The New Militarism - part one in a continuing series

On another blog, on an active discussion thread, I was asked about the rising militarism that seems to have the nation in a fever-grip. And it isn't just the general population; it is infecting the junior ranks, both enlisted and officer. The "Hoo-Ah!!!" culture is frightening to people like me, who associate service more with a quiet dignity than swaggering macho. This new military is hardly recognizable to me, and I am totally a product of the DoD. I was born on a Navy base and lived the military life until my husband retired in 2001. I still shop on base. I even played Army a bit myself, in ROTC and the Reserves for a few minutes. I have nibbled at the edges of the topic, but I haven't actually bitten into the cookie. Until now. The first thing I realized was that the topic is too complex to sum up in a single post, so this is the first in a series. (And it's all Keith G's fault.)

I am a hell of a person to come out against the emergence of a professional warrior class. Given my backstory, you would think I would take just the opposite position. But that's the thing. When you have a certain segment of your population heavily armed and trained to kill, what do you want? Troops with composure, cool-headedness and quiet dignity; or swaggering macho?

Every military at every moment of it's existence is mere steps away from tyranny over the populace it was raised to protect from outside enemies. The only thing that stands between a military and tyranny over the populace is the Honor Code.

The issue of rising militarism is not only frightening, it is extremely complex. Where to even start...

Let's start with the fact that rising militarism is one of the 14 hallmarks of fascism as put forth by Professor Laurence Britt.

Even when there are widespread domestic problems, the military is given a disproportionate amount of government funding, and the domestic agenda is neglected. Soldiers and military service are glamorized.

This is coming to pass, and it has the officers who have recently retired and those whose careers are winding down uneasy. Aplomb and composure have been pushed aside by chest-thumping bravado.

About a month ago, I was in an Officers Club drinking with my cousin and a couple of my husbands friends when I said something along the lines that when the members of the current administration read 1984 they didn't read a warning of encroaching authoritarianism, they read it as an ops manual.

One of my husbands friends said it was worse than that, the butter-bars just out of OCS were reading Starship Troopers and at least whalf of them weren't getting the irony. He told of junior officers who disdain anyone who hasn't served and think that limiting citizenship and the vote to veterans is just a splendid notion, an idea whose time has come. I have been reading some things that indicate an emergence of this sentiment when I pop in over at the most excellent Intel-Dump web site, and the vets and active duty personnel who inhabit that forum don't like it any more than I do. Our nephew is a 1 Lt. in the USAF (following in his favorite uncles footsteps) and he is uncomfortable too. He thinks the wrong people are staying in and the "right" ones are getting out. Our nephew has planned on a USAF career since he was 6 and came to visit us at Davis-Monthan and fell in love with A-10's. He left the academy after one year because of the evangelical bent it has taken on, and now will probably leave the service after five because of the turn the military is taking.

I can feel the Honor Code crumbling beneath my feet, and it scares the holy hell out of me. At the same time the service is being glamorized by a bunch of civilians who think it's swell, as long as they ain't the ones in uniform; the quality of the forces is being eroded with waivered troops. Fully 17% of the troops recruited to fulfill the FY 2006 goals were accepted on waivers. This is a frightening fact. Troops who would not have merited fifteen minutes of the recruiters time even five years ago are being recruited actively and accepted for service, even when recruiters have to cheat, and lie to both the recruits and the Army. Lets do the math, shall we? 80,000 troops X 17% is 13,500 soldiers. Roughly a division. An entire division of iffy troops, many of them with criminal records and mental health issues.

But it gets even better. The officer corp is hemmorhaging seasoned officers at an alarming rate. Every branch has vacancies in the officer corps, but the Army is especially hard hit. The regular Army is short 3500 officers throughout the ranks, and the Army Reserves are short nearly 11,000 officers in the Lieutenant and Captain ranks alone.

So we essentially have an entire division of heavily armed hinky troops who have been trained to kill, and there is no one to lead them. Did these mother fuckers not read the end of Lord of the Flies?

Scared much now?

