A First Response
My thanks to the correspondents of the TPM Cafe for their reactions to and comments on my short essay. First things first. My given name is 'Chalmers,' my family name 'Johnson.' Chalmers is unquestionably a Scottish name, but I am not a Scot. My father was named Frederick Johnson, Jr. My mother declared that the world did not need another Fred Johnson, least of all a Fred Johnson III. I was therefore named after a mutual friend of theirs, Chalmers Wood of Tennessee. I am grateful for her decision.
Tom Wright raises the question of whether the political system can save us and seems to answer in the affirmative. I disagree. The problems I am addressing in my book Nemesis both precede and transcend the current Bush administration, as is obvious when one reflects that the great warning about vested interests in the munitions industry came in Eisenhower's farewell address in 1961 and that the roots of "military Keynesianism" were planted during World War II.
Dan K raises an important distinction with which I agree: At the end of World War II, Britain did not so much give up its empire as transfer its imperial pretensions to the United States and segue into the role of camp-follower.
It did, nonetheless, abandon its reliance on rule through "administrative massacres" (Arendt's term) in India (but not everywhere: see Ireland, Malaya, Kenya, Egypt, and a few other places). Dan K asks whether we need a successor empire run by either the US or another country that will provide a "security order." My answer, controversial in a country as steeped in militarism as this one, is no. We can maintain peace through a balance of power, deterrence, common interests that are planetary (global warming, water supply, etc.), alliances, and other techniques of diplomacy. We must, of course, maintain a standing army but we do not need the apparatus of a "superpower." The example of how to do this is the Venetian Republic, c. 500 AD to 1797, unconquered for over a millennium and the richest city in Europe. (See, e.g., John Julius Norwich, A History of Venice, Knopf, 1982).
My proposal to abolish the CIA stems from the fact that today its clandestine arm totally dominates and shapes its intelligence functions. (For more on this see my piece "Republic or Empire: A National Intelligence Estimate on the United States" in the January 2007 issue of Harper's Magazine.) I would prefer to see so-called intelligence gathering returned to the State Department.
'Jhaber' has more confidence in both the Roman Senate and our own Congress than I do when it comes to recovering from the fatal distortions of imperialism and militarism. On this subject, I recommend Anthony Everitt, Cicero: The Life and Times of Rome's Greatest Politician (Random House, 2001).
Viviane's comments are important. Eric Hobsbawm is one of the leading historians still at work today (he was born in 1917). If he took on Harvard's exile Scot, Niall Ferguson, we are on the same wavelength (see chapter two of my Nemesis).
Ahem, along with several others, raises the work of Paul Kennedy (also an exiled Brit), for whom I have nothing but the greatest respect. However, his prime concept is that of "imperial overstretch" whereas I am actually discussing something quite different -- the unintended consequences for a democratic republic that, usually thoughtlessly, acquires an empire and only then wakes up to the indispensable requirement of a standing army and the inevitable militarism that accompanies it in order to keep and police the empire. Incidentally, imperial overstretch is not inevitable. In the opening pages of Decline and Fall, Gibbon asserts that his hero, Augustus, wisely held the growth of the empire to Europe south of the Rhine and Danube (except for Britain) and Eurasia west of the Euphrates in order better to manage and exploit it. Expansion was not unlimited.
'Cmpnwtr' asks, "Do [sic] our present generation of political leaders not see the obvious historical place of America, are they so deluded, or are they just afraid to tell the truth to the American people?" The mindset of the permanent establishment in Washington is a huge subject, but this is a good question. Nothing depresses me more than the thought of Hillary perhaps followed by Jeb and yet another dynastic cycle of Clintons and Bushes. In my opinion, the best dissection of the smug, Vatican-like insularity of Cold War Washington is Ward Just's Echo House (Houghton Mifflin, 1997). By contrast, the Forbidden City of the last Manchu emperors was an open and airy environment. It is not accidental (as Lenin would say) that the main characters of this work of non-fiction in novel form are all veterans of the clandestine services. Incidentally, they are all Democrats.
'Rdf' writes, "I think the significance of the 700+ military bases is overdrawn." I strongly disagree and would like to encourage more research on them. The Air Force tells us that Camp Bondsteel in Kosovo is the only man-made object other than the Great Wall of China that is easily seen from outer space. Today, Anaconda/Ballad in Iraq can probably be added to the list. Whatever happens in Iraq politically, the Iraqis are going to inherit five of the largest, most modern airfields anywhere on earth. I agree with Rdf that most of the bases have no strategic significance but they are anything but "relics."
In a related comment, El Campesino asserts, "Reading this you wouldn't know that we've been closing bases all over the US and all over the world for decades. You wouldn't know that there is such a thing as the BRAC [Base Realignment and Closure] process." I have to say, please read my new book Nemesis. In any case, BRAC is an exclusively domestic process, and Clark Air Base in the Philippines was closed by the eruption of Mt. Pinatubo in June 1991, not by the Philippine Senate. There is some good news, however: a grass roots movement in Italy seems well on its way to evicting the U.S. Air Force from Aviano Air Base.
JPF311 thinks that the American public was informed about the largest single clandestine operation we ever carried out: the recruiting, arming, and sending into battle against the USSR of the mujahideen during the 1980s. It was actually a secret to the American public and subject to virtually no oversight by the Congress. See George Creel, Charlie Wilson's War (Atlantic Monthly Press, 2003). Bush's electoral victory in 2004 provided legitimacy for his actions, whether JPF311 and other Democrats are pleased or not. He/she writes, "We do not have an empire, we have a hegemony." This strikes me as a distinction without a difference; both are forms of tyranny in which consent of the governed is neither sought nor recognized. I disagree with the proposition that "after Bush leaves office the system will correct itself." To correct itself seems to mean a return to the world of Bill Clinton. And Clinton, with his globalization policies, was a far more effective imperialist than Bush.
Our problem was identified by Eisenhower in his 1961 presidential farewell address:
"Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent arms industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security alone more than the net income of all United States corporations.
"This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence -- economic, political, even spiritual -- is felt in every city, every statehouse, every office of the federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society."
Libertine writes, "I, sadly, think we have lost our republic in terms of being a republic. The establishment of NORTHCOM was the signal to me that we had lost our government to the forces of the military-industrial complex." I agree and discuss the reasons why in The Sorrows of Empire (2004).
Horatio Parker inquires about "the differences between our economy and those of the Asian tigers." There is a large literature. Please see my MITI and the Japanese Miracle (Stanford University Press, 1982) and Meredith Woo-Cumings, ed., The Developmental State (Cornell University Press, 1999).
It is time to bring this to an end. I have not commented at length on the two longer responses -- by Greg Anrig, Jr., and Max Sawicky -- because I have little to say except praise for their insights and cool analyses. El Campesino contests my views on military Keynesianism and the influence of the military-industrial complex by citing Defense Department figures on the ratio between the "defense budget' and gross domestic product (GDP).
To understand the real weight of military Keynesianism in the American economy, one must approach official defense statistics with great care. They are compiled and published in such a way as to minimize the actual size of the official "defense budget." The Pentagon does this to try to conceal from the public the real costs of the military establishment and its overall weight within the economy. There are numerous military activities not carried out by the Department of Defense and that are therefore not part of the Pentagon's annual budgets. These include the Department of Energy's spending on nuclear weapons ($16.4 billion in fiscal 2005), the Department of Homeland Security's outlays for the actual "defense" of the United States against terrorism ($41 billion), the Department of Veterans Affairs' responsibilities for the lifetime care of the seriously wounded ($68 billion), the Treasury Department's payments of pensions to military retirees and widows and their families (an amount not fully disclosed by official statistics), and the Department of State's financing of foreign arms sales and militarily related developmental assistance ($23 billion).
In addition to these amounts, there is something called the "Military Construction Appropriations Bill," which is tiny compared to the other expenditures -- $12.2 billion for fiscal 2005 -- but which covers all the military bases around the world. Adding these non-Department-of-Defense expenditures, the supplemental appropriations for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the military construction budget to the defense appropriations bill actually doubles what the administration calls the annual defense budget. It is an amount larger than all other defense budgets on earth combined. Still to be added to this are interest payments by the Treasury to cover past debt-financed defense outlays going back to 1916. Robert Higgs, author of Crisis and Leviathan and many other books on American militarism, estimates that in 2002 such interest payments amounted to $138.7 billion.
Even when all these things are included, Enron-style accounting makes it hard to obtain an accurate understanding of our reliance on a permanent arms economy. In 2005, the Government Accountability Office reported to Congress that "the Pentagon has no accurate knowledge of the cost of military operations in Iraq, Afghanistan, or the fight against terrorism." It said that lacking a reliable method for tracking military costs, the Army merely inserts into its accounts figures that match the available budget. "Effectively, the Army [is] reporting back to Congress what it had appropriated."
Joseph Stiglitz, the Nobel Prize winning economist, and his colleague at Harvard, Linda Bilmes, have tried to put together an estimate of the real costs of the Iraq war. They calculate that it will cost about $2 trillion. This figure is several orders of magnitude larger than what the Bush administration publicly acknowledges. Above all, Stiglitz and Bilmes have tried to compile honest figures for veterans' benefits. For 2006, the officially budgeted amount is $68 billion, which is absurdly low given the large number of our soldiers who have been severely wounded. We celebrate the medical miracles that allow some of our troops to survive the detonation of an "improvised explosive device" hidden in the earth under a Humvee, but when larger numbers of soldiers who once might have died in such situations are saved, the resulting wounds, often including brain damage, require that they receive round-the-clock care for the rest of their lives. It is not unpatriotic to draw attention to these American problems.
My thanks to all the people who took the trouble to write.
Thanks. I learned a great deal. You're a good teacher.
John
http://www.haberarts.com/
February 1, 2007 1:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for taking the time to respond so deeply to the TPMCafe commentors - that is not something we see very often. Appreciated.
.> The Air Force tells us that Camp Bondsteel
> in Kosovo is the only man-made object other
> than the Great Wall of China that is easily
> seen from outer space.
Just for future reference, this one gets knocked around quite a bit. If by "from outer space" you mean "from Space Shuttle orbit", many manmade objects are visible from that altitude on a clear day including any large airport. No manmade objects (including the Great Wall) are visible from the Moon.
sPh
February 1, 2007 2:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
People have no idea of what militarism costs us in this country. If they do question it, they are characterized as "unpatriotic" or "anti-American." It is to our everlasting shame that a democracy in which every person has a say, is so easily manipulated through emotion and sentimentality into not asking what it truly costs the American people.
In a budget of actual dollars, the revenue available for discretionary spending is less than 850 billion dollars. Out of that, over 455 billion dollars is spent on the military. For a country that prides itself on its "good business sense" it is surprising that people cannot grasp the significance of that amount of discretionary spending on something that not only does not have any investment profit, but is a drain on past, present and future investment dollars in projects and people who would provide a return on the taxpayers' investment.
While we're conditioned to think that the military costs "only" 3.7% of the gross domestic profit, the real cost is that for every single dollar a taxpayer sends to its government, as of 2007, 52 cents of that dollar is spent on the military, and that is only the line budget amount. The cost of these current wars are an EXTRA 300
billion dollars which must be borrowed and paid back not through profits or returns, but through taxpayers shouldering the burden of this tremendous outlay in expenditure.
