Go to Original
The Pentagon vs. America
By Scott Ritter
TruthDig
Tuesday 05 May 2005
I recently heard from an anti-war student I met while I was speaking at a college
in northern Vermont. The e-mail included the following query:
"I told you about how I wanted to build a career around social activism
and making a difference. You told me that one of the most important things was
to make myself reputable and give people a reason to listen to you. I think
this is some of the best advice I've received. My issue however is that
you mentioned joining the military as a way to do this and mentioned how that
is how you fell into it.... We talked extensively about all of our criticisms
of the military currently and our foreign policy.... What I don't understand
is, how can you [advise] someone who wants to make a difference with the flawed
system, to join that flawed system?"
The question is a valid one. Throughout my travels in the United States, where
I interact with people from progressive anti-war groups, I am often confronted
with the seeming contradiction of my position. I rail against the war in Iraq
(and the potential of war with Iran) and yet embrace, at times enthusiastically,
the notion of military service. It gets even more difficult to absorb, at least
on the surface, when I simultaneously advocate counter-recruitment as well as
support for those who seek to join the armed services.
The notion that the military and citizens of conscience should be at odds is
a critical problem for our nation. That confrontation only exacerbates the problems
of the soldier and the citizen, and must be properly understood if it is to
be defeated. Let us start by constructing a framework in which my positions
can be better assessed.
First and foremost, I do not view military service as an obligation of citizenship.
I do view military service as an act of good citizenship, but it can under no
circumstance be used as a litmus test for patriotism. There are many ways in
which one can serve his or her nation; the military is but one. I am a big believer
in the all-volunteer military. For one thing, the professional fighting force
is far more effective and efficient than any conscript force could ever be.
There are those who argue that a draft would level the playing field, spreading
the burdens and responsibilities associated with a standing military force more
evenly among the population. Those citizens whose lives would be impacted through
war (namely those of draft age and their immediate relatives) would presumably
be less inclined to support war.
Conversely, the argument goes, with an all-volunteer professional force, the
burden of sacrifice is limited to that segment of society which is engaged in
the fighting, real or potential. Two points emerge: First, the majority of society
not immediately impacted by the sacrifices of conflict will remain distant from
the reality of war. Second, even when the costs of conflict become discernable
to the withdrawn population, the fact that the sacrifice is being absorbed by
those who willingly volunteered somehow lessens any moral outcry.
I will submit that these are valid observations, and indeed have been borne
out in America's response to the Iraq war tragedy. However, simply because
something exists doesn't make it right. The collective response to the
Iraq war on the part of the American people is not a result of there not being
a draft, but rather poor citizenship. An engaged citizenry would not only find
sufficient qualified volunteers to fill the ranks of our military, but would
also personally identify with all those who served so that the loss of one was
felt by all. The fact that many Americans today view the all-volunteer force
not so much as an extension of themselves, but more along the lines of a "legion"
of professionals removed from society, illustrates the yawning gap that exists
between we the people and those we ask to defend us.
Narrowing this gap is not something that can be accomplished simply through
legislation. Reinstating the draft is illusory in this regard. There is a more
fundamental obstacle to the reunion of our society and those who take an oath
in the military to uphold and defend the Constitution. Void of this bond, the
inherent differences of civilian and military life will serve to drive a wedge
between the two, regardless of whether the military force is drafted or volunteer.
Lacking a common understanding of the foundational principles upon which the
nation was built, a citizenry will grow to view military service as an imposition,
as opposed to an obligation. Simply put, one cannot willingly defend that which
one does not know and understand. The fundamental ignorance that exists in America
today about the Constitution creates the conditions which foster the divide
between citizen and soldier that permeates society today. America must take
ownership of its military, not simply by footing the bill, but by assuming a
moral responsibility for every aspect of military service. The vehicle for doing
this has been well established through the Constitution: the legislative branch
of government, the Congress, which serves to represent the will of the people.
Congress, especially the House of Representatives, was never conceived of as
separate and distinct from the people, but rather as one with the people, directly
derived from their collective will via the electoral process. Unfortunately
today, few Americans identify with Congress. An "us versus them"
mentality pervades. This mentality creates the crack in the moral and social
contract which exists regarding a citizenry and its military. Congress is responsible
for maintaining the military. Congress is the branch of government mandated
with the responsibility for declaring war. When the bond is strained between
the people and Congress, the bond between citizen and soldier is broken. Congress,
left to its own devices, will begin to view the military not as an extension
of its constituents, but rather as a commodity to be traded and used in a highly
politicized fashion.
This is the reality we find ourselves in today (and indeed which has existed
for some time). The 2006 midterm elections highlight this reality, where a strong
anti-war sentiment upon the part of the voters resulted in a Democratic majority
in both the House of Representatives and the Senate. Having assumed the mantle
of legislative power, however, those who were elected on the coattails of anti-war
sentiment were able to shun their anti-war constituents. They did so by taking
full advantage of the reality that the anti-war movement was in fact not a movement
at all, but rather a concept pushed forward by a disparate mass without much
political viability.