The military doesn't want to be a police force. They are the military and this is not Singapore. There are stark differences between the two, and the military officers in my circle don't want to blur the lines between them. I learned from a very pissed off active-duty JAG officer about the changes to the Insurrection Acts and Posse Comitatus provisions that were buried in the Defense Authorization Act several days before Leahy made it an issue and I got around to writing about it.

A final thought before I close this post and open it up to discussion...I cringe when I hear my Dad and his fellow WWII vets refered to as the greatest generation. They were the ones present and draftable when history called on them, and in that circumstance, any generation would have similarly stepped up.

What makes them pretty special, however, is how they conducted themselves afterward. They put away their uniforms, picked up their lunchboxes and bought ranch houses and Fords and life insurance; for the most part they did a decent job of raising four million kids and building an economy that had been practically third-world at the start of the war.

My life, spanning 4 decades of active duty, is highly unusual. Only about 2% serve period, and the percentage of those who stay in until retirement like my father, husband and brother all chose to do is not that high. But it gives me a different perspective of the world and our place in it. I'm not an expert on the military or foreign policy by anyone's measure, I just aim to offer a glimpse through a different lens.

Politicizing State

Condoleeza Rice has broken with over 200 years of tradition and has hit the campaign trail. The Secretary of State is, in normal times, a non-partisan position, and the Secretary of State traditionally keeps a low profile durign election season. "The tradition for secretaries of state has been to stay out of partisan politics and to stay above the fray," said Karl F. Inderfurth, director of the international affairs graduate program at George Washington University and assistant secretary of state under Albright. "They take office as the secretary of state of the United States of America, not of the Republican or Democratic party." Madeline Albreit joked that when she became secretary, she had her partisan instincts surgically removed.

Not Condi.

Starting on 24 October, Condi started on a media blitz to rally the faithful. It has gone largely unnoticed as the campaign heats up, and she limits herself mostly to appearances on talk radio.

But make no mistake, these appearances on friendly soil are most definitely campaign related, no matter what her spokesperson says, nor that the interviews stay pretty close to issues of foreign policy. She is parroting the party line on the airwaves, and the Republicans are getting a lot of free exposure among their base, courtesy of Laura Ingraham, Bill Bennett and Lawrence Kudlow.

Kudlow asked her if Democratic control would "disrupt, interfere and stop the processes you're describing" for leaving Iraq.

Condi responded "The key to me is that this president has a program for the war on terror and it's a program that is going to win, and he needs the support of everyone for that program, I frankly haven't heard an alternative posed for how we fight the war on terror except on the offense."

Of course, these are not normal times we live in and Condi is not a normal Secretary of State. When she was National Security Advisor in 2004 she hit the campaign trail, too. Those interviews and campaign stops drew a lot of criticism then, which may be why she is sticking so close to the base this time out.

I have tracked down a couple of audio clips from these interviews, and it's partisan hackery. She talks a lot about a Bush plan, but never elaborates. I'm sorry, but you'll have to do better, because none of the plans this administration has employed thus far have worked. In fact, they have mostly backfired. Spectacularly. So when she assures me that the president has some double-secret plan to win the war on terror, I'm skeptical. Especially when she immediately ducks under the nearest petticoat and says 'besides, the Democratic Party has not offered any plans, either.'

First, it is not our responsibility to clean this mess up. yet.

Second, you don't win a war on terror with military might. Terror is a tactic employed by an enemy; it is not the enemy. I honestly am starting to believe that these people are incapable of making that distinction. I hear a lot of hollow rhetoric, but I hear nothing concrete.

I know they are desperate, and getting more so as 07 November bears down on them, but the talking points ring hollow as the bodies pile up and the scandals mount.

It is time for a Democratic congress with subpoena powers to demand real answers, and get them.

Let's parse terrorism

Terrorism is a tactic. It is a tool to inspire fear and manipulate behavior thereby.

So...Couldn't we make the case that those horrible Progress for America ads are psychological terrorism? What about the president who was a "Uniter not a Divider" - before he was the "Decider" - who says that a Democratic victory on Tuesday means the terrorists win?

How can anyone take seriously a president who openly proclaims a "Global War on Terror" when he embraces the tactics of those he so vehemently denounces?

