Winner 2013 Webby Awards for Best Political Website
June 19, 2013

 Choose a size
Text Size

Trending:     chris hedges     economy     nsa     politics     robert scheer
Most Read

Reporter Who Brought Down the 'Runaway General' Dead at 33

Sen. Elizabeth Warren's Supreme Court Warning

Warren Opposes Obama Nominee, Lawmaker Urges Gender-Role Class for Kids, and More

The Terror Con

Rachel Maddow Gives Emotional Tribute to Michael Hastings

Most Comments
Most Emailed




The Unwinding


Truthdig Bazaar
The Man Who Sold the World

The Man Who Sold the World

By William Kleinknecht
$17.79


Mekong Diaries

By Sherry Buchanan
$19.80

more items

 
Reports

The National Security State Wins (Again)

Email this item Email    Print this item Print    Share this item... Share

Posted on May 15, 2012
gregwest98 (CC BY 2.0)

By William J. Astore, TomDispatch

This piece originally appeared at TomDispatch. Read Tom Engelhardt’s introduction here.

Now that Mitt Romney is the presumptive nominee of the Republican Party, the media is already handicapping the presidential election big time, and the neck-and-neck opinion polls are pouring in.  But whether President Obama gets his second term or Romney enters the Oval Office, there’s a third candidate no one’s paying much attention to, and that candidate is guaranteed to be the one clear winner of election 2012: the U.S. military and our ever-surging national security state.

The reasons are easy enough to explain.  Despite his record as a “warrior-president,” despite the breathless “Obama got Osama”  campaign boosterism, common inside-the-Beltway wisdom has it that the president has backed himself into a national security corner.  He must continue to appear strong and uncompromising on defense or else he’ll get the usual Democrat-as-war-wimp label tattooed on his arm by the Republicans.

Similarly, to have a realistic chance of defeating him—so goes American political thinking—candidate Romney must be seen as even stronger and more uncompromising, a hawk among hawks.  Whatever military spending Obama calls for, however much he caters to neo-conservative agendas, however often he confesses his undying love for and extols the virtues of our troops, Romney will surpass him with promises of even more military spending, an even more muscular and interventionist foreign policy, and an even deeper love of our troops.

Indeed, with respect to the national security complex, candidate Romney already comes across like Edward G. Robinson’s Johnny Rocco in the classic film Key Largo: he knows he wants one thing, and that thing is moreMore ships for the Navy.  More planes for the Air Force.  More troops in general—perhaps 100,000 more.  And much more spending on national defense.

Advertisement

Clearly, come November, whoever wins or loses, the national security state will be the true victor in the presidential sweepstakes.

Of course, the election cycle alone is hardly responsible for our national love of weaponry and war.  Even in today’s straitened fiscal climate, with all the talk of government austerity, Congress feels obliged to trump an already generous president by adding yet more money for military appropriations.  Ever since the attacks of 9/11, surging defense budgets, forever war, and fear-mongering have become omnipresent features of our national landscape, together with pro-military celebrations that elevate our warriors and warfighters to hero status.  In fact, the uneasier Americans grow when it comes to the economy and signs of national decline, the more breathlessly we praise our military and its image of overwhelming power.  Neither Obama nor Romney show any sign of challenging this celebratory global “lock and load” mentality.

To explain why, one must consider not only the pro-military positions of each candidate, but their vulnerabilities—real or perceived—on military issues.  Mitt Romney is the easier to handicap.  As a Mormon missionary in France and later as the beneficiary of a high draft lottery number, Romney avoided military service during the Vietnam War.  Perhaps because he lacks military experience, he has already gone on record (during the Republican presidential debates) as deferring to military commanders on decisions such as whether we should bomb Iran.  A President Romney, it seems, would be more implementer-in-chief than civilian commander-in-chief.