Unfortunately, in this country, there are few citizens, like Chalmers Johnson, who are willing to put up with the abuse of charges of "anti-Americanism" or accusations of being "un-patriotic" or "hating our troops" because we are incapable of standing up to it. We are so fearful of the emotional blackmail of those individuals who do make a profit on war and militarism that we can no longer make pragmatic, practical decisions based on the reality of our situation.
Empires fall because like all business enterprises, when the cost of doing business exceeds profit, there is no more money to invest in that enterprise. When it costs more to protect the resource than it does to sell the resource then the investor has to ask the question of whether a better investment might be had. Soon, those countries like Japan and China who are investing in this country and financing our militarism are going to asking themselves that same question. And then God help us, because no one else will.
February 1, 2007 2:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you, Dr. Johnson. Your posts have been more than informative. They are clear and easy for a non-wonk like me to understand. I just put Nemesis in my Amazon shopping cart along with Blowback and Sorrows of Empire.
February 1, 2007 2:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you, thank you, Chalmers Johnson, thank you so very much for this post, and for all your efforts and books over the years. I have not read them yet (because I knew when reading the reviews that I totally agreed with you ) but I will certainly invest in them soon.
I am still fuming that one know-nothing tried to to describe you as an "ideologue" with a "cult-following." I would gladly be your cult follower (if either of us thought that might accomplish anything for anyone) as I have followed your work since we were both political moderates in the '70's and I was trying to grow as a History student and then as a free-lance business/political researcher/ghostwriter. I had fears about imperial overstretch back than ... but I don't think I ever imagined anything as scary as Bush has become with his treatened attack on Iran. I do believe this would trigger the dollar collapse you reference in your newest book, and thus cause the end of American freedom and prosperity as we have known it ...
I fear for my children. We have wronged them terribly by our passivity as citizens and consumers, the present imperialist establishment in both parties in DC much be massively 'purged' (in a non-violent sense). Nevertheless we must recognize that are probably hundreds, even thousands of men (and a few women?), comfortably retired in Maryland/Virginia and elsewhere, who have buckets of blood on their hands from their clandestine services to our empire-building over the years. I too have feared for years that the blowback from their work will destroy our American happiness and prosperity as well ... every moment, until the imperialists are flushed from our leadership, will be a pivotal moment we must seize to help spread the message that our freedom and prosperity depend on LESS militarism and imperialism and bombing attacks on dubious missions, not MORE of these ...
And then my own intellectual sub-mission in this larger struggle would be to illuminate the idea that imperialism grows out of the psychological and sociological "imperialisms" on a small scale that we find in every functioning adult and every familiy in every culture across time and the globe ... "normal" human consciousness in society does take a measure of dominance-seeking and self-protection which then grows through families and clans and tribes and ethnic groups and sub-nations and nations and empires to become the imperial behaviours we find in the grand scale of global history ... grasping this concept is the first step to correcting our human problems if we are to have a human civilized future ...
Thank You Chalmers
February 1, 2007 2:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Don't forget about Japan: Who Governs. You'll learn about how Japan is about to overtake the US owing to their Economy 2.0 system of economic organization.
Prof. Johnson's willingness to engage the commenters here is to be admired. But he is unfortunately prone to unempirical, gleeful contrarianism about why an American armageddon is right around the corner.
February 1, 2007 2:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Would you define what you mean by "militarism?"
Rather than focusing on the absolute dollars, the fundamental policy choice is what missions are appropriate to assign to the military, and how many of them. There is also a sometimes nerve-wracking balancing of threats versus risks, since he who defends everywhere defends nowhere.
Let me offer some examples. In assigning missions, it also can become necessary to differentiate among Regular, Guard, and Reserve components. States may assign disaster or even law enforcement assistance missions to Guard components, but it's a real problem when a battalion is fighting a forest fire and gets called up for Iraq.
For example, should the military actively take part in border patrolling? Should it take part in them in a support role, when that can be combined with regular training, such as using airborne radar aircraft over borders or close-in ocean?
To what extent should the military prepare for peace operations (divided into peace enforcement and peacekeeping), versus the more kick-down-the-door high-intensity combat? Peace enforcement can be consistent with keeping a combat edge, but it is generally accepted that after a tour of peacekeeping, a unit needs a period of refresher training for combat.
Should the military ever again be asked to do a "presence" mission such as the Marine Barracks in Beirut? How much amphibious capability is needed? Airborne?
Moving into the "how much" includes an assortment of models used in the past, such as "NATO plus 1 (2) Major Regional Conflicts (MRC) and some number of minor operations", where Major Regional Conflicts might be Iraq or Korea, "1.5 MRC" meaning "win one and defend the other until the winners can transfer"? How many small interventions?
Turning to threats, there is a certain probability of ICBM attack from China or North Korea. I consider it a very low threat, not justifying the $20-30 billion budget for a questionably workable National Ballistic Missile Defense (NBMD) system. I believe, however, that Theater Ballistic Missile Defense (TBMD), which can do such things as shoot down medium-range missiles in conflict areas such as North Korea-Japan, Taiwan-China, coastal Indo-Pakistan, and much of the Middle East, is warranted.
I also believe that we need to be thinking of national security in the broad sense, which means protecting critical infrastructure. In part as an unexpected consequence of deregulation, much of the electrical grid is vulnerable to accident or sabotage; we saw a warning of what can happen, on a larger scale, in the 2003 Ohio Valley blackout. The chemical industry is another. Does anyone else remember Bhopal?
Hardening these infrastructure components is in the multibillion dollar range, and may take Federal investment to avoid shareholder suits. It seems a fine place to divert NBMD monies against a low-probability threat.
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
February 1, 2007 2:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry hc - there are a tremendous number of cultural assumptions embedded in your response. Which I am sure you know.
sPh
February 1, 2007 3:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
You could be referring to any of a number of cultures. I must confess I don't know what "militarism" means without further context. Most often, when I hear it used without context, it is meant to be derogatory without definition.
I posed what are real questions in deciding the military role and budget. If some are mildly technical -- and intercepting missiles aimed at different targets wouldn't seem to be, nor is protection against blackouts -- we live in a technological society. If one would make politicomilitary policy, it would seem appropriate that one know something about the factors.
Apropos of policy, you will not see me chipping in on a threat about monetary policy, because that area of economics is a black intellohole for me -- it sucks up my brain activity, never to reappear. When I comment on an area, I try to have some depth in it. Depth can be relative -- when it comes to agricultural policy, all I can say is that when I grow tomatoes, the net cost of the resultant fruit is about $19 each. I do much better with culinary herbs.
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
February 1, 2007 3:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
A front-pager that responds *in detail* to us commentors.
Now I've seen everything...
Dissent Protects Democracy.
February 1, 2007 3:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
In any case, BRAC is an exclusively domestic process, and Clark Air Base in the Philippines was closed by the eruption of Mt. Pinatubo in June 1991, not by the Philippine Senate.
*******************************************
Technically true, but quite misleading. If we wanted to reopen it we couldn't have.
"Clark Air Base was completely evacuated of all but security personnel on June 10, 1991, two days before Mount Pinatubo began the summer-long series of eruptions which destroyed the upper 1000 feet of its peak.
The Philippine Senate rejected an extension of the Military Bases Agreement that September, and the base was transferred to the Philippine government on November 26, 1991, after the United States decided to depart earlier than scheduled."
February 1, 2007 3:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
As a victim/veteran of the Nixon-Kissinger Fig Leaf Contingent (Vietnam 1970-1972) I fully appreciate the plight of America's currently marooned Cheney-Bush Buy Time Brigade in Iraq -- if not Afghanistan as well. All due sympathy for the unfortunate political pawns aside, however, I agree with Chalmers Johnson's analysis of America's dystopian empire on the skids: what I like to call Warfare Welfare and Makework Militarism marketed to the sub-educated, gullible, and easily terrified American public through massive, corporate-funded Managed Mystification. We have indeed gone from the Best and the Brightest bungling their way into a Southeast Asian quagmire to the Worst and the Dullest blundering their way into a strategically much worse middle eastern one. Going from "mission accomplished" four years ago to "mission beginning soon now -- honest injun!" cannot help but look like Mission Creep in Reverse. Not auspicious, to say the least. Actually, almost too depressing to contemplate. Parkinson's Law meets the Peter Principle. Thanks, anyway, to Chalmers Johnson for his many efforts to illuminate our apparently inevitable, tragi-comic demise.
February 1, 2007 3:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you so much Dr. Johnson for your thoughtful replies. It can't be easy to be criticized by a bunch of anonymous typers with goofy handles, yet graciously reply and even quote them.
Your have much to be proud of with all of your scholarship and it's exceedingly charitable of you to subject yourself to anonymous, impressionistic arguments and questionable criticism.
This sort of exchange is precisely what makes me such a fan of TPM and the TPMCafe.
Good luck and keep up the good work.
February 1, 2007 3:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
In a budget of actual dollars, the revenue available for discretionary spending is less than 850 billion dollars. Out of that, over 455 billion dollars is spent on the military. For a country that prides itself on its "good business sense" it is surprising that people cannot grasp the significance of that amount of discretionary spending on something that not only does not have any investment profit, but is a drain on past, present and future investment dollars in projects and people who would provide a return on the taxpayers' investment.
********************************************
It would be great if we could spend less money on defense and people can honestly disagree on what the "right" amount would be.
I suppose my problem with Mr. Johnson is that he insinuates that the Military-Industrial Complex is an ever-increasing force in politics and the economy. You should look at this in context. Look here
http://www.truthandpolitics.org/military-relative-size.php#outlays-graph
When Eisenhower gave his famous speech, defense spending was 9.3% of GDP (10% the previous year!), defense spending was over 70% of discretionary spending, and there were 2,475,000 on active duty in the armed forces, 1.3% of the population. I can't find figures for civilian employment in the defense industry, but it was much higher than today.
Today defense spending is around 4.5% of GDP, defense spending is about 50% of discretionary spending, and there are 1,475,000 on active duty inthe armed forces, 0.46% of the population.
I would posit that the impact of the military and defense industry on American life, politics, and the economy has been generally decreasing, not increasing over the last 50 years. When Eisenhower gave his speech it was a much bigger deal.
I'm all for a rational discussion of what America's defense posture and spending should be without all the hype that we are turning into a Prussian style militaristic society.
February 1, 2007 4:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
I feel obliged to defend myself as not Pollyannish. I offered a possible explanation for Congress' inertia, beyond the obvious partisan issue.
Mainly I pointed out that, in terms of rules and institutions, Congress is the mechanism for rolling back imperialism. I make no prediction that it will do so.
However, Conyers is addressing "signing statements". It's a start, and I don't see alternatives to Congressional action short of seriously messy revolution or extreme economic failure (which might force our hand).
Thanks from me as well, Mr Johnson. I read "Sorrows" and found it illuminating and hard to refute.
February 1, 2007 4:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, in the context of my post, I would think that what I meant by militarism is obvious - that amount of time, energy and resources provided by a society to maintain a standing army. What role that army plays in that society should be determined by that society's needs.
Do we need a navy to patrol our sea lanes and protect our trade? Yes, that is part of our nation's business cost. Do we need a navy to protect our ports and borders in order to maintain regulated trade? Obviously, we do. Do we need an army to protect us from unprovoked attacks upon ourselves and our territories? Of course, no one is denying the reality of that.
Do we need billions of dollars to develop ray guns and trillions of dollars to develop missile defense systems and billions upon billions to provide society with thousands of nuclear warheads and experimental weapons and delivery systems that benefit no one but the industry that develops them? I don't think so.
