William J. CounterPunch
Astore
Rebellion Translated from English by Leyens Germain
The killing of Osama bin Laden, "a testament to the greatness of our country," according to President Obama, should not obscure a central reality of our world back the 11-S. Our conflicts in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen and Libya are still examples of undeclared war, a fact that contributes to its distance from our American world. Are far apart geographically, but also far from our interests in every day and, unless you are a member of the armed forces or have a loved one in them, far from our collective consciousness (to say nothing of our individual consciences).
And this distance is not accidental. Our wars and their impact is kept to a remarkable isolation from what passes for governance in this country, leaving most Americans with little knowledge and even less influence over whether they should and get out and how they are fighting.
In this sense, our wars are eerily similar to those performed by European monarchs in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, conflicts fought by professional soldiers and bands of mercenaries, in large part by the whim of what we now would call a unitary executive financed deficit spending, in order to protect or further the interests of a ruling elite.
Cynics might say that it has always been the case in the U.S. After all, the War of 1812 was known by critics as "Mr. Madison's War" and the Mexican-American War in the forties of the nineteenth century was the "Mr. Polk's War." The English-American War, 1898 was a blatant war of expansion, vigorously denounced by the imperialist Americans. However, in these conflicts there were at least a genuine national debate, and formal declarations of war from Congress.
The current ruling class in Washington no longer cares to pretend that it respects the letter of our Constitution, and ignores its spirit, invoking executive privilege claims empty or the spirit of humanitarian service (as in Libya) or export democracy (as in Afghanistan). But Libya is still torn by civil war, and Afghanistan still does not turn into Oregon.
War "enlightened" then and now
History is not simply repeated, but the realities of power, privilege and pride ensure some continuity from the past. Consider how far the current wars and the ways that reinforce existing power relations of a privileged elite and proud echo the style of a European war is over three centuries.
In studying the destruction of the devastating Thirty Years War (1618-1648), fought feverishly in the Germanic territories for most of Europe, we see that monarchs like Louis XIV of France began to wage war "limited." These to be more consistent with the spirit of a rational and was "enlightened." In his hands, like wars became the sport of kings, real life counterparts to complex chess games in which infantrymen from the lower classes served as disposable pawns, while the second and younger sons of nobility, of duty as officers , were to be kings, bishops, and towers, just less disposable.
The monarch and his entourage tried, where possible, to keep the wars and disorders away from the thriving economic and manufacturing concerns. In many cases, in the following centuries, this meant essentially export the war to remote areas or colonies "barbaric." In doing so, the death and destruction are outsourced sites and remote villages of the European metropolis.
In fact, this is exactly what our founders angered, that the colonies in America had become an endless battle for French and British imperial ambitions of which the settlers themselves suffered from the turmoil of war while earning few of its benefits. A careful reading of the Declaration of Independence, for example, reveals a disdain protorepublicano by wars waged by the whim of a king and that in any case reduced the settlers to mere cannon fodder.
By refusing to give up his stubborn British law and determine how they are taxed, how they defended their families and their lands, and especially for what they themselves had to fight and die, the founders forged a new nation. Given this history, not surprisingly, been granted to Congress, not the president, the power to declare and fund war.
Thus was born a noble experiment, and it worked, albeit imperfectly, until the devastation of a new Thirty Years War in Europe (better known as World Wars I and II), prompted U.S. to superpower status with all its resulting ambitions stoked by existential fears, whether of the atheistic communists yesterday, terrorists or religious fanatics of today.
At the heart of Washington: the new Court of Versailles
In the eighteenth century, France was the superpower of Europe were apparently armed forces dwarf those of their neighbors. And who dictated the decision to go to war? The answer: the king, his generals and courtiers at the court of Versailles. XXI Century, USA celebrates its status as "sole superpower" world with unparalleled military. And who dictates his decisions to go to war? Considering the lessons of Iraq, Afghanistan, and now Libya, the answer is less obvious: the President, his generals and courtiers, in the vast edifice of the State of Washington's national security.