Where anti-war sentiment did in fact cross over from the ranks of the progressive
left and into the mainstream of American society, it was quickly quashed through
the dishonest logic that if one truly supported the troops (as most red-blooded
Americans swear they do), then one must by extension support the mission. This
flawed connectivity empowered Congress to sidestep the issue of withdrawing
American forces from Iraq, and enabled it to continue rubber-stamping funding
for a war which long ago lost any connection, perceived or otherwise, to the
general security of the American people.
And so U.S. service members continue to fight and die in Iraq, a conflict which
grows more unpopular with the American people each passing day. The question
thus emerges: What is the appropriate response on the part of the American citizenry?
While we insulate ourselves from political duplicity, the soldiers ultimately
pay the price for the cowardice of those whom we elect to represent us in higher
office. This seems to be the path taken by most Americans, who have grown numbly
indifferent to the incessant stream of disappointment over the continued failure
of Congress to truly represent the will of the people. We have therefore built
a wall which separates we the people from the one aspect of republican governance
which is, by design, supposed to give us voice.
In doing so, we likewise create a buffer between citizen and soldier, as those
who are constitutionally mandated to fund the care, equipping and utilization
of the military now operate in ambiguity created by the vacuum of citizen apathy.
Thus liberated from the moral compass provided by the people, Congress has lost
its ability to defend its own role in governance, and over time has demeaned
its constitutional mandate by transferring powers inherent to the legislative
branch to an executive branch which has assumed the role of caretaker of the
military. By vesting absolute power in the hands of the executive, Congress
has all but assured that America has become a nation no longer governed by the
rule of law, but rather the rule of man. This sort of tyranny is what Americans
fought a revolution to free themselves from 233 years ago.
An executive that operates in accordance with a unitary theory of governance
is one that views the capacity to defend the state as being in fact the capacity
to defend the realm. As such, one sees a gravitation of emphasis: Rather than
focusing on external threats to the collective, the realm becomes obsessed with
internal threats to its ability to retain power. The Patriot Act is a clear-cut
example of how a unitary executive has undermined and corrupted the legitimate
law enforcement mechanisms of the land by vesting the executive with powers
normally associated solely with the legislative branch. In this regard, we see
the armed forces similarly abused, with the creation of military command structures
(namely U.S. Northern Command) which exist not to protect the people, but rather
protect the realm from the people. This is not a stated objective, but rather
one inferred from the fact that, for the first time since the imposition of
posse comitatus in 1876, the United States has positioned its armed forces so
that they can participate in normal state law enforcement. In short, instead
of serving as a force of protection for the American people from external threats,
the military views the American people as the threat, "targets"
which need to be investigated as potential threats to the military.
An example of just how far off track the executive branch, facilitated by an
all too complicit legislative branch, has strayed when it comes to the common
defense is the Pentagon's controversial Counterintelligence Field Activity,
ostensibly created in a post-9/11 world to "protect the [Defense]
department by supporting the detection and neutralization of foreign espionage."
The CFA operates under the umbrella of U.S. Northern Command, created in the
aftermath of the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks to ostensibly safeguard the
American homeland. A major aspect of the CFA's work is something known
as the Joint Protection Enterprise Network, or JPEN.
The JPEN network enables the Defense Department to share unverified information
with civilian police departments, the FBI and other government agencies such
as the National Security Agency (NSA). Originally dubbed Project Protect America,
the JPEN system came into being in July 2003 with the full support of then-Secretary
of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. The heart and soul of the JPEN system is the "Threat
and Local Observation Notice," or TALON report, the brainchild of then-Deputy
Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz. In the conduct of its work, the CFA created
and distributed thousands of TALON reports via the JPEN system on the activities
of private U.S. citizens, with a particular focus of those engaged in anti-war
protests.
The CFA is slated in the near future to be morphed into a larger Defense Intelligence
Agency-run Counterintelligence and Human Intelligence activity. Far from limiting
the scope and scale of the activities currently undertaken by the CFA, this
new organization will simply increase the level of illegal and unconstitutional
activities currently undertaken by the CFA against the American "target."
The fact that the U.S. military now views the American citizenry as its target,
as opposed to the object of its defense, shows just how broken the circle of
trust is between citizen and soldier. Additional TALON reports are being assembled
on anyone deemed to be a potential threat to the U.S. military, including all
who are involved in "counter-recruitment" activities designed
to provide alternatives to military service for today's youths. This
myopic approach toward installation and facility security undertaken by the
Pentagon is not only intellectually weak but constitutionally prohibited. The
legislative branch, operating amid constituent apathy, continues to fail in
its mission of upholding the rule of law.
In similarly deplorable fashion, the Pentagon has allowed itself to be hijacked
by the radical right wing of the Republican Party. The fact that Fox News has
become the channel of choice for the U.S. military speaks volumes about the
mind-set which has gripped those who lead it. The military has always been a
conservative institution. Yet when wearing the uniform of the United States
serves more as a front for defending a political ideology (a rabid one at that)
rather than upholding and defending the Constitution, the military does itself
a disservice. The disconnect between those who serve in the military and those
whom they are sworn to protect can be fatal when one realizes the recruiting
pool no longer identifies with the military as a legitimate expression of patriotism
and citizenship.
