America has a global empire in a modern sense, maintaining hegemony by through hundreds of airforce and naval bases scattered to every corner of the planet. Iran, a nation that has enjoyed our attention in ways extending from sanctions and cyberattacks to assassinations and coups d'etat, is surrounded by US military bases and naval forces. Under these conditions, it needs to said that Tehran has shown maturity and restraint in dealing with a superpower led by a lawless and erratic manchild who means it no good.
There may be a door opening to opponents of military adventurism and unbridled military spending. Politico says that House Armed Services ranking Democrat Adam Smith from Seattle is poised to take over as chairman and likely give the Pentagon some heartburn. The Washington state congressman has often decried his fellow lawmakers for ducking tough choices on the defense budget and big ticket military programs and has said he'll take a skeptical eye to historically high military spending enacted by Republicans over the past two years. He's also made clear he'll beef up the panel's oversight of U.S. military operations abroad, including our support for the Saudi-led coalition battering Yemen, and work to roll back Trump's plans to modernize and expand the nuclear arsenal. Stay tuned.
"Election in Venezuela Looms as Crossroad for Democracy." -- N.Y. Times headline and subhead, front page, 2018/05/18
Put it this way: a foreign leader is a dictator if the Times isn't pleased with him or her. An election is "democratic" only when it achieves the outcome the Times desires.
Meanwhile, the U.S. has imposed sanctions on Venezuela, an act of economic warfare, to influence the outcome.
We've been down this road dozens of times in Central and South America. It never works out well for the country targeted by our bullying.
We exited WWII with the most powerful military in the world and didn't demobilize, making a quick and seamless transition to neocolonialism and Korea. Surely, the existence of the Soviet Union was a boon, but the Reds were more of an excuse than a threat; in accounts of the Cold War it is clear that the Kremlin was usually playing catch-up when it came to escalation. A world map of the 1950s shows the Soviets surrounded by American bases and surrogates, not the other way around (Russian screwing with Cuba was an example of playing catch-up, however feebly). Long before the fall of The Wall and collapse of the Soviet Union, we were engaged in military adventurism around the globe, the sorriest example being Vietnam. Luckily for the military-industrial complex, 9/11 and The War of Terror arrived in time to keep the global network of military outposts and franchises thriving.
Ex-CIA chief Mike Pompeo says the president has authority launch missile strikes without congressional action: "I don't think that has been disputed by Republicans or Democrats throughout an extended period of time."
Sen. Rand Paul: "Actually, it's disputed mostly by our Founding Fathers."
"And now, friends and countrymen, if the wise and learned philosophers of the elder world, the first observers of nutation and aberration, the discoverers of maddening ether and invisible planets, the inventors of Congreve rockets and Shrapnel shells, should find their hearts disposed to enquire what has America done for the benefit of mankind? Let our answer be this: America, with the same voice which spoke herself into existence as a nation, proclaimed to mankind the inextinguishable rights of human nature, and the only lawful foundations of government. America, in the assembly of nations, since her admission among them, has invariably, though often fruitlessly, held forth to them the hand of honest friendship, of equal freedom, of generous reciprocity. She has uniformly spoken among them, though often to heedless and often to disdainful ears, the language of equal liberty, of equal justice, and of equal rights. She has, in the lapse of nearly half a century, without a single exception, respected the independence of other nations while asserting and maintaining her own. She has abstained from interference in the concerns of others,
even when conflict has been for principles to which she clings, as to the last vital drop that visits the heart. She has seen that probably for centuries to come, all the contests of that Aceldama the European world, will be contests of inveterate power, and emerging right. Wherever the standard of freedom and Independence has been or shall be unfurled, there will her heart, her benedictions and her prayers be. But she goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own. She will commend the general cause by the countenance of her voice, and the benignant sympathy of her example. She well knows that by once enlisting under other banners than her own, were they even the banners of foreign independence, she would involve herself beyond the power of extrication, in all the wars of interest and intrigue, of individual avarice, envy, and ambition, which assume the colors and usurp the standard of freedom. The fundamental maxims of her policy would insensibly change from liberty to force.... She might become the dictatress of the world. She would be no longer the ruler of her own spirit....
"[America's] glory is not dominion, but liberty. Her march is the march of the mind. She has a spear and a shield: but the motto upon her shield is, Freedom, Independence, Peace. This has been her Declaration: this has been, as far as her necessary intercourse with the rest of mankind would permit, her practice."