February 1, 2007 4:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
But after Augustus there was Tiberius, and after Tiberius, Caligula, and after Caligula, Claudius, and after Claudius, Nero, and so on, and so on. Augustus and his legacy aren't very reassuring.
February 1, 2007 4:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for replying to my comment, Mr. Johnson. But I would like to clarify something. You say:
Dan K asks whether we need a successor empire run by either the US or another country that will provide a "security order." My answer, controversial in a country as steeped in militarism as this one, is no. We can maintain peace through a balance of power, deterrence, common interests that are planetary (global warming, water supply, etc.), alliances, and other techniques of diplomacy.
I don't think we really disagree much here. I didn't suggest a successor empire, but rather a successor security order:
in which responsibilities are distributed among many countries, and governed somewhat democratically by more of the world's people, rather than directed from a single national capital.
So the security order I have in mind is much more of a collaborative and broad-based system, not an empire. I would only add to this, and to your list under the category of diplomacy, that I would like to see some really imaginative global treaty arrangements, particularly treaties designed to inject some regulation, price stability and conflict resolution mechanisms into the global energy system. My chief concern is that the current trajectory of more and more intense global competition among developing and developed powers for dwindling resources is a tremendous threat to both energy suppliers and enrgy consumers, and is leading us toward an era of economic strife and disruptions, and even toward global war. I believe we need a real treaty-based global system to deal with this problem. I don't trust the balance of power alone to keep us out of war.
I also think we eventually need something closer to a genuine global police force to end conflicts and re-establish order, when feasable, in conflict-torn regions. Aside for the humanitarian imperative, these conflicts occur in strategically vital areas, and inevitably invite unilateral or small coalition nterventions to deal with them. Thus the work of pacification, stabilization and relief gets bound up with great power strategic competition. We need a professional force that is not simply a posse of soldiers from the armed forces of individual states, tasked temporarily to the peacekeeping force, but which consists of soldiers who work for the Security Council alone.
February 1, 2007 4:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you for the detailed and expansive replies to us Cafe denizens Chalmers. I must, a bit ashamedly, admit I haven't done enough reading the last few years with my life being consumed with the daily mundane involved in the running of a small business. But now I have at least 2 more books to get. :-)
I have to agree with you in your disagreement with Tom Wright regarding the specific point of having faith in the US Congress, as an institution, to "save us". In my mind I think the Congress is part of the problem and will not, in it's current form and how it "does business", be part of the solution. They're aiding the military-industrial complex to hold sway over our government.
Thanks again for you comments and I am looking forward to reading the books and hearing more from you here...
February 1, 2007 4:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
And does that make sense to you? We have a smaller army than we had during the last twenty years, and yet in real dollars it is costing more than it did at the height of the cold war. When Eisenhower gave his speech, we were not funding that spending by borrowing trillions of dollars every year to pay for it.
I don't think that Chalmers Johnson is saying that we're turning into a "Prussian style militaristic society", I believe he is saying that as citizens of a democracy, we've abdicated our responsibility to maintain and control the military. Whether through sentimentality or greed, we've failed to consider the long term effects of that lack of control.
February 1, 2007 4:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you so much for such detailed responses. It is truly, truly appreciated.
I might smudge the distinction between 'accidental empire' and imperial overstretch somewhat -- but in doing so depart from Paul Kennedy's original thesis. I was thinking of how the Raj arrived by accident, in a period that began with Robert Clive's corporate adventures (done while Britain was losing a number of its North American colonies) and cemented by the 1857 rebellion. It took almost another century till independence. By that time, the nature of the British military machine had changed substantially, albeit more as a response to events elsewhere.
[I also wonder whether it takes an outsider's perspective to see the militarism of modern America.]
February 1, 2007 4:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Chalmers,
Thank you for writing again. Yes, we do not need another successor empire by the US or another country to provide a security order. Yes, we do not need another superpower like the US to micromanage other countries.
From the news media, it appears that the US government has sent their men to help Iraqis to rebuild their country, at least that’s what the politicians were saying. In reality, many soldiers were kicking doors, abusing the locals, terrorizing the neighborhoods, thrashing the Iraqi culture and shoot and kill innocent civilians. The US soldiers do not have legal and moral grounds to be there and yet they were assigned there to maintain law and order in a country and culture that they were not familiar with. The behaviors of the American soldiers in Iraq have given America a bad name. We don’t need more policing around the world.
It is always interesting to read your writings.
February 1, 2007 4:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Guess what? I've listened to Chalmers johnson and I've listened to you.
He wins.
You lose.
Tom
February 1, 2007 4:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
.> I posed what are real questions
> in deciding the military role and
> budget.
I suspect you are considerably smarter and better-read than I am, so this is a bit silly. Just for starters, your discussion of military options simply excluded the possibility that the United States might choose to adopt an isolationist, mercanitilist policy that did not require any type of expeditionary military force. Note that I am not advocating for or against this policy or any other - just bringing up the point that this option was an option until after WWI, and is now excluded by the simple expedient of framing the argument (whether a "conservative" or "liberal" party holds power) as to how powerful the US' expeditionary force must be.
sPh
February 1, 2007 4:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
When Eisenhower gave his speech, we were not funding that spending by borrowing trillions of dollars every year to pay for it.
*******************************************
Of course we were - we ran budget deficits every year he was in office.
February 1, 2007 5:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Right - don't want to let any inconvenient facts disturb your preconceived conclusions.
February 1, 2007 5:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
February 1, 2007 5:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
JPF311 thinks that the American public was informed about the largest single clandestine operation we ever carried out: the recruiting, arming, and sending into battle against the USSR of the mujahideen during the 1980s. It was actually a secret to the American public and subject to virtually no oversight by the Congress. See George Creel, Charlie Wilson's War (Atlantic Monthly Press, 2003).
*******************************************
Sorry, but I've read "Charlie Wilson's War" and you have just turned the main theme of the book inside out. "Virtually no oversight by Congress?" - It was Charlie Wilson's war because Rep. Wilson, with the strong help of Rep. John Murtha, almost ran the entire operation. For the first year or two after the Soviet invasion, the CIA gave only minimal aid to the Afghans, sending only obsolete WWII era weapons, afraid that modern weapons would be traced back to the US.
Wilson forced through appropriations for more weapons than the CIA wanted, and worked directly with lower level CIA operatives to make sure that they got delivered. Wilson made sure they got AK-47s bought from China and Egypt and Stinger missiles. They even air-freighted in mules bought in Missouri to haul them across from Pakistan
This operation was the antithesis of no Congressional oversight - it was managed almost day to day by Wilson and Murtha.
And it was no secret. Heck, don't you remember Dan Rather sneaking across the border with the guerrillas and broadcasting on it?
It's a great book. Shame about George Crile's death. They're actually turning it into a movie this year starring Tom Hanks.
I must say it is somewhat unnerving to hear a book like this represented as saying the opposite of what it really says.
February 1, 2007 5:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Is the problem with the military, or those who give orders to the military? With the civilian makers of policy, or the uniformed executors of policy? The latter is the military; the former is not.
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
February 1, 2007 6:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wilson is the only American known publicly to have shot at Soviet soldiers, when he manned a .50, I think. That Charlie Wilson had to pump up enthusiasm for the project should tell us something. (Maybe that it wasn't so important? That it was a bad idea?)
Most folks didn't care about Afghanistan, is my impression. It was the Reagan-inspired Cold Warriors that were enthusiastic about sticking it to the Russians.
Mainly agree with you that it was no secret, though.
February 1, 2007 6:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Re: . The problems I am addressing in my book Nemesis both precede and transcend the current Bush administration, as is obvious when one reflects that the great warning about vested interests in the munitions industry came in Eisenhower's farewell address in 1961 and that the roots of "military Keynesianism" were planted during World War II.
Maybe this is true, but these problems were far less severe and they did not threaten the fundamental stability or future prospects of the country, rather in the manner that a low-grade chronic infection may be unpleasant and detrimental to overall well-being, but not be life-threatening. No, it is the Bush administration, by embracing these things fanatically, that has made them a real threat, whereas before, even at the height of Vietnam or in Reagan's day, they were mere headaches and annoyances.
Re: It was actually a secret to the American public and subject to virtually no oversight by the Congress
I'm sorry but I was alive at the time and even though a teenager I recall numerous articles and news spots about this operation. To be sure the details of the operation were not publicized, but its existence was not a secret and if a 15 year old boy in suburban Detroit knew about it then you are simply not credible when you claim it was a state secret
Re: Bush's electoral victory in 2004 provided legitimacy for his actions
I'm not sure what the term "legitimacy" here means. Whether we like it or not Bush was the legal president of the United States beginning in Jan of 2001. His actions were "legitimate" from the moment he took the oath of office. What I reject is any concept of "group guilt". Mr Bush is responsible for his own actions, first and foremost. His supporters may bear some secondary responsibility. Those of us who cannot stand the man are no more responsible for him than Muslims in general are responsible for the crimes of Osama bin Laden, or the Russian victims of Stalin are responsible for his tyranny.
Re; "We do not have an empire, we have a hegemony." This strikes me as a distinction without a difference
There is an absolutely huge difference. An empire consists of an imperial center nation directly governing legally and politically disadvantaged provinces, generally for the benefit of the imperial center, though some good (perhaps even much good) may accrue to the provincials (as the case of both Rome and Britain show; and Rome ultimately converted from an empire to a multiethnic nation state when citizenship was granted to all free males in the 3rd century). The only places which qualify as imperial possessions of the US are Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, maybe the Marianas and a handful of other small islands (and these places would be allowed to go their way if they wished to-- see: Micronesia, Palau, the Canal Zone and the Marshall Is). That's it. We do NOT have imperial provinces otherwise, and the places where we have sited our armies do not pay us tribute or taxes or anything similar. In fact, we'd be better off if we did have an empire; wealth and resources would flow from the provinces to us, and we could send George Bush off to govern and loot some ill-favored corner of the American Empire in 2009, as the Romans dispatched their consuls. Instead the flow is in the other direction; the hegemony drains us but does not benefit us. It does not even benefit the military-industrial complex much since, again, the wealth flow is outward bound not inward.
Re: To correct itself seems to mean a return to the world of Bill Clinton.
Well, from your lips to God's ears! Clinton was not perfect, and I do blame him for flubbing healthcare reform, but how can you doubt the country was on the right track at least in the 90s? Hello! The deficit vanished, we had peace with our allies and even some old enemies like Russia, the middle class thrived, the poor finally began to get richer, the defense budget shrank, serious attempts were made to resolve long-standing international disputes like the Israel-Palestine conflict, new technologies transformed us, the rights of minorities (notably gay and lesbian Americans) made strides-- what's not to like? And if Gore had become president I have no doubt that we would be now be addressing real problems like global warming ("global" is not a dirty word; some problems are worldwide and require a worldwide effort), not foolish neo-con fever dreams like a revived Caliphate.
Re: the Department of Veterans Affairs' responsibilities for the lifetime care of the seriously wounded ($68 billion), the Treasury Department's payments of pensions to military retirees and widows and their families
I cannot classify that as military spending, at least not in the same sense that paying for overseas military bases or developing new weapons are. In kind and effect these expenditures are the same as Social Security and Medicare, transfer payments to American citizens not to "Merchants of death" or foreign potentates. Some such payments (i.e., college funding for veternas) may even be highly beneficial to the nation.