The scope of this ideological hijacking is broad, yet barely recognized. One
can glimpse just how deep and nefarious this ideological shift is when one considers
the extent to which evangelical Christians have infiltrated the U.S. Air Force
Academy, proselytizing their heavily politicized religion to the future officers
and leaders of that service. The past comments of Lt. Gen. William Boykin, a
decorated Army Special Operations veteran who described America's post-9/11
"war on terror" as a conflict between "Christian"
America and "radical Islam," are widely embraced within the U.S.
military. President Bush has echoed Boykin in his speeches and statements, and
the military's favorite presidential candidate, Republican Sen. John
McCain, has become the embodiment of Boykin's philosophy. The Constitution
prohibits the notion that America be defined as a Christian nation. To allow
the military, sworn as it is to uphold and defend that document, to posture
itself as Christian, becoming in effect the "sword of God," is
unthinkable and unforgivable.
The implications of such posturing are far-reaching, especially from the military
recruitment standpoint. The all-volunteer military succeeds when it attracts
to its ranks those who have a sincere desire to serve their nation. It succeeds
greatly when those it attracts come from the broadest possible cross section
of the American demographic. There has always been an economic aspect to the
all-volunteer force; service is not slavery, and the military has always promised
the security of a middle-class lifestyle to those who choose to enlist. But
military service, properly motivated, has never been solely about the money.
It is about defending a greater good, the people of the United States of America
and their values and ideals as defined by the Constitution.
It has become increasingly difficult to motivate enough of today's youths
to serve in the armed services based upon the call of duty alone. One of the
primary reasons for this shortfall is the unfortunate perception, not improperly
derived, that military service is not in keeping with the concept of "doing
the right thing." This perception, born of an unpopular war and the dishonest
foreign policies of successive administrations, is further exaggerated by the
reality that the military not only operates as a separate and distinct part
of American society (this has always been the case) but, due in large part to
post-9/11 hysteria, has been positioned to view the American people as a threat.
The inherent problems of the military trying to recruit from a population base
which is under attack from the military are self-evident. Genuine patriotism
was once a viable recruitment pitch. Now, economic incentives, false promises
and pseudo-patriotism are used as the bait to lure the youths of today into
America's legions. Like the legions of the past, these new warriors march
not on behalf of the citizens they are sworn to protect, but rather the emperor
who commands them. This may be viewed as an overly harsh statement, but there
is no other way to describe the abuses of a unitary executive who positions
himself above the Constitution and Congress in a time of war.
Having described the current state of the military and military service in
this manner, why would I ever encourage a citizen of military age to consider
service in the armed forces? First and foremost, one needs to understand that
the entire military system has not been corrupted. There are still men and women
of honor who serve with dedication and pride. They are, in fact, in the majority.
It takes only a few bad apples to spoil the lot, however, and our military today,
thanks to a nebulous mission and lower recruiting standards, is full of bad
apples. Likewise, to quote a Russian general, "a fish stinks from its
head," and nothing smells worse today than the "head" of
the United States. Our commander in chief has disgraced the office he was entrusted
with, and in doing so has severely damaged the foundation of American civil
society as well as the institutions sworn to uphold and defend it.
The solution, however, cannot be "cut and run." Simply identifying
the problem and pointing a finger at the perpetrators will do nothing to resolve
these critical issues. Our military cannot change unless we the people re-establish
the link between ourselves and the legislative branch of government and rebuild
the bond of trust between citizen and soldier. This cannot happen in stages,
but rather must occur simultaneously. While the vast majority of America struggles
to regain its moral and ethical compass through the re-establishment of the
rule of law as set forth by the Constitution, we need to continue to maintain
a military which is capable of defending us.
This requires good people to serve, even if the conditions of their service
are not ideal. Do I want to have an intelligent, morally grounded soldier on
the front line in Iraq, making the decisions about the use of force in the framework
of an illegal and unjust occupation, or do I want to relinquish that job to
a former felon lacking even a high school diploma? Do I want the troops of today
led by Bible-wielding zealots or Constitution-wielding patriots? While we struggle
to re-establish the bond between citizen and soldier, we have an absolute requirement
to ensure we continue to field a military composed of citizen soldiers. The
only way to prevent our military from becoming the new Roman Legion is to staff
it with citizens of principle who reject such an abominable label. We are a
nation at war, not just abroad, but with ourselves. Now, more than ever, we
need citizens of standing to answer the call to service, not in the name of
a criminal president or an illegal war, but rather in defense of the Constitution
and all that it stands for, against all enemies, foreign and domestic.
-------
Jump to today's Truthout Features:
(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. t r u t h o u t has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is t r u t h o u t endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)
"Go to Original" links are provided as a convenience to our readers and allow for verification of authenticity. However, as originating pages are often updated by their originating host sites, the versions posted on TO may not match the versions our readers view when clicking the "Go to Original" links.
Print This Story
E-mail This Story