Romney’s métier at Bain Capital was competence in the limited sense of buying low and selling high, along with a certain calculated ruthlessness in dividing companies and discarding people to manufacture profit.  These skills, such as they are, earn him little respect in military circles.  Compare him to Harry Truman or Teddy Roosevelt, both take-charge leaders with solid military credentials.  Rather than a Trumanesque “the buck stops here,” Romney is more about “make a buck here.”  Rather than Teddy Roosevelt’s bloodied but unbowed “man in the arena,” Romney is more bloodless equity capitalist circling high above the fray in a fancy suit.

1   2   NEXT PAGE >>>

TAGS:



Get truth delivered to
your inbox every week.

Previous item: Romney Is Short on Specifics

Next item: Greece’s Balkan Inheritance Is Heavy



New and Improved Comments

If you have trouble leaving a comment, review this help page. Still having problems? Let us know. If you find yourself moderated, take a moment to review our comment policy.

By Dave Schwab, May 18, 2012 at 3:47 am Link to this comment

“Whether President Obama or assumed Republican nominee Mitt Romney wins the presidency, there’s a third candidate no one’s paying much attention to, and that candidate is guaranteed to be the one clear winner of election 2012: the U.S. military and our ever-surging national security state.”

So why not pay some attention to the real third candidate in this race - the Green Party’s Jill Stein, the only candidate who is running with a party that takes no corporate money whatsoever? Jill Stein is calling for a massive redirection of military spending to pay for a Green New Deal, which would tackle our economic and ecological crises together. If you exclude anti-imperialism voices from the debate, you are reinforcing the very problem that you are complaining about.

For more about Jill Stein, check out http://www.jillstein.org

Report this

By MouseyTongue, May 17, 2012 at 10:15 am Link to this comment

Sue the hoodie company? Why stop there? How about we
actually shoot some guy who makes his own iron on t-
shirt or hoodie with cross hairs on it?
That way, we can not only excuse extreme over reaction
to the freedom of expression, the right of people to
peaceably demonstrate their greivances, unlawful
interference in private business and conduct but we can
rationalize killing someone by ‘they were asking for
it’ or ‘their opinions are disgusting so who’s gonna
miss them anyhow?’
SOBER UP - then reread what you posted.

Report this

By gerard, May 16, 2012 at 8:47 pm Link to this comment

Another thing in the offing that we might be prepared to welcome would be some more truth about what went on in the last ten years of wars without end, some military whistle-blowing, defections, criticisms, some stories of military families trying (in vain) to get help or information withheld. And some increasing awareness and complaint about the loss of Constitutional rights under such stringent surveillance, and attempts to strengthen local democracy.  Broader public interest in politics.
Maybe.

Report this

By gerard, May 16, 2012 at 5:00 pm Link to this comment

Now that the Security State has lost one in the NDAA decision, maybe there are other possibilities under the law, properly administered, that would be worth challenging.  How about police over-the-top handling of crowd-control at public demonstrations. Before this NDAA decision I had about given up on the legal system, but there’s hope! 
  Here’s another way to begin—Sue that outfit that is so low as to make money from selling those
“hoodies” with the cross-hairs. That’s a new low for America as a whole—a personal insult to every single member of the population who has either a heart or a grain of common sense.

Report this

By gerard, May 16, 2012 at 10:21 am Link to this comment

Actually, from what I can see in my limited view, the populations of the world have a chance to get all their acts more together in time to save the human race from the ravages of what really amounts to a relative few maniacs who have only the frailest hold on the very limited “power” they have, compared to the power of life itself. Furthermore, their power is limited to only control, sidetrack or delay—not to create, invent, give birth. What is a drone compared to a genome? How can an a-bomb compare to the seed of a sequoia?  Don’t be deceived.  There is something at work in the universe much greater than the ticking and clicking of Wall Street, U.S.A.

Report this

By JohnG., May 15, 2012 at 4:56 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

So, the question becomes: when will investing in the
defense/military/surveillance state loose its political appeal with the american
people? When do societies dispense with their commonly held myths? When do
illusions disappear?

Let me give you an answer as a Greek, by looking at the mirror: they disappear
when all the resources that support such myths deplete. The economic and
financial collapse is the ultimate remedy for all such myths and illusions. No
matter how hard we try to instill common sense and rational thinking, it will be
the public debt that will ultimately “rationalize” the allocation of resources. 