February 1, 2007 6:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
I too want to thank Mr. Johnson for his thorough response to commenters here. He indeed is a good teacher, and I now have a reading list to keep me occupied for quite some time.
I was delighted to see the references to Dwight Eisenhower's Farewell Address. I put it on my freshman must read list about two years ago. (The link gives one the opportunity to both read and hear the speech). Seeing the discussion here reminded me of two things: one of which might be remembered by other Café habitués.
It seems ironic to me that the Senator most closely associated with defending the Constitution from the predations of the executive would introduce legislation compelling something of this sort. I haven't heard of any university being punished for violating this act. Has anyone?
Be that as it may, it seems that we need to use a very broad interpretation of imperialism to understand its perils to our free society.
aMike
February 1, 2007 6:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
>>> Do we need a navy to patrol our sea lanes and protect our trade?
This requirement is questionable.
Given the decline of the US-flag commercial deep-sea Merchant Marine (fewer than 60 ships, most subsidized) and the out-sourcing of Marine Transportation to third world operators working at sub-par wages, there is obviously little US seaborne trade and few US - specific sea lanes to protect.
Let the Phillipines, Liberia, China, Malta and Panama police the sea lanes; it is THEIR ships and sailors carrying the goods to and from US ports.
February 1, 2007 6:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Chalmers, I'm getting nerevous because I think the mob is pushing string here. Your book isn't going to be in bookstores until Feb. 7th.........
jim
February 1, 2007 6:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Also, if one looks at a map. Rome could have shortened its European Borders by well over 50%, to maybe 30% if they could have moved the Rhine border further east to the Vistila - drawing a short line from the Baltic to the black Sea.
It would have been a large undertaking but it would have brought considerable returns in reducing the cost of defense in Europe.
Also, the other big problem, was the lack of a stable point of fixture on their eastern border in the Middle East. In the end, the inability to find a stable place to draw a line, brought the ruin of both the Eastern Empire and the Persian Sassanian Empire and paved the way to Islam's early and rather easy expansion in the seventh century.
Also, lets not forget that the Roman Empire collapsed because its commercial economy collapsed. This collapse was a result of two much concentration of Wealth in the upper end of Roman Society.
Those wealthy and powerful used their influence to avoid paying taxes, - without a robust commercial economy and merchant class, this left the Roman state with nothing but the poor peasantry to tax. As a result Rome didn't have enough funds to fund a large enough army to protect, in the 5th century, the same borders Augustus gave the Empire in the first Century b.c.e. It still had a tactical edge over the barbarians, of course, but it needed a larger and better funded army.
(see Nobel Prize winning Economic Historian Douglas North's book 'Structure and Change in Economic History).
Concentration of wealth and power, avoidance of paying taxes? Sound familiar?
This pattern repeats itself over and over again: One of ancient Egypt's early kingdoms collapsed because of it; the Byzantines before the battle of Manzikurt in 1071 - necessitating the crusades; the collapse of medieval Japan (a case where there were no external threats); and perhaps contributed or caused the decline or collapse of Hapsburg Spain, Bourbon France and Romanov Russia; and arguably the collapse of the 1920s U.S. economy in 1929, triggering the rise of Hitler, World War II and the holocaust.
Imperial overstrech is a problem. But it wasn't overstreach that killed the Roman Empire, it was concentration of wealth, triggering a collapse in demand, triggering a collapse in the commercial economy, and excessive tax cuts for the rich that killed the Roman Empire - at least in the west, it would again in the East, but only in the 11th century.
The combination of the two: concentrated wealth/tax cuts for the rich and imperialism, in Bush's America suggest an epic collapse might be just around the corner. I'm sure we'll know when we have turned it - we won't need Bush to tell us "We've turned a corner".
He that hath a trade, hath an estate - from Poor Richards Almanac - Benjamin Franklin
February 1, 2007 7:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, but there is a difference - in 1956 and 57 we ran budget surpluses, the trade deficit was in the black and the U.S. was a creditor nation, lending more money than it was borrowing. In 1958 there was a budget deficit but that money was invested in projects that provided a return, primarily infrastructure and education. The return on that investment was greater than the interest paid on the loan - in other words, the interest on the loan could be paid from the return, with a profit to the borrower.
Borrowing money to fund the military is a black hole - it sucks money in, but there is never a return. It's the difference between building an oil tanker and a naval carrier - the oil tanker will make money, the naval carrier will cost money. The oil tanker is an asset, the naval carrier is a cost of business.
February 1, 2007 7:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
That simply was an excellent analysis on your part.
Who wouldn't trade today for the 90s? If Gore had been president, I argue, there would have been no 911, let alone Iraq and Afghanistan wars. GNP growth would have been 50% higher than its been, wealth distribution would be much broader and median family income, instead of declining 5% might have increased 10%, maybe more.
But what we would still have, if Gore had been elected, is a large, well funded wingnutconservative class with large mouth pieces claiming everthing that was right was wrong. The vestiges of the discontented upper class who still resent Roosevelt's transformation of America, and discontented Southerners, who still resent losing the civil war. For America to prosper in the long run, this debry has to be cleaned out of the polity.
In the final analysis, hopefully, the one thing Bush has done for this nation is totally discredit the discontented wingnut conservative class in a manner reminisent of the great depression's effect on Republicans.
It is unfortunate in the present, that the wingnuts leader was an incompetant, but in the long term, in the future it may truly be fortunate for the country - for hopefully, and finally, he will have discredited the conservative movement, especially the farrigntwingnut branch of it for the next 20 to 50 years. In that length of time, a lot of things can be fixed.
I would say that in a broad sense, Chalmers Johnson has a good point: we have structural institutional problems that need fixing.
Perhaps he's too focused on the effect to pinpoint the cause. Its the power of corporations that need to be hemmed in. The modern limited liability corporation was invented during the years fo the Civil War - and the problems we have today are the same ones that existed in the post civil war era. Republican's like Bush dream of taking us back to that era, where the rich got really rich, and is not interested in moving us forward.
If corporations can be eliminated from the political process, alot of problems Johnson see's will go away - I mean the Keynesian Militarism part, which may be impelling the imperialistic tendancies of the United States.
I think we maybe the only first world nation with that problem.
He that hath a trade, hath an estate - from Poor Richards Almanac - Benjamin Franklin
February 1, 2007 7:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
J. McCutchen
Perfidious Albion! Excellent. The US also scrambled to protect French colonies. Yalta divided the world into 2 spheres but the West assumed that imperialism would die a more evolutionary death. When confronted with a Soviet challenge, the US sequed into the role its new found hegemony required.
Thanks Prof Chalmers....your visit, a special treat
February 1, 2007 8:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
One quibble: Bush did not win the 2004 popular vote by 3.5 million. He probably actually lost it by about 7 million votes. The difference? Theft. See statistician Steve Freeman's book, "Was the 2004 Presidential Election Stolen."
If Freeman is right, then our Republic has already been undone.
February 1, 2007 9:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Within the CIA Directorate of Operations, waving my hands at the new National Clandestine Service, are the major functions of paramilitary and covert political/psychological operations, clandestine human intelligence, counterespionage (as distinct from counterintelligence). There are assorted offices with support and specialized functions. There are a few specialized technical collection units, such as what has been called Division D, intercepting from inside embassies, especially aimed at short-ranged signals that only can be captured nearby.
The problem, which goes back to WWII, is when operations get the upper hand to clandestine collection. There's no clean solution, because when you merge the organization, the biggest dog tends to run the pack, while if you keep them separate, they can trip over each other. A WWII example of the latter was the OSS breaking into the Japanese embassy in Lisbon, stealing a cryptosystem, and the loss being discovered. Unfortunately, OSS did not know the military cryptanalysts had cracked the system and was reading it, which the Japanese changed on discovering the loss. Cryptanalysts, back 50 yards and kick again.
Where would you put human intelligence collection under Non-Official Cover (NOC)? This is incompatible with diplomatic status, so can't really go into State. Expand the Defense HUMINT Service?
This is not the only place where CIA does collection. While things are always reorganizing, there is the Directorate of Science and Technology. Some of its functions, such as imagery interpretation, have moved to the NGIA. For quite some time, overhead collection has been in the NRO, and undersea collection in a Navy office. Would you move all electronic intelligence to NSA and DIA? Agent communications system development?
FBIS, now generalized into the National OSINT Center, has bounced back and forth between the DS&T and the Directorate of Intelligence. It's a largely unclassified service that, at first glance, could indeed go to State.
I hesitate in transferring lots of things to State, for two reasons. First, as a practical matter, State is not geared to run new, fairly large organizations. Second, the analytical unit at State, INR, has no collection responsibilities, and has done excellent analysis without danger of bureaucratic problems with collectors in the same organization. I don't want to use that small but high quality unit inside a much enlarged State-based intelligence function.
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
February 1, 2007 9:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
There is the reality that Liberia, Malta and Panama don't have navies; they are "flags of convenience" used to get around the inconvenient safety, etc., regulations, as well as taxes, of maritime nations.
Massive outsourcing of something potential critical to the nation is a potential regret for the future, especially if we lose the pool of experienced seafarers. I see this much more as a matter of corporate convenience.
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
February 1, 2007 9:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
If I may take a historical example, the drawdowns after WWII left US forces understrength, underequipped, and undertrained. When the Korean War broke out -- and I do believe that armed response was necessary, as did the UN -- one of the first Army reinforcements was called Task Force Smith. They took 150 out of 500 casualties, and lost all their heavy equipment, while delaying the North Koreans for 7 or 8 hours. Sending those troops into battle, unready for it, is a classic example of not "supporting the troops".
In contrast, insistence on a political mission, arguing the troops will be demoralized if they don't have popular support, doesn't square with most analyses of the psychology of good military units. When there is good unit cohesion, troops fight to protect one another. When there is good leadership, they will fight for their relatively immediate leaders, not for a President. In WWII, it was unusual that soldiers under Patton identified their unit as "Third Army"; it was extremely rare for a soldier to identify much above regiment or division.
To return to the post, I suspect at least some of that door-kicking is because door-kicking is part of the training for urban combat, not urban policing. I repeat: urban combat is when most buildings have people shooting at you. Infantry is not trained for policing, and, in general, police and infantry skills are necessarily different. People trained for one are not easily put into the other role without retraining.
When it comes to "supporting the troops", I claim the Administration did not, by providing vastly insufficient occupation forces, trying to fit infantry into police and civil affairs roles, and, once they had a shortfall in infantry, started giving artillery, air defense, supply, and other Army troops hurry-up courses in how to do infantry.
I have trouble calling uniformed personnel "militarists" at fault, when the problem lies with the civilian policymakers for sending them on legally, morally, and pragmatically questionable missions.
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
February 1, 2007 9:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
re: our military is much smaller than in Eisehower times.
Well, where is Soviet Union? Russia has much smaller military potential, and if Putin tries to revive it, it is largely to our policy of placing bases, and meddling in politics, all around Russia.
The conflict with North Korea was manufactured almost ex nihilo. There was some workable deal negotiated by Clinton that Busheviks repudiated, perhaps to have some boogey man who would justify money wasted on missile defence.
If we will cease manufacturing crises ex nihilo (like weapon of mass descruction, complete with truck trailers of death), our military needs will drop to much less than half. Perhaps to a quarter. We really do not need to be present in Europe, and we are almost useless in Japan and Korea (where we "defend" a pair of countries with 7 times population and at least 100 times GDP than the "threat").