Just wondering about that little bit of Orwellianism.

A cynic might say Posse Comitatus has been repealed

Buried in the Defense Authorization Act for 2007 is a provision that changes dramatically the relationship between ordinary Americans, their government and their military. The Defense Authorization Act contained a highly objectionable provision to allow the President more control over the National Guard, which included changes to the Insurrection Act, which will make it easier for this or any future President to use the military to restore domestic order without the consent of the nation's governors. The modification to the Insurrection Act gives the president the authority to send the military into the streets of America as a police force to "restore order." They aren't even calling it the Insurrection Act any more. Instead, it has the Orwellian-sounding "Enforcement of the Laws to Restore Public Order." It is all so broad that virtually any protest can be determined to be a danger to the United States and troops could be deployed into the streets of America.

There is a specific name for such actions. Martial Law.

The Insurrection and Posse Comitatus Acts have been a cornerstone of American freedom since 1878. Posse Comitatus was passed to prevent the United States Military from being used to enforce elections in the repatriated confederacy after reconstruction. Now, 128 years later, it is part of our libertarian heritage.

Here is the text of the Posse Comitatus Act

Whoever, except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress, willfully uses any part of the Army or Air Force as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.

This bit of Federal Law is the only U.S. criminal statute that outlaws military operations directed against the American people under the guise of law enforcement.

Here is the direct text in question from page 19 of the Defense Authorization Act:

Use of Armed Forces in Major Public Emergencies. Section 1042 would amend the Insurrection Act to make explicit the President’s authority to deploy the armed forces, including the National Guard, within the United States to restore order or enforce federal law after a major public emergency, such as a natural disaster, epidemic, or terrorist attack. Current practice, in a major public emergency, is for the governor or legislature of a state to request assistance from the federal government. The Federal Emergency Management Agency then organizes the federal government’s response to that request.

This provision would clarify the President’s authority to deploy the armed forces in response to public emergencies without first receiving a request from state authorities in cases where the President determines such action is necessary to restore public order or enforce federal law. This section also would authorize the President to direct the Secretary of Defense to provide supplies, services, and equipment to persons affected by such an emergency. If this clarification would encourage the President to use the armed forces more frequently or more
intensively than is the current practice, the potential cost could be significant. However, because CBO does not have a basis for determining the frequency of such emergencies or the magnitude of the potential involvement of the armed forces, CBO has no basis for predicting the potential cost of this section.

This caught the attention of the sober individuals at the Congressional Budget Office. At the very beginning of the CBO Cost Assessment, the CBO stresses

Section 4 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) excludes from the application of that act any legislative provisions that enforce the constitutional rights of individuals. CBO has determined that section 1042 would fall within that exclusion because it would expand the authority of the President to employ the armed service to protect individuals’ civil rights. Therefore, CBO has not reviewed that section of the bill for mandates.

I don't know about you, but that little bit makes me nervous. Especially given the track record of this administration.

Exactly one Senator has raised a note of protest over this egregious power grab. Senator Patrick Leahy of Vermont has been the lone voice of dissent. On 29 September, Leahy entered into the Congressional Record that he had "grave reservations about certain provisions of the fiscal Year 2007 Defense Authorization Bill Conference Report," the language of which, he said, "subverts solid, longstanding posse comitatus statutes that limit the military's involvement in law enforcement, thereby making it easier for the President to declare martial law." Leahy claimed that this provision had been "slipped in,as a rider with little study while other congressional committees with jurisdiction over these matters had no chance to comment, let alone hold hearings on, these proposals." Leahy went on "The implications of changing the (Posse Comitatus) Act are enormous. There is good reason," he said, "for the constructive friction in existing law when it comes to martial law declarations. Using the military for law enforcement goes against one of the founding tenets of our democracy. We fail our Constitution, neglecting the rights of the States, when we make it easier for the President to declare martial law and trample on local and state sovereignty." (emphasis mine) Leahy finished his comments by wondering aloud how we got to this point. "Since hearing word a couple of weeks ago that this outcome was likely, I have wondered how Congress could have gotten to this point. It seems the changes to the Insurrection Act have survived the Conference because the Pentagon and the White House want it."