As it stands, USA has created an enormous bureaucracy as a shadow over all
levels of society, that feeds on the resources and liberties of the productive
american people. It is not just the national security complex. Look at the
number of young americans that end up in prison and compare it with the rest
of the world. Look at the number of children in US that are separated from their
families and compare it with the rest of the world.

Look at the number of state and federal laws and regulations in USA and
compare it with the rest of the world. America has become a quasi-communist
state, in that it has transferred an enormous amount of power towards the
central government. No matter how well intended the laws are, their
implementation by any given bureaucracy always depends on the self-
preservation needs of the bureaucracy itself. 

The communist regimes collapsed under the cost of such bureaucracies. The
american version cannot escape the same fate, since it has a similar size and
therefore puts a similar burden on the scarce productive resources of the
economy.

Report this
PatrickHenry's avatar

By PatrickHenry, May 15, 2012 at 2:31 pm Link to this comment

The employees of the defense industry, in well paid, recession proof jobs along with the over 2 million ‘volunteers’ in uniform make up a sizeable voting block which finds itself in every state in the union.

Forget that it produces nothing beneficial to the United States nor the world in general.

Report this

By gerard, May 15, 2012 at 12:12 pm Link to this comment

What men and women between 20 and 60 will see the possibilities in planning practical ways to work for a Peaceable War Against War?  Who will work together and plan new ways to escape from the trap of habit, and move toward freedom, justice and real democracy?  Who will promote new ideas to unlock the old habits of fear, murder and stealthk, and point ways to bring the promises of life on earth to fruition. Who will inspire children to grow up wise and straight and honest? Who will love the old, the poor, the sick and tired? Who will plant the gardens of tomorrow? Who will farm the winds and the sun?
  Maybe Occupy and all of us who see the possible future will hold together until we succeed.  Who among us here would not hurry to contribute and join in?  Who does not feel the flow of new energies? Who would not benefit from the renewal of a meaningful democracy? Who can turn away from a future waiting to be born?

Report this

By it's only Scott, May 15, 2012 at 12:06 pm Link to this comment

Someone ought to, but I wouldn’t hold your breath.

Report this

By gerard, May 15, 2012 at 11:53 am Link to this comment

Who will make a broad, practical, organized plan to embrace the final Battle Against War?  Who will volunteer to help?
Who will get together to devise cooperative segments of Americans 20 to 60 willing to join together and commit themselves to create and promote possible ways to benefit the American people as a whole? Who will discover places to work in reorganizing locally, forming more cooperative, life-nurturing ways to survive and prosper without killing other people and other places? Who will serve to inform the vast American heart and mind of what it can do?
  A massive concept of natioinal genius is required to inspire, encourage America to come back to life and get free from destructive practices and habits.
Nothing less is required than “a new birth of freedom” where everyone, male, female, child, adult, can find self-respect and value as part of a living organism of community. Who would not be willing to make a place for him/herself in a re-committed, reconstituted Democratic Union?  Who will begin it?
Who will carry it on?  Who will consecrate both spirit and will to it?  Something truly great is waiting to be born.

Report this

By John Poole, May 15, 2012 at 11:39 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I know- I’m repeating myself. The beribboned gangsters running the Pentagon call
the shots with weakling males as presidents stay enthralled with being saluted
while disembarking from Air Force One. It’s all pretty sad. Real men don’t run for
president I guess is an appropriate bumper sticker.

Report this

By Marian Griffith, May 15, 2012 at 11:35 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

This is a long winded way to say:
American voters are by and large idiots who are taken to the cleaners because they will cheer for anybody who waves a flag in front of their faces.

The really sad thing is that I can not find I disagree with this analysis…

Report this
Newsletter

sign up to get updates


 
 
 
 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion. Editor, Robert Scheer. Publisher, Zuade Kaufman.
© 2013 Truthdig, LLC. All rights reserved.