The wars "enlightened" of France were fought by professional armies and mercenaries, led by a unitary executive who did what he wanted, and suffered from lower classes without the right to speak or vote on it (although provided the strength and the blood). Similarly, our masters of the XXI Century throw us their version of war illustrated and play its version of global chess.
The analogy can go further. In pre-revolutionary France, the First and Second Estate (the clergy and nobility) were less than 2% of the population but controlled most of the wealth and power of the country. Their unholy alliance kept the third estate (all the cleric was not or noble) under their collective dominance.
Now, consider the U.S. current. Our equivalent of the First State would be the clergy of the finance and banking (the religion of the almighty dollar.) Is to be found in their temples on Wall Street. Our equivalent of the second state would be the movers and shakers in downtown Washington. You have to look at the White House, Pentagon, Congress and on K Street where lobbyists tend to congregate in the First State. The unholy alliance of these two states makes the Third U.S. State "You and me-with all the possibilities, manipulated against us.
When it comes to war, the U.S. ruling class relegated to the Third Estate members alternately to the role of "foreign legionnaires" in the service overseas, or silent spectators passively watching what happens in the big TV. That, in turn, is continuously interpreted for us by retired members of the Second State: generals and admirals in civilian clothes, hired by the corporate media to provide comments in colors on the wars in Washington.
No wonder that the current Washington elite is so imperious and isolated as the court of Louis XIV. A colleague of mine recently endured a brief audience with some members of our second state near Dupont Circle in Washington. In his words: "They were both condescending and intrigued by 'types of Tea Party', as referred to them, which means not wanting to admit they were out of touch and they looked pretty good. 'Look' , I finally said, "you can not keep stealing someone's wallet while intimidáis saying how stupid and misinformed it is and then get angry because you sorprendéis. '" Sean
dirty "types of Tea Party", "morons" (as the former courtier Rahm Emanuel) progressive, and other unhappy members of the U.S. Third Estate, the elites in Washington who fought wars in our name simply could not care less what you think, just as Louis XIV and his court they could not care less what they wanted their subjects. Endless wars
"limited" waged in accordance with the interests of the ruling class, the massive deficit spending on the wars, the refusal to recognize (or even understand) the growing dissatisfaction of the people, the mentality of "time to eat brioche ! ': all this is familiar to the historian. And as the old French masters of limited war, our new warlords bleed legitimacy.
The collapse of former regimes
By isolating the Third U.S. State of war-indeed, to disconnect any meaningful public debate on this nation's perpetual warmongering, our leaders have conspired to protect their own interests. However, deciding to sneak all material have foolishly deleted all control of his dementia.
Consider again the example of pre-revolutionary Versailles. A top-heavy bureaucracy positions, notably dissolute, often parasitic plundered the public good of France in search of power and privilege. Can we stop saying the same about the current Washington? In its tendency kleptocratic enrichment and irresponsible deployment of military power around the globe, the U.S. ruling class has un cierto parecido con los reyes franceses y sus cortes que, a fin de cuentas, llevaron a su país a la ruina económica y a la revolución violenta.
Hastiada de sus derrochadores y orgullosos gobernantes, Francia vio cómo rodaban las cabezas y cómo caían las cuchillas de las guillotinas. ¿Cuántas guerras "ilustradas" más no declaradas, cuándos billones de dólares en deuda impulsada por guerra, cuántos muertos y heridos serán necesarios para que el pueblo estadounidense exija que le devuelvan su poder sobre la guerra? ¿O nos basta con mostrarnos respetuosos hacia nuestra clase y corte gobernante -y a sus acreedores en ultramar "menos-que-amantes-de-la libertad"- hasta que llegue el momento en el proud that their wars and their wasteful defense budgets of billions of dollars more to make our great democratic experiment will collapse?
William J.
************** Astore is retired lieutenant colonel (from the U.S. Air Force) and professor of history. Welcomes comments from readers wjastore@gmail.com
This essay was originally published on TomDispatch.
Source: http://www.counterpunch.org/astore05122011.html
Powered by Zoundry
0 comments:
Post a Comment