I too wonder how we got here Senator. This is indeed disturbing news, and this provision needs to be repealed immediately when the Democrats take their seats in January. If it is not, I fear the consequences.

The only reason I can sleep at night knowing about this is due to the fact that I have faith in the men and women of our military and the men and women of honor who lead them, and in the fact that they take their oaths to uphold the Constitution, and protect this country from all enemies, both foreign and domestic, and if we are going to start reinterpreting what constitutes a domestic enemy, where might that stop, Mr. President? Better men than you have failed in such pursuits.

Iraq Unravels Further

In Balad, Iraq hospital employees unload body bags of the victims of sectarian violence. Over 100 people were killed in sectarian violence last week, most at the hands of Shi'ite death squads. Most of the bodies told a tale of inhuman torture.
As the violence spirals upward and out of control, the administration is reaching out to insurgents, and amnesty is on the table. Amnesty is not a new notion, after all. It has been kicked around for over two years, and in June Iraqi leader Nouri al Maliki set jaws a wagging when he brought it up again.


But now, it isn't just an idea no one is taking seriously. Talks took place over the weekend in Amman Jordan between American officials and leaders of the Iraqi (Sunni) insurgency. This signals a sea-change in policy. Essentially, the administration is acknowleging that the two-month clampdown on violence in Baghdad has failed.

The United States is learning a lesson Napoleon learned in Russia 200 years ago - it is easier going in than it is getting out.

Meantime, the death toll of U.S. personnel in Iraq stands at 91 for the month of October, with a week remaining in the month and two weeks from today we go to the polls.

Iraq is foremost in the mind of most voters. We realize that "victory" is not a strategy. We realize that sixteen intel agencies can't be unanimouosly wrong. Most us us realize that the invasion of Iraq was the stupidest bit of foreign policy employed in the history of this country. We realize what is being done to our Constitution and want it restored. We realize that this president has brought America to the edge of a cliff and the only hope for our nation to turn away from this path of certain destruction is to vote for a congress that will counter him and his imperial aspirations.

There is too much at stake to trust this president to act responsibly and in the best interest of this country and the world. He has not thus far.

Spiraling Violence

October is officially the deadliest month for US forces in Iraq in two years. As we awoke today, it was to the news that the deaths of three Marines in al Anbar province raised Octobers death toll for US forces to 78.

By days end, the Pentagon had confirmed five more troop deaths; four soldiers and one Marine, raising the total to 83, with a week of October remaining.

Across Iraq, the same 24 hour period saw the (reported) deaths of 44 Iraqi's in acts of sectarian violence. Nine were killed and dozens injured when explosions ripped through a busy Baghdad marketplace and bakery where shoppers were buying food for the Eid celebration to mark the end of the holy month of Ramadan. The deadliest attack was on a convoy of police recruits. Gunmen in five sedans ambushed the busses transporting the newly inducted police recruits back home after the ceremony. Fifteen were killed and 25 more seriously injured.

The Bush administration has been spinning furiously, attempting to find any new tactics that might quell the bloodshed as the midterm elections loom ominous for the congressional Republicans. Lawmakers from both sides of the aisle have expressed less-than-confident feelings about the ability of Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki to get a handle on the increasing bloodshed.

Sen. Richard Lugar, R-Ind., chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, on Sunday expressed doubts, indicating that pressuring al-Maliki might not work, as Maliki has very little clout. “We keep saying, 'Go to your Shiites and get them straightened out, or the Sunnis, or divide the oil.' And al-Maliki keeps saying, 'There isn’t any group here that wants to talk about those things.'" Lugar said.

How exactly is what we are doing in Iraq furthering our aims of combating terror? I fail to see how our involvement in Iraq improves our lot one iota; and it sure as hell is not improving the lot of the average Iraqi. So again I ask, what the fuck are we doing there?

The Politics of Fear - our latest installment

It is indicative of the desperation that hangs in the air of Republican campaign headquarters throughout the land.

"Five years ago," reported the Boston Globe, "shortly after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, the White House admonished television networks against using video messages from Osama bin Laden."

