REBUILDING EVERYTHING! A proposed reality show.

Over at the Lifeboat Foundation, where we contemplate dour and dire scenarios about the collapse of civilization, there's been an interesting sub-topic: knowledge caching, or how we might preserve the software of human civilization, even if we blow it really big, sometime.

Well, it was time to turn the political lamp off for a bit and throw out there something cool, sci-fi-ish and fun. So, would you folks like to see the pitch I prepared, years ago, for a reality/tech TV show called REBUILDING EVERYTHING?

(BTW, it is still WGA registered and copyrighted!)

Alas, my pitches for this were no more successful than my brief but fun stint as a TV star in THE ARCHITECHS.  What ever happened to guts and imagination?

====

A reality TV pitch... by David Brin...

"REBUILDING EVERYTHING"...

Imagine a "reality" TV show with a more elevated aim and loads of attractive content for the mind... but also heaps of tension and drama.

Picture "Survivor" meets "The 1900 House" meets "Junkyard Wars"... then throw in lots of fascinating Discovery Channel riffs... along with a dash of "The Flintstones". Then add a sensation that viewers are actually learning something of value, becoming a little more capable and knowing about their own culture.

In the ultimate challenge, competitive teams race each other, starting from scratch to rebuild civilization!

Participants begin almost naked, except for a handheld web-communicator device -- a top-end, broadband web accessory -- that lets them consult with "the gods"... in other words with experts anywhere in the world. Editors will splice these capsule "how to" lessons with contestants' fumbling efforts to follow the advice.

Instead of just surviving, they must chip flint, make spears and arrows and traps, stitch clothing from hides (no animals will be killed directly by the show). Once the Stone Age has been conquered, the contestants move on to re-invent pottery, weaving and agriculture -- then mining and smithing copper ore, then bronze, iron and so on. Any next step must be taken by using technologies achieved at the previous level.

Once they succeed at a task, it is assumed that their “civilization” (their team) has that technology from then on. They will be provided any tools they require from that level, in order to attempt the next. (A ready supply of primitive tools can be found, easily available, from many amateur groups online. And more support groups may be spawned by the show itself.)

Upon mastering, say, five era-appropriate technologies, each team may be confronted with some tough challenge. For example, after forging bronze swords and armor, they may have to fight off a symbolic enemy from Homeric times... (or at least prove that they could). Or maybe build a Trojan Horse! Bridge a stream. Bring water to the village. Anything that is both dramatic and focused on the era in question.

Nor will culture be neglected! Each tribe will be encouraged to create their own distinctive arts, music, fables, so that viewer identification can get woven even tighter. In fact, a village may arise as they progress, showing how far 'civilization' has come along. (See note, below, about the possible availability of scads of free crafts and labor. As the village progresses from Neolithic upward, the resulting "town" might make a great exhibit/attraction.)

Needless to say, the scenario is open-ended. Promise of even tougher challenges may help keep people glued. Can the teams (and producers!) manage to make this premise work all the way to the electric light and motor? (And somehow keep up drama amid the tech-challenges?) How about building a working steam boat, then piloting it upstream? Or constructing a real working car, from nature's own raw materials! (Time frames may be telescoped as we progress.)

This part captures some of the feel of TLC's popular show JUNKYARD WARS. Only in our case, they start from raw ore!

The dramatic/competitive scenario; as I picture it, nobody is "voted off" the teams. Rather, each week's winning tribe is allowed to recruit more members as they go along, perhaps from eager show-watchers who send in tapes of their skills. (A more pleasant and positive arrangement.) Or else they can "steal" members from other teams. The growing tribe will need MORE capability and cooperation as time passes, not less! Also, this gives viewers an ongoing hope/fantasy - that next week THEY will be chosen to join one of the tribes.

As teams grow, tension may arise from trade, as they need to barter or buy things from each other, filling in skills they never conquered. Perhaps simulated conflict? After a successful 1st season, might international teams bring in multicultural flavor, showing various “solutions” with an Asian or African tilt? (They might participate remotely with collaborating production teams in, say, China, paying their own way.)