John Quincy Adams in 1821,
presciently warning against the Long War.
In "Julius Caesar," Brutus argues that "Th'abuse of greatness is when it disjoins / Remorse from power." Thus Lincoln, in whose character cohabited forcefulness, caution and morality, will be honored through generations, long after Bush, Obama and now Trump, the facilitators of endless war and apologists for the slaughter of innocents, are mercifully -- and justly -- consigned to oblivion.
Electing in 2020 another personable and integrous but unimpassioned abettor of the best and the brightest, such as Barack Obama, won't be nearly up to the job of bringing about the fundamental changes needed (we mustn't allow ourselves to forget that the number of poor and the number of wars increased under the last president). It will require a radicalized congress and an aggressively pro-change executive to fix what ails us, to get us back on the difficult path toward economic and social justice. We must either accomplish a radical course correction or resign ourselves to further decline.
“Well,
Doctor," Ben Franklin was asked outside Independence Hall on the final day of deliberations, "what have we got -- a Republic or a Monarchy?”
A new 'Costs of War' report published by Brown University's Watson Institute shows the actual costs incurred by the U.S. as part of its global 'war on terror' that widely contradicts the cost of war figures put together by the Pentagon in its report.
Some of the Costs of War Project’s main findings include:
370,000 people have died due to direct war violence, including armed forces on all sides of the conflicts, contractors, civilians, journalists, and humanitarian workers.
It is likely that many times more than 370,000 people have died indirectly in these wars, due to malnutrition, damaged infrastructure, and environmental degradation.
200,000 civilians have been killed in direct violence by all parties to these conflicts.
Over 6,800 US soldiers have died in the wars.
We do not know the full extent of how many US service members returning from these wars became injured or ill while deployed.
Many deaths and injuries among US contractors have not been reported as required by law, but it is likely that at least 6,900 have been killed.
10.1 million million Afghan, Iraqi, and Pakistani people are living as war refugees and internally displaced persons, in grossly inadequate conditions.*
The US has made an estimated 76 drone strikes in Yemen, making the US arguably at war in that country.
The wars have been accompanied by erosions in civil liberties and human rights at home and abroad.
The human and economic costs of these wars will continue for decades with some costs, such as the financial costs of US veterans’ care, not peaking until mid-century.
US government funding of reconstruction efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan has totaled over $170 billion. Most of those funds have gone towards arming security forces in both countries. Much of the money allocated to humanitarian relief and rebuilding civil society has been lost to fraud, waste, and abuse.
The cost for the Iraq and Afghanistan/Pakistan wars totals about $4.8 trillion. This does not include future interest costs on borrowing for the wars, which will add an estimated $8 trillion through 2054.
The ripple effects on the US economy have also been significant, including job loss and interest rate increases.
Both Iraq and Afghanistan continue to rank extremely low in global studies of political freedom.
Women in Iraq and Afghanistan are excluded from political power and experience high rates of unemployment and war widowhood.
Compelling alternatives to war were scarcely considered in the aftermath of 9/11 or in the discussion about war against Iraq. Some of those alternatives are still available to the US.
Sen. Bernie Sanders' supporters are accused of idealizing their candidate and ignoring his flaws and mistakes. But part of Sanders appeal lies in the fact that his campaign is focused on process and on building a movement that will help to turn the nation in a more positive direction than it has been in since the rise of Reaganism and Clintonism. Such a movement will be able to influence the behavior of those in power, including Bernie Sanders, just as the peace, civil rights and labor movements once did. In this context, his flaws and mistakes are less important than they might otherwise be.
As for his record of leadership, Sen. Sanders was largely responsible for the Veterans' Compensation Cost-of-Living Adjustment Act of 2013 that provided "for an increase in the rates of compensation for veterans with service-connected disabilities and the rates of dependency and indemnity compensation for the survivors of certain disabled veterans," not an insignificant piece of legislation.
It's worth noting in this context that, even given the cooperative nature of legislating, just a handful of bills, between four and six percent, submitted by members of Congress come to a vote and even fewer, somewhere between two and four percent, are enacted. It is striking that during his years in the House the Independent Socialist from Vermont had the highest rate of successfully passing amendments, bettering the record of any member from either major party.