At some point it looked like Busheviks preparing for a coup d'etat. Given the debacle in Iraq, the idea seems to be buried. And why it looked that way? OK, make an absolute nut and fanatic the boss of special forces. and create highly lucrative program --- employing the alums of special forces as highly pair mercenaries. Try to establish a precedent that anyone, anywhere, can be declared "unlawful combatant" and held indefinetely. Develop a program allowing to stop the travel of all political opponents, experiment with its use. Fund groups of fanatical thugs (make College Republicans become one of them).
The guiding philosophy seemed to be one espoused by a Japanese politician: "a man should not rape women, but he should be able to".
February 1, 2007 10:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's great to see that Professor Chalmers came in and visited. And at the very least, has done what needs to be done, whacked the hornet's nest here. In a positive way!
As one would expect, Mr. Chalmer's insights go much much deeper than have been provided here within this limited framework and the time available. The first publication of his that I read was Conspiracy at Matsukawa.That was sometime right after our son's birth in 1973. I have read as much as I could possibly get my hands on, ever since. I have a separate shelf dedicated to his works. Plus, the books that he has cited fills another half of a wall here in the office. I have also had the fortunate experience to have witnessed more than a few appearances by Mr. Chalmers. One thing that stands out with Mr. Chalmers, and I find as a positive attribute, is his ability to change his mind when new information dictates it.
For further expansion on the study of Mr. Johnson's past positions on this subject that he has been so kind to have discussed here, you may wish to read the following 2004 interview transcripts from the Institute of International Studies, UC Berkeley "Conversations with History" series. There at the site you will also have the ability of experiencing this interview as a webcast in 'ram', and/or a podcast in MP3:
If nothing else, one must acknowledge the ability of Mr. Johnson to change his position over time on issues as new information comes to the surface. I have great admiration for any intellectual who is not so set-in-stone as to blind others from pertinent information that brings light to the realties that surround us. Also, keep in mind that Mr Chalmers was in the employ as a consultant of "the company" during the Vietnam era. So with his knowledge of the web of deceit and dysfunction inherent within that agency, it is not surprising that he "...would prefer to see so-called intelligence gathering returned to the State Department." I don't totally agree with his assessment on this point, but something needs to be done.In addition, if you haven't come across it yet, and you can find the time, read his "Three Rapes" at Tom's dispatch. It will provide you with good idea as to what American imperialism has accomplished in our names under the banner of 'Status of Forces Agreement' (SOFA) ... Exactly what's been/being attempted now in Iraq.
~OGD~
February 2, 2007 1:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
Chalmers Johnson has also stated that protestors were right to oppose the Vietnam War and he was wrong to support it. I don't know of many people who've had the courage and wisdom to say that.
Tom
February 2, 2007 3:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think it would be obvious from recent years why the qualifier "so-called" would be appropriate in describing the CIA's intelligence gathering operations. When their intelligence gathering has functioned well, as in their report that the Iraqis had no functioning WMD operations at all, the truth has been obscured by bogus stovepiped reports from lying Chalabi "sources". In other cases it has simply been wrong.
The Directorate of Operations seems from my viewpoint to be a source of a lot of the problems. The CIA has two large directorates engaged in completely different missions. Often it has seemed that the operations' people are so gung-ho to keep fighting an endless Cold War against the rest of the world that they view all of the world's events from a political lens that hasn't changed an iota since the days of Dulles.
IMO, intelligence gathering needs to be completely divorced from covert operations.
February 2, 2007 4:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
(Note to some commenters: "Professor Chalmers" is an inappropriate appelation. As he said, Chalmers is his first name.)
Professor Johnson, I am heartened by your comments here, which diverge greatly from the usual discussions in American foreign policy. Your willingness to challenge the fundamental assumptions of a militaristic, domineering American foreign policy is refreshing. I am particularly heartened by your criticism of the military and the CIA - both remain untouchable objects on Capitol Hill, unfortunately. How do we weaken the power of the paranoid, eternally militaristic mindset and its enduring grip on the American imagination?
February 2, 2007 4:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
There are a couple of questions.
1. What is the mission of the US military/industrial/congressional complex?
2. Who authorized this mission?
My answers:
1. The (implied) mission is to ensure that there will be no diminution in the standard of living in the US because of a lack of cheap raw materials and finished goods. A secondary mission is to make sure that our exports are also sold under conditions favorable to us.
2. The American people authorized this mission. Chalmers Johnson thinks they did this unwittingly, but I think we must take the blame. Its like the proverbial story about watching the sausage being made. Our demands for "stuff", big cars, big houses and cheap fuel mean that those who promise to provide this get elected. No politician wins on a program of rightsizing or conservation. All promote growth as a solution to our problems. The fact that the public deceives itself doesn't mean we don't know what we want.
As Pogo said: "We have met the enemy and he is us."
The issue is now front and center because our military can no longer fulfill the mission. We no longer have the ability to force other states to do our bidding. The era of gunboat diplomacy is over. Even our most faithful clients in Latin America are going their own way. Our military can destroy things, but we still can't make societies do our bidding. The present situation is unsustainable. At some point we will have to start living within our means. If we are clever we will be able to reduce our consumption patterns without too much economic dislocation. If we aren't we can expect civil unrest and much misery.
Katrina should serve as a wake up call. The US is no longer able to care for its citizens. Our infrastructure is neglected, or social programs inadequate and the money for these efforts has been diverted to militarism.
--- Policies not Politics
Daily Landscape
February 2, 2007 6:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
In 1958 there was a budget deficit but that money was invested in projects that provided a return, primarily infrastructure and education.
Borrowing money to fund the military is a black hole - it sucks money in, but there is never a return.
Some would say that if the US snags the oil in Iraq, then we've gotten a very good return on our money because we control the price of oil and therefore the world wide economy. As Chalmers noted, however, maintaining that status requires a standing army, something similar to the situation that happened to Jafar in the movie "Alladin" after he wished himself to be a genie!
Contrary to popular belief, I think that education can actually be a bad use for money. In my case, I realized that, through education, I became co-dependent on teachers, wasn't learning that much and was losing my creativity. After "breakin free," the experience that Zak Efron highlights in 'High School Musical,' I became much happier.
My question: "what has education done for a world with a "globally warmed" fever? polluted land, air and sea? and species extinction because of habit loss?"
We've become drug addicts of materialism and cannot "just say no."
That's why I agree with Chalmers view that governments won't save us because I think that their policies have corrupted us by becoming the most popular religion in the world, complete with its conservative and liberal creeds that people gladly professed, and made sacrifies to our God, Democracy, through the military.
February 2, 2007 7:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
The U.S. isn't going to snag the oil in Iraq, and even if it did, the projected oil revenue for Iraq in 2007 is 31 billion.
February 2, 2007 7:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
I never thought about it this way before, but I'm drawing some dots between the cautions DDE laid out in his farewell address and two of the massive programs that contributed to the deficit BevD speaks about: initiating the Interstate Highway System and the Government subsidized student loan program and classroom construction program.
The common connection is that both of these were sold, first to Congress, and then to the American People as defense programs. Most of my life since, I've seen this as a fairly cynical manipulation, by which New Deal type programs could be put forward without sounding like social engineering or socialism or part of the (dread word) liberal agenda.
But BevD makes me think a little bit more about this. Given the fact that Eisenhower's Farewell Address followed shortly after the State of the Union address, and that it contained the famous warning about the Military-Industrial Complex, I'm wondering if Eisenhower saw these public works projects as part of a deliberate strategy to shift government spending from militarism and the kind of alliances which Chalmers Johnson sees as threatening to the republic, into projects which stimulated the economy by means more productive of the common good. Clearly he had been thinking about the military-industrial connection for a long time...those remarks weren't just throwaways. He may have been a craftier tactician than we give him credit for.
aMike
February 2, 2007 7:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
The Interstate System is our response to Germany's Autobahn, which impressed US troops so much when they were chasing the Germans toward Berlin.
Unfortunately building an inviting road invites use of the road--I would say the effect of the Interstate is a mixed blessing. It can be given some credit for weakening rail transport. It is also very much involved in the strategic planning of population dispersal; thinner suburbs and city make for a more survivable population after nuclear attack.
February 2, 2007 8:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
.> The U.S. isn't going to snag the oil
> in Iraq, and even if it did, the
> projected oil revenue for Iraq in
> 2007 is 31 billion.
Agreed on the first point, but I believe that many in positions of power are actually peak oil believers and are banking on the price of oil rising exponentially over the next 20 years.
sPh
February 2, 2007 8:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
The fact that Americans like "stuff" -- and the bigger the better -- does not mean that they equate the acquisition of their desired lifestyle with the maintenance of a military/industrial complex to insure international trade in goods and access to raw materials. Americans are just not that sophisticated.
But even were they, there is little evidence that the military/industrial complex has any such "mission." Its advertized missions are penultimate excuses for supporting its ultimate mission of sustaining itself, of continuing its profitable practice of sucking at the governmental teat.
February 2, 2007 8:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks, Mike, you've explained it far better than I can. I believe that while Eisenhower understood that the military can build roads, the best utilization for those roads is commerce.
As an aside, I have increasing admiration for Eisenhower and his role in WW II. It was an amazingly complex job in an extremely sensitive situation and he handled it very well.
February 2, 2007 8:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, but the point of the matter is that even if we stole the oil and kept the revenue, the cost of producing that oil, protecting that oil and shipping that oil would exceed any profit that the oil could produce because while the price of oil will go up, so will the costs to produce it.
I don't see stealing Iraqi oil as a U.S. government option.
February 2, 2007 8:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not in disagreement with this at all. Rather, I'm sort of a disciple of James Howard Kunstler and other New Urbanists, and also of Jane Jacobs, who was herself a nemesis of the highway lobby, especially Robert Moses. I'm not at all fond of the interstate by any means. (Caveat: I'm the last pedestrian in the United States...65 and never had a drivers license, how about that?).
My only point was that Eisenhower might have been working to wean the public away from endless spending on arms and arms alone as a booster to the economy. I don't think that he, or any of the other advocates of an integrated system of superhighways had a vision of urban sprawl they would create. One of the principal arguments for the system was that it would allow quick emergency evacuation of our city centers in the case of atomic attack or natural catastrophe, and I remember that argument being presented on the news during the Cuban Missile Crisis when I was in college. But the evacuation was to be temporary...not the permanent white flight which began in the 1960s.
aMike
February 2, 2007 8:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, yes, it does invite use of the roads. Without those highways shipping commercial goods would have (and still would be) been almost impossible - the cost of shipping (especially smaller loads) would have been prohibitive considering the monopoly of the railroad companies. The cost of cartage from the company to the rail depot and from the rail depot to the vendor was eating up time and money. It is far more efficient to ship goods from door to door, and give companies greater control over inventory.
(And yes, I know that road shipment is not always the best method for everyone.)
February 2, 2007 8:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
Regarding "so-called", I have yet to find any example in the English language where it added value to a description. I'd much rather someone be direct and say what they mean. If it's "incompetent", fine, but "so-called" is smug, condescending, and uninformative.
The 9/11 Commission Report pointed to the most recent manifestation, under Tenet, of a problem that goes back to the World War II OSS under Donovan. It's really twofold. The daily report to the President, most recently the President's Daily Brief, needs to be in a format that the President will read. If it's of interest, I can review some of the individual preferences.
