Pulitzer-prize winning reporter James Risen
reminds us:
We are now in the longest continuous period of war in American history. And yet there is remarkably little debate about it.
Many Americans assume “because 9/11″.
But regime change in
Iraq, Lybia, Syria and
Afganistan (and see
this) was planned
before 9/11.
Let’s take
Iraq, for example. Former CIA director George Tenet said that the White House
wanted to invade Iraq long before 9/11, and inserted “crap” in its justifications for invading Iraq. Former Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neill – who sat on the National Security Council – also
says that Bush planned the Iraq war before 9/11. Top British officials
say that the U.S. discussed Iraq regime change even before Bush took office. And in 2000, Cheney
said a Bush administration might “have to take military action to forcibly remove Saddam from power.”
Cheney apparently even made Iraqi’s oil fields a national security priority
before 9/11. And the Sunday Herald
reported: “Five months before September 11, the US advocated using force against Iraq … to secure control of its oil.” (remember that
Alan Greenspan,
John McCain,
George W. Bush,
Sarah Palin, a
high-level National Security Council officer and others all say that the Iraq war was really about oil.)
Indeed, we’ve
seen it all before.
We
explained last year:
We are in the middle of a perpetual series of wars. See this, this, this and this.
As just one example, in 2010 the war in Afghanistan became the longest war in U.S. history.
***
Why is the war of terror being waged indefinitely?
Many have said that “war is the health of the state”, and Thomas Paine wrote in the Rights of Man:
In
reviewing the history of the English Government, its wars and its
taxes, a bystander, not blinded by prejudice, nor warped by interest,
would declare, that taxes were not raised to carry on wars, but that wars were raised to carry on taxes.
George Washington – in his farewell address of 1796 – said:
Overgrown military establishments are under any form of government inauspicious to liberty.
James Madison said:
In
time of actual war, great discretionary powers are constantly given to
the Executive Magistrate. Constant apprehension of War, has the same
tendency to render the head too large for the body. A standing military force, with an overgrown Executive will not long be safe companions to liberty. The means of defence against foreign danger, have been always the instruments of tyranny at home. Among
the Romans it was a standing maxim to excite a war, whenever a revolt
was apprehended. Throughout all Europe, the armies kept up under the
pretext of defending, have enslaved the people.
Madison also noted that never-ending war tends to destroy both liberty and prosperity:
Of
all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be
dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War
is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts
and taxes; and armies, and debts, and taxes are the known instruments
for bringing the many under the domination of the few. In war, too, the
discretionary power of the Executive is extended; its influence in
dealing out offices, honors, and emoluments is multiplied: and all the
means of seducing the minds, are added to those of subduing the force,
of the people. The same malignant aspect in republicanism may be traced
in the inequality of fortunes, and the opportunities of fraud, growing
out of a state of war, and in the degeneracy of manners and of morals,
engendered by both. No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of
continual warfare.
Greenwald noted in October:
As
the Founders all recognized, nothing vests elites with power – and
profit – more than a state of war. That is why there were supposed to be
substantial barriers to having them start and continue – the need for a
Congressional declaration, the constitutional bar on funding the military for more than two years at a time, the prohibition on standing armies, etc. Here is how John Jay put it in Federalist No 4:
“It
is too true, however disgraceful it may be to human nature, that
nations in general will make war whenever they have a prospect of
getting anything by it; nay, absolute monarchs will often make war when
their nations are to get nothing by it, but for the purposes and objects
merely personal, such as thirst for military glory, revenge for
personal affronts, ambition, or private compacts to aggrandize or
support their particular families or partisans. These and a variety of
other motives, which affect only the mind of the sovereign, often lead
him to engage in wars not sanctified by justice or the voice and
interests of his people.”
In sum, there are factions in many governments that crave a state
of endless war because that is when power is least constrained and
profit most abundant.
Indeed, top American military officials and national defense experts say that our specific actions in the “war on terror” are creating more terrorists and more war.
As Greenwald points out today, the endless nature of the war on terror is a feature, not a bug:
There’s
a good reason US officials are assuming the “War on Terror” will
persist indefinitely: namely, their actions ensure that this occurs.
***
There’s no question that this “war” will continue indefinitely.
There is no question that US actions are the cause of that, the gasoline
that fuels the fire. The only question – and it’s becoming less of a
question for me all the time – is whether this endless war is the
intended result of US actions or just an unwanted miscalculation.
It’s increasingly hard to make the case that it’s the latter. The US has long known, and its own studies have emphatically concluded,
that “terrorism” is motivated not by a “hatred of our freedoms” but by
US policy and aggression in the Muslim world. This causal connection is
not news to the US government. Despite this – or, more accurately,
because of it – they continue with these policies.
***
There is zero reason for US officials to want an end to the war
on terror, and numerous and significant reasons why they would want it
to continue. It’s always been the case that the power of political
officials is at its greatest, its most unrestrained, in a state of war.
Cicero, two thousand years ago, warned that “In times of war, the law
falls silent” (Inter arma enim silent leges).
***
If you were a US leader, or an official of the National Security
State, or a beneficiary of the private military and surveillance
industries, why would you possibly want the war on terror to end? That
would be the worst thing that could happen. It’s that war that generates
limitless power, impenetrable secrecy, an unquestioning citizenry, and
massive profit.
Just this week, a federal judge ruled
that the Obama administration need not respond to the New York Times
and the ACLU’s mere request to disclose the government’s legal rationale
for why the President believes he can target US citizens for
assassination without due process. Even while recognizing how perverse
her own ruling was – “The Alice-in-Wonderland nature of this
pronouncement is not lost on me” and it imposes “a veritable Catch-22″ –
the federal judge nonetheless explained that federal courts have
constructed such a protective shield around the US government in the
name of terrorism that it amounts to an unfettered license to violate
even the most basic rights: “I can find no way around the thicket of
laws and precedents that effectively allow the executive branch
of our government to proclaim as perfectly lawful certain actions that
seem on their face incompatible with our Constitution and laws while
keeping the reasons for their conclusion a secret” (emphasis added).
Why would anyone in the US government or its owners have any
interest in putting an end to this sham bonanza of power and profit
called “the war on terror”? Johnson is right that there must be an end
to this war imminently, and Maddow is right that the failure to do so
will render all the due-process-free and lawless killing and imprisoning
and invading and bombing morally indefensible and historically
unforgivable.
But the notion that the US government is even entertaining
putting an end to any of this is a pipe dream, and the belief that they
even want to is fantasy. They’re preparing for more endless war; their
actions are fueling that war; and they continue to reap untold benefits
from its continuation. Only outside compulsion, from citizens, can make
an end to all of this possible.
Indeed, the American government has directly been supporting Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups for the last decade. See this, this, this, this and this.
***
And the American government lies – and even kills its own – to justify new wars.
Top American economists say that endless war has ruined our economy. It benefits a handful of elites, while levying a tax on the vast majority of Americans.
Congress members – part of the super-elite which has made money hand over fist during this economic downturn – are heavily
invested in the war industry, and routinely trade on inside information
… perhaps even including planned military actions.
No wonder the American government is making the state of war permanent, and planning to unleash new, widespread wars in the near future.
Postscript: Under Bush, it was the “war on terror”. Obama has re-branded the perpetual fighting as “humanitarian war”.
But - underneath the ever-changing marketing and branding campaign – it’s really just the good ‘ole military-industrial-and-banking complex consolidating their power and making money hand over fist.
