) so the F-35 sale might still fly - even if the jets can’t. As long as there are lucrative new cost-plus contracts for the military-industrial comlex, who cares if they work or not or have any use. Whether or not Norway urgently needs the craft to defend itself against herds of rogue reindeers, the U.S. can always find a use for new implements of state terror. “This digression into military procurement… provides a further demonstration of the institutional incapacity of the United States international policy establishment to change course, no matter how flagrant the need to do so, and” President Barack Obama may be the biggest of all the problems faced by this incapacity. Last week, in piece in Aviation Weekly titled, ‘The Marines, Obama and the F-35’, David Fulghum wrote, “The U.S. Marines investigated President Barack Obama before the election, and they say they are encouraged by what they found. ‘We asked our ‘visions group,’’ ...says the Corps’ commandant, Gen. James Conway. ‘They said that invariably a president will rally his base to get elected, but almost equally invariably he rules from the center.’ ‘A lot of what we see early in this administration points toward that kind of effort,’ Conway says. ‘[Obama] has, in his cabinet, a soldier, a sailor and a Marine. I find that pretty encouraging. Some of his choices – Sec. Gates staying on [because] he is effective at what he does – give us as military people a certain air of comfort.’ ‘We’re encouraged by the [F-35B STOVL] program,’ he says. ‘...As we look at going into Afghanistan, there are some very short runways there where the Harrier will be the only airplane that can possibly operate from those fields’ ...‘The F-35 will offer tremendous capability for us in the electronic warfare environment’”. Just in time it would seem to nicely dovetail with “the Obama-ordered reinforcement of existing U.S. troops by 30,000 soldiers” [for starters] in Afghanistan. The new ‘chickenhawk’ president after all, needs to have his own war to prove how macho he is, he can’t just mop up in the last chickenhawk president’s war. And he needs to have his own procurement boondoggle to give the military-industrial welfare bums ‘a certain air of comfort’. This is no “error” of abstract “institutional rigidity” - this is America’s “strong commitment” to murder and mayhem “which holds it on course even when it is visibly wrong”. And chickenhawk Obama fully subscribes to it - no matter what the suckers who voted for him think!
Report thisBy cyrena, February 4 at 3:53 am #
Fadel writes:
“Soon we will be visited by NEMESIS, the goddess of retribution, who punishes human transgression of the natural, right order of things and the arrogance that causes it.”
I believe this, but I think She’s already here.
Many people are still blind to her, but NEMESIS is definitely here. And, we are ALL on the receiving end of this punishment, with the exception (or so it seems) of the main actors that have ‘brought it on’ us.
Anyway, I agree that there is simply no way we can continue to survive in the old format. I’m with you on hoping that President Obama can facilitate a ‘soft landing’ to the free fall that we have been in for far longer than any of the former thug regime was willing to admit. No doubt their timing was off, since they’d been able to keep The Grand Theft Larceny under wraps just a few more months..long enough to pass it off on a new admin. The whole flippin mess!!
But the wraps are all coming off now, and it just ain’t a pretty sight. We’ve been deluding ourselves for decades, and passing the same delusions down through the generations. We’ve gotta stop that stuff and start getting real.
But, I think we’re off to a decent enough start in terms of what mill mentions in the change of overall policy. Of course we have to change course on policy, and Prez O has already taken several significant steps in the reversal of much of that old policy that was so disastrous to us AND the rest of the world.
So, I have hope, but I suspect the work will need to be done by those of us primarily committed to survival, and with the long view in mind that considers the future because this is gonna be a long project.
The whiners, (ALL REPUBLICANS and the left-wing nuts) are pretty much dead weight.
Report thisBy Fadel Abdallah, February 3 at 10:45 pm #
“America’s Strong Commitment to Error!”
This is indeed the most profound description of America’s sad state of affairs I have ever heard. So sadly true to serve as a wake-up call for every sober American who is not under the influence.
As the same old state of strong commitment to error in the economic field has led to near total collapse of the economic system we are experiencing today, so will the continued old state of strong commitment to error in regard to militarism and misguided foreign policy.
Soon we will be visited by NEMESIS, the goddess of retribution, who punishes human transgression of the natural, right order of things and the arrogance that causes it.
Report thisBy mill, February 3 at 9:39 pm #
Mr. Pfaff describes a painful truth about the massive inertia of our policy, what ever the topic
still, Mr. Obama has been President a very brief time - perhaps he’ll shift policy because he listens to a broad array of views, unlike Mr. Bush or Mr. Cheney, who never listened, only announced. If he changes policy, much current insanity can be unplugged by end of his second term
Report this