The second part is that the Director always wants direct Presidential access to brief, but also have that status for the agency. Taken together, there is a very delicate balance between good reporting and slanting the report to what the President wants to hear. LBJ liked a bit of salacious gossip, Carter and Clinton liked more detail than most, Eisenhower wanted it to look like a military staff report and have a checklist of decision options.
Under Bush, Tenet appears to have taken the route of choosing items that supported Bush's preconceptions. This is a failure, but, in historical context of intelligence reporting, it is understandable why it happened. No matter how US intelligence is reorganized, we have to find a way to deal with this constant pressure to slant the reports. Do remember that several key staff members, such as the National Security Assistant and the Chief of Staff, may see the document first so they can prepare for the briefing -- they may pressure the Director before presentation.
This is not a defense of the CIA. This is a cry for help regarding a problem that has to be fixed regardless of what agency does what.
In this case, I believe the Administration was set on creating an Orwellian sense of constant war, to replace the Cold War as a source of FUD (Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt).
For the record, and not knowing the details of the last reorganization, the CIA historically has had four significant directorates. I agree that covert and clandestine operations should move, probably to DoD rather than State. The Non-Official Cover problem makes moving espionage problematic for State, given that it is incompatible with diplomatic status.
I make a twofold recommendation: there absolutely must be, somewhere in the government, an oversight group that is aware of all covert and clandestine operations for any purpose, and has veto power over them. This would prevent, for example, gung-ho covert operators from kidnapping someone they think is the enemy, but is actually a double agent reporting to the espionage people.
Second, I agree covert operations need to be separate from clandestine intelligence collection, which is mostly but not completely human-source. For example, the people that insert agents are also the people that can secretly install a technical sensor "black box". Clandestine intelligence does need to coordinate with analysis and with Science & Technology, as well as Support/Administration (e.g., which runs communications), so splitting these up might cause more problems than it solves. Covert operations, however, are incompatible, although there needs to be central services for clandestine and covert operations, such as the design and documentation of cover identities. The analytical people sometimes need to know that. Since the analytical people (Directorate of Intelligence) maintain the biographical index, they are also the people to check out potential foreign sources.
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
February 2, 2007 8:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
I would have to disagree with your characterization of the economic cause of the collapse of the Western Roman Empire. I have recently read "The Fall of Rome and the End of Civilization" by Bryan Ward-Perkins. An excellent book I would recommend to anyone.
Ward-Perkins takes on the "economic inevitability" theories of the fall of the Western Roman Empire and does a good job of routing them. He argues that there was nothing inevitable about it, and cites the fact that the Eastern (Byzantine) Roman Empire continued right along through the same circumstances just fine for another 1000 years as his most convincing argument.
He notes that prior to the rise of Arab Islam in the 600s, most of the barbarian threats to both empires came from the north. Most of the productive area of the of the Western Empire (he thinks 2/3 of the tax base)was north of the Mediterranean and open to attack and disruption by barbarians. Their wars had huge disruption to the economy and population that couldn't be made up under continuing barbarian pressure. The exemption from taxes that you talk about was due to the fact that areas were devastated by barbarian invasion and couldn't afford to pay them.
The Eastern Empire had 2/3 of its tax base across the Dardanelles (in Anatolia, Greater Syria and Egypt) and the Roman Navy was able to keep the barbarians from crossing and disturbing their safe haven, even when there were losses in the Balkans and Greece. There was always a secure source of food, taxes and manpower even in the worst of times.
So I am very chary of those sorts of political/economic arguments. So this is really more of an accident of geography than economic rigidity or inequality - more like the "geographical determinism" arguments that Jared Diamond is so fond of making.
February 2, 2007 9:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
Re: Contrary to popular belief, I think that education can actually be a bad use for money. In my case, I realized that, through education, I became co-dependent on teachers, wasn't learning that much and was losing my creativity.
If that was your experience with school then you weren't obtaining an education at all, and yes, money spent on your schooling, was a waste. Overall though money spent on education does have a positive return
February 2, 2007 9:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
Can you put some dates on when the mission changed? For example, the military was very necessary during the Cold War, but the need changed afterwards.
They changed during the Cold War, and not always to add facilities. When Soviet manned bombers dropping bombs (rather than using standoff missiles) were no longer a concern, the fighters and radars over the country as a whole, rather than on the coast, were shut down. Ironically, these were exactly what we would have needed to have a better chance of shooting down the hijacked airliners on 9/11. I'm not suggesting the drawdown on interior defense was unwise given the perception of the threat at the time, but understanding this is one of the answers to critics that claim the available fighters and radars should have done what they could not do.
I absolutely, positively agree the infrastructure has been neglected. Some systems, such as the electrical grid and the chemical industry, are vulnerable both to accident and error (Ohio Valley Blackout of 2003), or to sabotage, the latter especially if terrorists infiltrate and get their operators on control panels.
Other policy decisions affect the infrastructure. Massive electrical deregulation made it, in principle, often cheaper to buy than generate power. Utilities certainly had no incentive to build generating capacity.
Unfortunately, the grid technology, with significant exceptions such as the ERCOT grid for the State of Texas, was never designed for large-scale interconnects. Failures are going to take place unless there are major upgrades. These upgrades may cost $20-30 billion, the approximate budget for the dubiously useful and reliable national ballistic missile defense system.
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
February 2, 2007 10:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
Changed from defensive? The military became offensive with the Monroe Doctrine. What else were the various Latin American invasions, the acquisition of Hawaii and the Philippines? One could even make a case that WWI and WWII were about protecting our markets which were being managed partly for our benefit by our European allies.
We are currently expanding our bases around Russia and proposing a missile shield to be placed in places like the the Czech Republic. It looks like we may be getting ready to reactivate our power struggle with Russia. The EU is not happy with the latest steps by Russia over natural gas and if the price rises too much in Europe it will have a knock on effect elsewhere. The bulk of recent power plants in the US now run on gas, so the impact is quite direct.
--- Policies not Politics
Daily Landscape
February 2, 2007 11:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
Tom:
I've often wondered if his change of mind on the Vietnam mess came about while having coffee with a few of his Rand compatriots and possibly a few "company" employees while sitting in the roof top food service at Boulter Hall on the UCLA campus in Westwood. Amazing logistics were accomplished in the bowels of that building.
~OGD~
February 2, 2007 11:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
Mission?
War is a Racket ... and war was a racket long before he wrote that, and it will remain long after until our fellow "unsophisticated" citizens get a grip... And they have to grip this:
The powers to be at that time also tried to tar-and-feather this fella as unAmerican back in the day ... But his two Medals of Honor sorta got in the way of the propaganda machine... Although, we eventually marched off to war.~OGD~
February 2, 2007 11:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
And don't overlook Okinawa (SOFA) ... and make sure you take a peek at my comment here...rdf:
~OGD~
February 2, 2007 11:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
It also goes back to Lieutenant Colonel Dwight D. Eisenhower’s experience with the 1919 Transcontinental Motor Convoy:
“The old convoy had started me thinking about good, two-lane highways, but Germany had made me see the wisdom of broader ribbons across the land.”
http://www.eisenhower.utexas.edu/1919.htm
February 2, 2007 12:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
I would think that a scholar such as yourself would understand the nuance here -- that dominance is not the same as control, and that in fact dominance can be consensual whereas control is not. A belief system, for instance, can become dominant because of its merit and the persuasiveness of those who promote it, which in turn would make them dominant spokepeople among those who follow that belief. But to CONTROL people's beliefs REQUIRES the use of force.
And in the case of the United States, we have typically in the past sought the consent of the governed -- if one presumes the governed to be the world community -- through the UN.
What allowed us to be the unchallenged dominant power in the world was that we gave other nations at least some say in how we used our power. That's exactly why the movement behind Bush, and the military industrial complex that funds it, opposes the UN and indeed all such international institutions. Our participation in such institutions acts as a restraint, and threatens to act as a greater restraint in the future, on US intervention. It provides a legitimate focal point for the world to oppose such military actions.
What's more, the dominance of America through the Clinton Administration appeared to have led to an ever increasing reduction in world conflicts.
Human Security Report via Dan Drezner
So this begs the question, is the author opposed to hegemony even if it is accompanied by spreading peace and democracy, improved health conditions as the result of international cooperation, worldwide rising standards of living, etc. ??
And why is the balance of power regimen the author suggest less likely to lead to conflict in the world and more of the positives listed above than hegemony? Doesn't such a system lead to arms races? Isn't a balance of power system the very system we had in the 20th Century that led to two World Wars??!!
Is there some set of underlying goals in the authors mind that are not met by hegemony that he has not articulated?
BTW, I completely agree that the military industrial complex and its lobbyists and propogandists are a huge problem.
February 2, 2007 1:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
How could it have been a secret, when the US involvement with the Mujahadeen was the entire premise of "Rambo II"?
Sure, I'm being slightly flippant, but I expect there IS a reason why this film is no longer shown on the networks.
~~~~~~~~~~~
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur.
Come visit PROJECT: Lucidity.
February 2, 2007 1:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
That Charlie Wilson had to pump up enthusiasm for the project should tell us something. (Maybe that it wasn't so important? That it was a bad idea?)
*******************************************
Maybe that the CIA is full of timid careerists?
February 2, 2007 1:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Let's consider the results of pressuring the USSR in Afghanistan.
IF it caused the downfall of the USSR this is good. If it hastened what was happening already it is not so great an outcome, since the precipitous collapse led to huge economic dislocations and enhanced he likelihood of black-market technology escape. The weak and unhappy start to open-market economy in Russia has led to a strongman leader, now.
Some credit Star Wars with bringing down the USSR. Tom Friedman refers to scholars that credit the high oil prices of the late 70s suckering Brezhnev into spending the income to appease constituencies, and the later drop in price making that unsustainable under Gorbachev. And some, like me, credit the growing trend exemplified by Solidarity that forced the East Bloc governments to face the truth of their failure.
Since we now fear failed states and their potential for breeding violence that leaks out into the wider world, stirring up trouble in Afghanistan was risky business. The Taliban may have arisen anyway, but we share some credit for their takeover of Afghanistan.
February 2, 2007 2:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Certainly Latin America had some shameful protections of markets. In the opposite direction, I cannot see WWI, WWII, or even Korea not necessary given the perceived threats of the time.
Hawaii is less a matter of markets than protecting investors, as well as the then politically potent missionaries. The Phillipines were more a matter of filling a power vacuum after Spain.
Other than reflexive anticommunism, after many years of study, I've never come up with a particularly good reason for getting involved in Southeast Asia (Laos being before Vietnam). While the book was about 1914 in Europe, Barbara Tuchman's title The March to Folly is perfect here.
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
February 2, 2007 3:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
IF it caused the downfall of the USSR this is good. If it hastened what was happening already it is not so great an outcome, since the precipitous collapse led to huge economic dislocations and enhanced he likelihood of black-market technology escape
********************************************
I don't believe in unicausal explanations for the Soviet collapse. I think it was all sorts of things (including Afghanistan) that pressured them and pushed the internal contradictions of their system into collapse. In 1980 we didn't know this and had to use any tool that came to hand, Afghanistan being one of them.
I have seen many people comment and post that we shouldn't have done it because the Soviet Union was going to collapse anyway and now we've had this "blowback" (not that I'm accusing you of this). I don't buy that Monday morning quarterbacking. You see this inevitability stuff all the time - "We shouldn't have done such and such in WWII because we knew we were going to win anyway." No, we didn't.