Developing and introducing original legislation is a small part of what members of Congress are sent to Washington to do: co-sponsoring legislation (which Sanders has done for more than 200 successful bills) is another; also vitally important is organizing support for or opposition to proposed legislation among both legislative colleagues and the public; that he is good at this is presumably why the Democratic Senate leadership appointed Sen. Sanders to at least seven committees and named him chair of the important committee on the budget; actively participating in hearings, which Sen. Sanders also has been very active at; reviewing and voting on proposed bills; participating in oversight and investigation of the conduct of the legislative branch; and meeting and assisting constituents, which Sen. Sanders also must have a handle on, since he has held elective office for more that three decades and is viewed favorably by about 80% of his constituents in his home state.
One other thing: Sanders is frequently accused of introducing bills that have "no chance of passing." This misses an important part of the legislative process: preparing the ground for the future. In the Thirties and in the Sixties, opportunities opened up to make historic advances in social and economic progress. One important reason for the legislative achievements of the New Deal and the Great Society is that the groundwork had been laid by decades of debate over proposals that, when they were introduced, had "no chance of passing" (in fact, most of them had "no chance of passing" even in the legislative session in which they passed). The reason that the Sanders candidacy is so important is that it lays the groundwork for future advances in social and economic policy. It's not that a new New Deal will result immediately from Sanders' election, but that, for the first time since the early 1970s, we will be arguing over the right things.
About the frequently heard charge that he couldn't pass his "Socialist" (really, New Deal and Great Society) program even when "a totally Democratic Congress and Speaker" held sway: At no time since the Sixties, has the Congress not had a conservative majority. The big corner offices may have changed hands a few times, but the kleptocracy and the corporate agenda have never been seriously challenged. In so far as there has been resistance to business as usual, though, it has come from the Progressive Caucus in the House, made up of Liberal Democrats and founded by -- wait for it -- Bernie Sanders.
Despite the fact that Congress at certain points since the early 1970s has been nominally in the hands of Democrats is irrelevant, because the conservative majority -- made up of both Democrats and Republicans -- controlled both houses during the entire period. That nothing was done during the 25 working days with a Democratic supermajority underscores the the need to change business as usual in Washington by changing the makeup of the legislature. But you use what you have. Advancing the candidacy of Sen. Sanders is a step in the right direction.
Finally, it has to be kept in mind that one of Sanders' great blind spots is militarism. Although not nearly the hawk that Hillary Clinton is, Sanders supported brutal economic sanctions, drone assassinations and the legislation that paved the way for the Iraq War. One of the first jobs of his supporters if he is elected will be to oppose his endorsement of a militarized foreign policy, the same as it will be should Donald Trump or Clinton be commander in chief (the difference being that progressives will have considerably more influence in a Sanders administration).
It won't matter who is elected in 2016 if 2017 doesn't mark the rebirth of an independent, people's movement, accountable to its members, strong and disciplined enough to change the outcome of federal and local elections, and effective enough eventually either to wrest control of the Democratic Party from Wall Street and the corporations or to evolve into a viable progressive party. Sanders supporters are united in their persistent belief that change is possible, that the nation's present level of decline and dysfunction is not the way things need to be.
Follow-up: Has Bernie Sanders been given a pass on his own record on regime change? The Intercept's Jeremy Scahill tells Democracy Now! it can't be ignored that Sanders supported brutal economic sanctions, drone assassinations and the neocon legislation that paved the way for the Iraq. War:
"No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare."
"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.” – James Madison
(Political Observations (1795-04-20); also in Letters and Other Writings of James Madison (1865), Vol. IV, p. 491.)
Since the Middle East refugee crisis is a consequence of America's militarized foreign policy, doesn't it follow that we have a moral responsibility to lend a hand to its victims?
Germany, with a population of about 80 million, is admitting between 200,000 and 300,000 displaced persons; since we are about four times bigger (and have a lot more room), in fairness, shouldn't we invite 800,000 and 1,200,000 souls to relocate here?
Alternatively, or additionally, shouldn't we mount a Marshall Plan-style program targeted on Greece, which not only is suffering the most from the influx of refugees but is also the victim of the predator banks that we unleashed?
The Long War is almost exclusively a U.S. project. Don't we have an obligation to take responsibility for what we've wrought?