An ideal sponsor might be one of the mobile wireless technology companies those positioning themselves for the next big thing, like that 'tablet for communicating with the gods." Participants would of course use their brand of access, and every look-up/advice session would be a incredibly vivid and convincing product placement. Other advertisers who might like this show include tool makers, folks selling encyclopedias and How-To book series, etc.

Of course, civilization has a whole load of stuff that people might like to see the contestants "rebuild". Moreover the fantasy is a constructive one that many decent people can identify with. Picture our charismatic host, at the beginning of each episode, promising that "1,000 copies of this show will be buried at strategic locations around the world, just in case our descendants ever need to REBUILD EVERYTHING!"

On a cerebral level, consider the benefits of showing people how a complex civilization is held together not only by a myriad present-day skills, but also via connections made by the clever and hardworking ancestors who got us here. It will show that at least some of us (the show's viewers) might be able to rebuild, if they ever had to, from scratch.

In several ways this show will be about the best in us. That may appeal to countless folks who would like to see how we made it this far.

      =====     =====

Addenum notes: Methods for keeping costs down might include having private amateur clubs provide many of the materials, perhaps building portions of the villages. They might even stage the event on their own time, expense and schedule, with cameras present more as news coverage than as producers. This, in turn, might keep liability issues down.

Who would want to watch? Wide demographics! DIY types who enjoy "this old house", armchair historians, and teachers looking for things to show in classrooms.

-----David Brin

http://www.davidbrin.com

Twitter                Facebook

The War on Terror: 9/11, 9/12 and the "stupid" decade

Been getting interesting nibbles on the issue of the War on the Military. But let me pause for a moment to be timely.

In his September 30 column “9/11 Is Over,” Thomas Friedman, one of the brightest but also most erratic and infuriating of pundits, said: “9/11 has made us stupid. I honor, and weep for, all those murdered on that day. But our reaction to 9/11 — mine included — has knocked America completely out of balance, and it is time to get things right again.

“It is not that I thought we had new enemies that day and now I don’t. Yes, in the wake of 9/11, we need new precautions, new barriers. But we also need our old habits and sense of openness. For me, the candidate of 9/12 is the one who will not only understand who our enemies are, but who we are.”

Friedman is cogent. It is an excellent article and I urge anyone and everyone to read it.

Alas, though wise, it strays by focusing on evidence-for-stupidity that amounts to relative minutiae, like a decline in the number of tourists who are choosing America as a destination. Yes, that is telling; our declining popularity translates directly into declining influence, wealth and power to influence change. Still, tourism?

Even when Friedman speaks of our decaying infrastructure, deprived of investment in favor of futile “nation-building” in a faraway desert, I am less than fully moved. Because all of these things are second order effects, compared to the main show.

Indeed, I have been saying pretty much everything that you’ll find in Friedman’s piece, for three or four years. Back when he was among those hooked by the Iraq War fever, I declared that --

“We (Americans) won the Terror War the very day that it began. Our victory It happened the moment supposedly-decadent Bostonians and New Yorkers, aboard flight UA 93, did what enemies of our civilization always find surprising -- they stood up.

“In their spontaneous eruption of grit, mental agility and sheer moral competence, those passengers showed what their ancestors did, after Lexington and Concord, after Fort Sumter, after Pearl Harbor -- that attempts to terrify or intimidate our people would face a steep, uphill journey, resisted by average citizens at every turn.

“Disproof-of-decadence is a test and a trial that each generation of Americans must pass. This time in fact, compared to other generations, we took care of the chore with remarkable efficiency and got off super-cheap.”

Of course it was a bit of a polemical reach to say “the war started and ended on the same day.” I suppose one might extend its duration a bit, to include the Retaliation. The overwhelmingly competent, fierce and surgically professional way that our armed forces, diplomatic corps and intelligence services collaborated with allies to topple the enemy Taliban regime -- in Afghanistan -- using operational plans mostly worked out during the Clinton Administration. (Do the math. Bush had little chance to meddle with an off-the-shelf scenario, only just enough time to say “go!”) Certainly that display of the Powell Doctrine in action was enough to cause any likely foe to blanch and think twice about sponsoring terror against us, ever again. That is, if we had stopped there, declaring victory.

Indeed, at that point, both the Iranians and the Saudis began offering frantic olive branches! Both were turned down, for diametrically opposite reasons.