That was five years ago. Now, facing a 16% congressional approval rating and the inevitable loss of control over at least one chamber of congress, the RNC is running a new ad showing video of bin Laden and his chief deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri. In the video, they can be seen threatening the United States with phrases such as 'kill the Americans' and saying that attacks so far are 'nothing compared to what you will see next.' The ad concludes with the words: 'These are the stakes. Vote Nov. 7.' (Note: I did not import the video to this post because I am not giving it the exposure.)

The fearmongering might not work this time. This is being floated to a population that has been exhorted to bravely go shopping, stock up on duct-tape and plastic wrap, and told that "no one could have imagined" only to have the lie put to that assertion when it was revealed that someone did imagine, months before, and warned them about it, too boot.

"Americans need to ask themselves if they can trust the GOP leadership," said DNC Press Secretary Stacie Paxton, "which has failed to keep us safe, when Osama bin Laden is still on the loose, Iraq is in the middle of a civil war, and North Korea is testing nuclear weapons. People are looking for leadership, not fear-mongering."

I don't think we will see a huge amount of success from this tactic this go-round. It's one too many trips to a poisoned well.

These are the people who want you to believe that only they can make you safe. (If you believe them, you are dead wrong.)

The fearful, weak and cowardly among us were born with that propensity and inclination. I can't change them. I pity them; but I will not accomodate them.

If you want to wallow in fear, I can't stop you, but please stand aside. Some of us have a life to live, a culture to salvage and a Constitution to rescue; defiantly.

Fiddling While Afghanistan Burns

The Taliban is back. Remember them? The theocratic thugs who siezed control of Afghanistan in the 90's, and extended harbor to Osama bin Laden and al Qae'da, our real enemy, the one who made September 11 possible? Surely you remember Osama?

While we were getting bogged down in Iraq under the guise of fighting terrorism (it must be remembered here that Iraq had nothing to do with September 11) and distracted from the focus of the *War on Terra,* the Taliban fell back and regrouped. Now they are pervasive in the cities of Afghanistan and ready for a winter of urban guerilla warfare, punctuated by explosions, car bombs and suicide bombings. Afghan intelligence is warning of 35 suicide bombers who have infiltrated the cities and are planning to launch simultaneous strikes during this week’s Eid holiday, which marks the end of Ramadan.

Apparently the Taliban are effectively challenging NATO forces, because the NATO allies are considering establishing a Baghdad-style "Green Zone" to keep allied interests and representatives "safe."

This is quite the turnabout. If you will recall, the troops who invaded Afghanistan and routed the Taliban were indeed met with cheering throngs, after three decades of civil strife.

That was then. Now the Afghans are increasingly disillusioned with the deteriorating security situation. In Farah province, the Taliban revived local support when they beheaded a group of highwaymen that the local authorities had failed to stop.

The NATO allies have the winter to either turn the tide, or face a slow grinding guerilla war, like the one in Iraq. The British have been kicked out of Afghanistan three times, and the Russians learned their lessons there in the 1980's. After three decades of civil war, the Afghan people just want some peace and security. If the Taliban can provide that, they will put their kites and musical instruments back in their attics and follow the theocrats.

There is a historical long-view that needs to be considered, and how the momentum was lost must be evaluated honestly, and blame fairly apportioned.

Countering the spin

If you listen to the Republican political ads, they would have you believe that the American people must stay with Republican control of the congress or terrorists will kill us all.

They want you to believe that only they can make America safer.

I think we should examine that record.

They abandoned the Agreed Framework, and North Korea detonated a nuclear device.

Osama bin Laden is still free, releasing the occasional video to remind us he is out there, taunting. Bush said he doesn't think about him. Remember that? Osama was the one who orchestrated the attacks on the Cole, the embassies and September 11. He lives a free man today, with all that blood on his hands.

Iraq creates new terrorists every day. Sixteen intelligence agencies say so.

The war in Afghanistan is being lost by neglect, becaue we are bogged down in Iraq.

And New Orleans was left to drown.

Yes. These are the people who want you to believe that only they can make you safe.

If you believe them, you are dead wrong.