Our country was in much more danger in 1980 than it is today. If you had told me then that 25 years later the Soviet Union would be gone and the worst threat we faced was disorganized groups of Muslim terrorists trying to hi-jack planes and smuggle bombs into the country I would have wept tears of joy. Even knowing they might get lucky once.
February 2, 2007 4:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
February 2, 2007 4:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wasn't the Byzantine Empire very similar to the "American Empire" of today -- placed in quotes to avoid that particular argument?
In other words after the Arab eruption into Syria and Mesopotamia and establishment of Gothic "states" in the Balkans, the Byzantine Empire was a cultural hegemony which earned its keep by providing cultural goods to the region it influenced?
Hollywood on the Bosporus?
February 2, 2007 5:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
. . . after many years of study . . . I cannot see WWI, WWII, or even Korea not necessary given the perceived threats of the time.
Study more, Grasshopper.
February 2, 2007 5:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
In other words after the Arab eruption into Syria and Mesopotamia and establishment of Gothic "states" in the Balkans, the Byzantine Empire was a cultural hegemony which earned its keep by providing cultural goods to the region it influenced?
*******************************************
Actually the Byzantines hung in there pretty well holding onto Greece, western Asia Minor and the Black Sea coast until they got outmaneuvered between the Latins and Venetians during the Fourth Crusade and Constantinople was sacked in 1204.
I'd date your "cultural hegemony" phase from then. Even though there was a Byzantine "renaissance" in the 14th century, it was never the major player it had been. That's still almost an 800 year run after the fall of the Western Empire
February 2, 2007 6:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sharing some "what-ifness" with Vietnam, the campaign against the USSR in Afghanistan is hard to evaluate.
1980 is also hard to evaluate (too soon, maybe) but there was not a universal fear of the Soviets by then. Some voices were pointing to their economic troubles, some suggested the military was not as powerful as it appeared, etc. Others argued the opposite.
Having grown up with "duck-and-cover" (and kiss your ass good-bye in DC) I can attest to a diffference in atmosphere. Whether it was justified, at the time, to relax vigilance and competitive efforts was hotly contested then. In retrospect perhaps we can agree that we were in fact safe from surprise attacks through the Fulda Gap or all-out counterforce strike (not counting misreading of radars).
I only point out that even if we have no choice at one point we must accept at least partial responsibility for unintended consequences.
February 2, 2007 6:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
On the Subject of Empires....
A friend sent me this from Common Dreams:
Thirty-Six Sure-Fire Signs that Your Empire is Crumbling
I especially like this one:
Just thought some of you might enjoy reading this.
aMike
February 2, 2007 7:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
It would seem that a summary of your thesis is that there is no evidence that US is becoming progressively more militarized, and therefore Chalmer Johnson argument is incorrect.
But you mis-state Chalmer Johnson's thesis. He does not argue that civil society has become increasingly militarized, he argues that the support for the military establishment is already entrenched. And a critical step taken to maintain the position of the military establishment was to avoid requiring the most onorous demand of a Prussian style militaristic civil society by abandoning the Republican draft and adopting a Roman-style system of professional Legions.
The other point is that we can afford 5% of our GDP now far less than we could afford 10% of our GDP in the 1950's. In the 1950's, we are a current account surplus nation, and a principle geoeconomic problem that we faced was ensuring sufficient demand in "the West" to maintain reasonably high levels of employment.
Now, the US has a current account deficit of around 6%, so that roughly 60% of our current account outflow are financed by current account inflow and 40% are financed by capital account inflows. We are rapidly approaching the point where more than half of our current account outflows are financed by capital account inflows.
In that context, the maintenance of a globe-spanning, nonproductive network of military bases is absurd. For the same money we could achieve Sustainable Energy Independence in under 20 years.
February 3, 2007 8:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
Chalmers Johnson
I believe your primary intention of the new book is to educate the American public about the world. I have not had the honor of reading all your books, I only manage to read what was published on the internet.
Do you know that FEAR sells? The fear of the weapons of mass destruction landed on the wrong hands sold successfully prior to the Iraq war. The majority of the American population bought it. Your book is not about selling fear and that’s not what the American public wants.
My research found that many Americans do not hold a passport (some say 75% and some say 90%), whichever it is, many Americans do not know much about other countries even if they have been there for vacation or business. Most of them rely on the news media and friends to educate them, sadly, most of their information that they gathered was inaccurate or distorted. Their comprehension and understanding of other countries are based on American standard that was the main reason why CIA misinterpreted the weapon parts that Iraq officials were trying to buy prior to the Iraq war.
The strategy by the white house to start a war against another country is to use the mass media to spread FEAR, and they have succeeded after 9/11. Now, they are using the same strategy to spread FEAR among the American public of a possible terrorist heaven in Iraq.
I would certainly like your book to be distributed to every corner of America, it is just that your book does not generate enough fear to get the attention of the American population. My research indicates that majority of the American population do not read and they do not have enough intelligence to comprehend what you say. They rely on the mass media to inform them. It is not about the truth, it is about selling.
February 3, 2007 8:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
Unfortunately, you know the military-industrial complex is calling the shots (so to speak) "when you're spending tens of billions of dollars you don't own on new nuclear warheds and space weapons that don't work, to be used against an enemy you don't have."
Tom
February 3, 2007 9:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
In which case moving them to State should make for a natural fit.
February 3, 2007 10:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
Do a quick scan on this from Steven Aftergood at fas.org: http://preview.tinyurl.com/cuyqz
~OGD~
February 3, 2007 11:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
These are some very good questions:
CommonDreamer asked:
I 'd love to hear Professor Johnson's reply to those questions: Maybe you should drop the good professor an Email: chaljohnson@jpri.orgNow ... In my opinion it's quite obvious that when your name becomes muddied and you aren't trusted due to the foul representation on the world stage by the poor leadership at the top of one's government, positive actions like; "...spreading peace and democracy, improved health conditions as the result of international cooperation, worldwide rising standards of living..." become less available to accomplish. The resultant blowback? You sort of become known only for the "big stick" you carry.
From Steven Aftergood at Secrecy News/ fas.org 02/01/2007:
Again, I'd really love to see Johnson's reply to your very pertinent questions. If you do contact him and you receive a reply, I hope you return to this thread and report what he had to say.
~OGD~
February 3, 2007 12:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is a long-term problem for CRS. When I worked for the Library of Congress (1976-1979), a Member could ask for a report that either was the best opinion of the authors, or was in support of a position the Member specified in the request. You could tell the two apart because the first category was signed and the second was not. I don't know if Members still have this option.
As far as the detail issue, CRS has generally emphasized fast turnaround. There is another organization within the Library of Congress, very little known, which has done much more detailed studies for years: the Federal Research Division. FRD originated from the Foreign Area Studies (FAS) Army Contract Research Center at American University, when it was decided that the FAS (and the CRESS/SORO) missions were incompatible with the university. While at AU, I worked for the sister organization to FAS, CRESS (Center for Research in Social Systems, formerly the Special Operations Research Office).
When I worked there, we were building the Madison Building, and all Library components consolidated there. FRD had rather happily been off at a location away from the main Library, where it could handle classified material. I don't know if it still has that access or generates classified reports for Congress. While at American University, the FAS group did what was essentially a mirror of the CIA National Intelligence Studies (NIS), which are reference handbooks on specific countries. The Army wanted some different emphasis, but also wanted something that was not controlled by CIA. Typically, the great bulk of the FAS Handbook was unclassified and available to the public, but there would be a SECRET/NO FOREIGN DISSEMINATION appendix. That appendix had the more embarrassing political and biographical information, usually things that would cause a foreign tantrum rather than actually compromising US intelligence -- still a legitimate reason for classification if it disrupts relations.
It's possible that the new Democratic majority should look at the CRS and FRD roles, and explore a balance between them. In the past, the two were deliberately kept separate. AFAIK, CRS did not have access to classified materials, so its reports were under no executive branch control. FRD also provides products to the executive branch, so there is a complex balance.
***OGD, did I answer your question about background? You can send me a private message.
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
February 3, 2007 12:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Re: Wasn't the Byzantine Empire very similar to the "American Empire" of today -- placed in quotes to avoid that particular argument?
Strictly speaking, the Byzantine Empire was not an empire: it was a multi-ethnic nation-state (and in its later years a mostly Greek nation-state). But as a practical matter the Byzantines behaved like an empire: the provincials were citizens, theorectically equal, but the provinces were treated as inferiors and milked for the benefit of the capital in Constantinople.
February 3, 2007 4:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here are a few examples about what I said in my previous post on FEAR.
John Kerry, a lawyer and a very intelligent man, voted for the invasion of Iraq in 2003. The question is why? Here is my analysis. Well, at that time, firstly he did not want to responsible for another 9/11 attack (if it happened which it didn’t). Secondly, he did not want to lose his support from his own supporters who were infuriated by the 9/11 attack and thirdly, he did not want to look unpatriotic to the American people. In other words, FEAR has taken over him. Now, he is not afraid anymore and he is challenging the president openly.
Hillary Clinton, a highly intelligent and powerful lady, also voted for the invasion of Iraq and she is changing course now, it is a very smart move indeed, however, this does not negate the fact that she had given a foolish vote in 2003, which by the way, experienced the same FEAR as John Kerry had.
In short, both are highly intelligent species and they never fall short of wealth, they just simply have FEAR at a time when America was attacked by foreign forces.
In those days, those anti-war critics were discredited and isolated as unpatriotic Americans. Some examples were Peter Arnett and Scott Ritter. Peter Arnett, a reputable journalist from the 1st gulf war and a Pulitzer Prize winner, was fired by NBC in 2003 for telling the truth about Iraq. Scott Ritter, a former UN weapons inspector, called “Iraqi threat” as a framework of lies, obviously, he did not go very far in his career, if he has any.
Next, about understanding foreign countries and cultures, the Washington post reported this on May 28, 2005:
Quote: The NGIC assessment of the aluminum tubes was described by the president's intelligence commission as a "gross failure." The agency was "completely wrong," said the panel, when it judged in September 2002 that the tubes Iraq was purchasing were "highly unlikely" to be used for rocket-motor cases because of their "material and tolerances." Unquote.
The main reason for this complete failure was because American analysts do not have a strong cultural understanding of the country that they are analyzing. The next question is how many Americans really have a good cultural understanding of all the 193 countries in the world. Their understanding of the world is based on the American culture and not the other way round.
Here is an excerpt from a former CIA operative Reuel Marc Gerecht and he quoted a former senior CIA operative as saying:
"The CIA probably doesn't have a single truly qualified Arabic-speaking officer of Middle Eastern background who can play a believable Muslim fundamentalist who would volunteer to spend years of his life with shitty food and no women in the mountains of Afghanistan. For Christ's sake, most case officers live in the suburbs of Virginia. We don't do that kind of thing."
As you can imagine, the people who work as analysts do not travel and understand foreign cultures, how can they ever produce a reliable and high quality assessment or interpretation. Failure of intelligence is inevitable. Last year, Mayor Bloomberg told reporters that he did not rely on analysts in D.C. to perform number crunching, he made his security assessment based on his information in New York and not in D.C.
If the people in D.C. do not know much about New York, then how much do they know about the rest of the world.
February 3, 2007 6:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
I must be missing something.