Compare that situation to the way our military’s precious aura of invincibility has been frittered away since, a daunting reputation, now transformed into an image of floundering futility. And that is only the surface of the demolition of our armed forces.


So, other than claiming that I was three years ahead of Friedman (on the other hand, he reaches three orders of magnitude as many people), what else can I complain about?

1) Has Thomas Friedman pondered in whose interest it has been, for us to spend the first part of the 21st Century “stupid?” The old Watergate phrase “follow the money” leads -- at minimum -- to use of the word “emergency” to over-rule defense and homeland security contracting procedures, leading to billions flowing to Bush family friends. (The liberal obsession with oil as a reason has amounted to monomaniacal tunnel vision.)

At maximum, following the trail of who has benefited leads to a certain group of people -- also Bush family friends -- who were the only civilians allowed to fly through American skies, on 9/12, while the rest of us were kept on the ground.


2) “Stupid” has many levels. Friedman seems to be pointing at something societal - a pervasive, cultural, turning-away from the assertive confidence that used to characterize America. Is this why the lesson of flight UA 93 has been so thoroughly downplayed?

Indeed, that event wasn’t the only sign of powerful vibrance on that day. The behavior of citizens, in New York and Washington DC, was also superb. Indeed, the only actions that worked, on that day. Elaine Scarry of the Boston Globe, pointed this out. I have repeatedly called it the “Day of the Citizen.”

In effect, New Yorkers stood atop the rubble, turned to face east, and snapped: “Is that the best you got?”

No, Friedman needs to take a closer look at his thesis -- (which seems, at the surface, to be a lot like Jimmy Carter’s whine about “malaise..”)

For one thing, on a cultural level, this mood of trepidation has never overwhelmed the parts of this nation that -- ironically -- remain in the cross hairs of any future terror attack. So-called “Blue America, which consists in large part of the cities that will inevitably bear the brunt, next time. Citizens in those cities have demanded -- and not timidly -- to be allowed to get back to business and back to the 21st Century, despite the danger!

No. The drumbeat of fear -- justifying a permanent state of emergency -- has risen primarily from portions of the country and the population who seem the least at-risk. Is that odd? Just one more weird aspect of “culture war.”


3) If, on the other hand, “stupid” is all about the management of a skilled civilization, then why have Thomas Friedman and his fellow pundits paid so little attention to the Bushites’ central obsession? To their relentless War Against Professionalism?

Subsuming the GOP War on Science and the oppression of the military officer corps, it also covers the campaign of intimidation and distraction that has kept the civil service, the law enforcement community, the FBI and intelligence community from doing their jobs -- uncovering corruption and shining light, the great disinfectant.


4) Friedman asks: “If Disney World can remain an open, welcoming place, with increased but invisible security, why can’t America?”

The answer? For a problem to be fixed, it must be in the interests of those who are in power to fix it. Ideally, that should mean the people. But let’s not kid ourselves. Things have changed. A combination of gerrymandering and Diebold have rendered the vote relatively ineffective. But there is worse.

The restoration of the American class system has accelerated to a point where (just to offer one stinging example) the rich no longer fly first class. Hence, they do not share even a mild version of our pain, at the crowded, awful airports. The new lords avoid frisking and probing, simply bytaking a limo ride to the charter or business jet terminals. (A majority of “first class” passengers are now regular folks, bleeding off frequent flyer miles -- hence the steep decline in first class service, which has thereupon helped fuel the trend, driving the rich elsewhere.)

This is just one example of how a deteriorating situation will force moderate people like me -- who hated communism and believe in free enterprise -- to recall something important from history. That Adam Smith was the first “liberal” and he hated, above all, market-warping shenanigans by “cronies of the king.”

American liberalism is not currently as radical as Fox News commentators paint it to be. But if this goes on, it is sure to rediscover its roots. And the middle class will rediscover theirs.

The GOP vs. the U.S. Military: Part Six- Purging the Officer Corps, Indoctrinating the Ranks

* The Danger Grows...

Our topic is an ongoing campaign by President George W. Bush and the Neoconservatives to undermine, discredit, suborn and crush the professionals who make up the U.S. Civil Service, the intelligence and law enforcement communities, the courts, scientists, and any others who might stand in the way of their principal program -- the unlawful usurpation of unaccountable power.