What does culture have to do with the metallurgy and structural characteristics of aluminum tubing? Given that NASA seems finally to have decided it is metricated, after an unfortunate incident near Mars, how is rocket motor chamber pressure different if an Iraqi, Chinese, American, or Brazilian engineer designs it? This is, after all, just rocket science.
I agree completely that even slight cultural knowledge can be enormously valuable, thinking of personal encounters where immigrants or visitors to the US were utterly amazed that I could make polite noises in Arabic (and that's about all), or find their country on the map of Africa and even mention a few local issues.
A political or economic analyst absolutely needs to understand the area culture being studied. I've done open-source technical intelligence, and yes, I did need to consider education, local conditions, and other factors to judge the probability certain communications technologies were in use. When it comes to something that deals with materials engineering, where physical constants are involved, the role of culture confuses me.
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
February 3, 2007 6:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Howard,
It is a good question that you raised. I am glad that you asked. The question is not about the physical characteristics but the intention. What was the intention of purchasing aluminum tubes, the 2 analysts concluded that it was meant for building WMD. This “bolstered a CIA contention that they were destined for nuclear centrifuges, which was in turn cited by the Bush administration as proof that Saddam Hussein was reconstituting Iraq's nuclear weapons program.”
The 2 analysts misinterpreted “aluminum tubes sought by the Baghdad government were most likely meant for a nuclear weapons program rather than for rockets.” There is a language element and a cultural element and both analysts did not factor into that. One does not learn a language and culture, one must live to understand.
Even if they did factor into their analysis, much of the pre-war assessments were tailored to attack Iraq. Revenge and hatred were allowed to interfere with rational thinking. It is sad, indeed. Science and technology can only go so far, ultimately, it is FEAR that started the Iraq war.
February 3, 2007 7:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Howard,
It is a good question that you raised. I am glad that you asked. The question is not about the physical characteristics but the intention. What was the intention of purchasing aluminum tubes, the 2 analysts concluded that it was meant for building WMD. This “bolstered a CIA contention that they were destined for nuclear centrifuges, which was in turn cited by the Bush administration as proof that Saddam Hussein was reconstituting Iraq's nuclear weapons program.”
The 2 analysts misinterpreted “aluminum tubes sought by the Baghdad government were most likely meant for a nuclear weapons program rather than for rockets.” There is a language element and a cultural element and both analysts did not factor into that. One does not learn a language and culture, one must live to understand.
Even if they did factor into their analysis, much of the pre-war assessments were tailored to attack Iraq. Revenge and hatred were allowed to interfere with rational thinking. It is sad, indeed. Science and technology can only go so far, ultimately, it is FEAR that started the Iraq war.
February 3, 2007 7:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe I'm focusing too much on this particular example, but the characteristics of tubing needed for gas separation centrifuges are quite different than those that would be needed for rocket casings. The centrifuge requires symmetry of tubes operating at tens of thousands of revolutions per minute, while a rocket may not even spin, but be fin-stabilized or have attitude-correcting thrusters.
Aluminum is not at the top of the materials preference list for centrifuges, where the strength-to-weight ratio is critical. Certainly in the intelligence community, it should have been known that maraging steel, or composite ceramic or fiber-resin materials, are superior to any aluminum alloy.
I believe Saddam played brinksmanship and bluff, wanting outsiders, especially in the region, to believe he defied the West over WMD, and to keep up a threat to Israel. Nevertheless, even if he did have the WMD program, I can come up with no rationale on why the attack had to come so quickly. The argument that waiting would have forced troops to fight in WMD protective gear in the heat of the summer does not meet my test of reasonability -- there is no indication that a WMD threat to any external nation would be greater in six months or so.
Waiting would have allowed a better military ending to major operations in Afghanistan, with the full attention of CENTCOM command and staff. The flirtatious dance with Turkey for permission to attack from its territory would have resolved, so the 4th Infantry Division would not have had to stay on ships wondering "Will they or won't they?".
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
February 3, 2007 8:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Howard,
The Washington post reported this. quote:
The problem, according to the commission, which cited the two analysts' work, is that they did not seek or obtain information available from the Energy Department and elsewhere showing that the tubes were indeed the type used for years as rocket-motor cases by Iraq's military. The panel said the finding represented a "serious lapse in analytic tradecraft" because the center's personnel "could and should have conducted a more exhaustive examination of the question."
Unquote.
Whatever intention Saddam Hussein might have at that time, it was wrong to attack another country, this is bullying. I can tell you that the cowboy and C grade president is not a very intelligent man and least analytical.
With news surfacing about America intimating other countries into joining the Iraq war, the kidnapping of foreigners by CIA agents in Germany and other parts of Europe, it creates many doubts as to the competency and integrity of the American law enforcements and justice system.
February 3, 2007 8:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
I absolutely agree it was a lapse in tradecraft, which, with a bit of informed guessing, meant they didn't check a classified database that once was called (back when it was paper) something like the Foreign Military Materials Handbook. I just don't see the error as cultural, but more like a doctor not bothering to check the dosage of a prescription.
GWB analytical? See my blog for asking whether the recent appointment, as White House Executive Pastry Chef, of the coauthor of Desserts for Dummies suggests GWB might be thinking of taking up cooking as a relaxation between disastrous military decisions. OTOH, perhaps there is no accident that Thomas Jefferson, certainly in the running as one of the all-time smartest Presidents, was an excellent and creative cook, who introduced a number of desserts to the continent.
Wait a minute...is it possible he has confused dessert and desert warfare?
By and large, after Watergate, US covert operators were reluctant to stage risky operations without top-level approval. While there may have been a failure to report illegal orders to Inspectors General, it is entirely possible that under "unitary authority", there were orders from the White House that "everything is legal." One wonders if the "Big 8" in Congress were briefed, as they should have been for such operations.
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
February 3, 2007 8:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Howard,
As to the cultural aspect of the tubes, what I understand was that the secret service intercepted the Arabic messages about the tubes, and the analysts concluded it was meant for WMD. The commission found that the 2 analysts misunderstood the messages (language barriers and they are probably not native speakers, they probably just learn from the text books) and arrived to the wrong conclusion. I am sorry that I did not make it clear to you. It is all in the commission report. Just go back and look at the report.
February 3, 2007 9:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Howard,
Would you be able to find out for me the literacy level of America? I am conducting a research on this area and I doubt many Americans would understand BLOWBACK.
February 3, 2007 9:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Perhaps the failed tradecraft was relying on the messages, and not checking the physical specifications of the tubes being ordered. I thought that at some point, there was physical access to the tubes, and it's hard to believe that the message traffic didn't contain mechanical and metallurgic specifications.
If the report doesn't have the actual messages, I'm not sure it would help me.
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
February 3, 2007 10:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not sure I have anything quantitative available. Are you actually looking at a literacy problem, or a problem in understanding the dynamics of international relations?
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
February 3, 2007 10:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
I believe the commission said it was a cultural misinterpretation of the messages. I could not remember the exact words. It definitely is cultural. I have done translation and I know messages can be translated literally word by word and it does not really mean what it says. I think that's what the commission report says.
Anyway, back to what I want to know. You see, if 90% of the Americans (270 millions) do not have a passport, how could they possibly know what is going on around the world. If many Americans are busy making their ends meet, then they would not have much time to read. If they do not have much time to read, then they won't have any clue what is going on outside America. Activities that America may have conducted illegally and immorally, many Americans would not have known or want to know. Ignorant is indeed a blessing.
My research is to find out who are the people really making the decision. I know the commander-in-chief is the one that the bug stops. I want to know how misinformed and ignorant Americans are. Someone or a group must be smart enough to influence these ignorant and misinformed to vote for the Iraq war. If the literacy level is low in America, it is possible that many are misled. They probably do not know what they are getting into. I hope you can help.
February 3, 2007 11:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
The breaking news just arrived and America is moving towards Bankruptcy sooner than later, if my analysis is correct.
"The Bush administration is seeking a record military budget of $622 billion for the 2008 fiscal year, Pentagon officials have said. The sum includes more than $140 billion for war-related costs.
The administration is also seeking $93 billion in the current fiscal year, which ends on Sept. 30, to pay for military operations in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere, the officials said.
The requests are part of the annual budget request to Congress for all federal spending programs. The budget is to be made public on Monday, and Congress will revise it in the coming months."
February 3, 2007 11:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
That Americans do not read detailed material related to policy, cross-cultural issues, or government lies not because they are illiterate and incapable of the act of reading, but because most are unmotivated to do so. Yes, there are many, perhaps a majority, of people that were misled by FUD by George W. Bush.
FUD stands for Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt, which I believe was first used in the computer industry. Salesmen, especially for a then-dominant company such as IBM, would cast FUD on a potential executive decision to buy from a less well-known competitor.
While the Administration did mention other reasons, most of which were questionable but at least related to Iraq, Congress, also then with a Republican majority inclined to approve any Presidential proposal, passed the Authorization for the Use of Miitary Force with the emotional idea that this was a response to the perpetrators of the 9/11 attack, and a preemption of what was perceived as a clear and present danger of WMD use by the Iraqis. To establish that not all Americans are misled, I was one of many that regarded the 9/11 and WMD urgency as merde, Scheisse, mierda, ??????????, or what a rancher friend calls that which comes out of the south end of a northbound bull.
The situation is complex as far as getting more reality based decisions. Changing the Congressional majority is a start, and, at least, Americans can hope their representatives (or their staff) deal with better sources than 30-second television "sound bites".
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
February 4, 2007 2:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
Wow. This is interesting. My concern lies with American proxies and our habit of haphazardly flip flopping from one faction to the next. We seem to keep choosing certain "allies" based not on whether we like or admire or respect them in any way, but only because they happen to oppose the Nazis, or the Communists, or the Islamists, or the next enemy of the moment.
These alliances last until our "friends" are overthrown or supplanted, or until it becomes painfully obvious that they weren't a good choice of friend. Thus, yesterday's friend becomes tomorrow's problem child, and then off we go looking for a new "friend." The cycle repeats. In Mesopotamia and Persia alone, we've bounced from the Shah of Iran to Saddam to Shiites to Sunnis to another faction of Shiites to God-knows-who when that doesn't work out. Maybe the Ethiopians? No wait. They oppose some different group of Islamists.
It seems to me that our posture should be simpler. The Declaration of Independence is a good starting place: we value universal human rights. We believe that the purpose of government is to protect those rights and that democracy is the only form of government that can do this. Our friends will be those who, by thought and deed, share these beliefs and values. Our enemies will be those who initiate force against us and our friends. The rest of the world is free to earn our friendship and/or avoid becoming our enemy as it sees fit.
February 4, 2007 3:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
Howard,
Yes, it is kind of scary to be a friend of America because a friend can become an enemy the next day. This does not mean it is safe in America. Peter Arnett and Scott Ritter were 2 examples of people standing in the way of the government. Joseph Wilson was standing in the way of the administration and his wife’s CIA identity was revealed as a retaliation for not going along with the deception. Hanx, the UN chief weapons inspector was standing in the way and he was gone, he left DC crying on the back to Europe. Bob Baer also left CIA.
Honestly, do you really believe that a person has the ability to understand 50 states, 193 countries and 6.5 billion people. I do not have such ability, that’s why I never micromanage any country. Do you think there is anyone in America can understand different languages and different cultures? I am not talking outsourcing or delegating, I am talking about a person’s ability to process so much information and still not be confused.
February 4, 2007 5:10 AM | Reply | Permalink