Foremost among these skilled and dedicated public servants -- who have been the Bushites’ first and worst victims -- are members of the United States Military. As I have been showing, our men and women in uniform are harassed, overworked and undersupported. The services are worn down and misused, apolitical traditions shredded, and careers terminated... especially whenever a brave officer or enlisted person stands up to protest.

Whether this destructive process is driven by obstinate dogmatism -- or something diabolically deliberate -- is left to opinion. (Or else, it is a matter for our harried professionals to uncover.)

Nevertheless the overall outcome is unmistakable. It appears that flag-waving jingoism and noisy posturing do not guarantee genuine support for our troops. Indeed, they seem to correlate with the exact opposite.

* The Great Purge

In Parts One and Two we discussed the demolition of our nation’s reputation for invincibility and our stature on the moral high ground. Two traits of inestimable value, even in strictly military terms. But those are still abstractions, so Part 3 focused on the marrow -- the plummet in readiness of the United States army and Marines. A situation that is horrifying, the more you learn.

In Part 4 we saw how demolishing the Army, the Marines and the Reserves, without asking the rich for money or the rest of us for volunteers, does not even remotely resemble how leaders of a rational nation would fight either a war of national policy or a response to dire crisis. All of the excuses that have been offered have been revealed as absurd.

* But that ain’t the worst, by far.

Vastly more chilling is the relentless effort to purge the officer corps. A culling process that has only accelerated in the last couple of years, eliminating men and women of high calibre from what had been a pool of supremely educated, competent and apolitically dedicated professionals, replacing many of them with yes-man hacks...

...a catastrophe that could justifiably be compared to Joseph Stalin's purge of the Red Army in 1937-1938, which is widely blamed for leaving the Russian officer corps understaffed and undertrained on the eve of war with Nazi Germany. True, the neocons aren’t shooting our generals and admirals, just forcing them into early retirement. But be patient. We may still be in early days.

A couple of years after I first broached this matter (pretty much alone), news articles began circulating about clusters of retired flag officers, speaking out against the creeping betrayal.

What remains puzzling is the gaping silence from prominent democrats -- except for Wesley Clark -- about a scandal that should be right out there. Treated as a major campaign issue and one of our paramount concerns.

(Let’s take a note of optimism in the rise of Navy CNO Admiral Mike Mullen to be our nation’s next Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, along with Adm.William Fallon as Commander of US Central Command -- both of them outspoken critics of administration policy and diametrically opposite to kind of officers we are accustomed to seeing rewarded by this president. These important promotions suggest that the military professionals aren’t exactly lying down. Dedicated to silence on political matters, they may nevertheless have applied forceful back pressure of their own, behind the scenes, against the ongoing Bushite purge. If so, these people deserve honor for defending us, yet again, this time from an enemy within.)

See: The Under-reported Purge of the U.S. Officer Corps

* But the Great Purge Has Many Sides

Alas, our military’s professionalism and dedicated tradition of Constitutionalism are under assault from many directions, not just the ongoing effort to bully or dumb-down commanders at the top. There is also a deeply worrisome campaign to suborn and infiltrate dogmatism into the ranks, from the side and from below.

Bruce Wilson a lead researcher for the Military Religious Freedom Foundation, wrote to me about ongoing neocon efforts to transform the United States Military, turning it into an active force for the fundamentalist Christianization of America. (Moderate churches have always played a very different and positive role.)

Read more about scandalous efforts to turn our apolitical and Constitutional military into an instrument of religious orthodoxy, on our way toward a theocratic state like the one forecast - in fiction - by a worried Robert A. Heinlein. (In prophetic novels he portrayed theocracy beginning, chillingly, in the year 2012.) MRRF is commendably trying to combat this trend, which some services have resisted more vigorously than others. (For a darker view, from an even more worried perspective, see http://community.livejournal.com/dark_christian)

Take this testimony from a recently-serving Army NCO: “In Basic Training in Kentucky, all soldiers are sent to a local church that gives you a few hours of downtime on a weekend and required to attend an Evangelical Christian worship service - no matter your religious persuasion. (Those who objected based on religious grounds were so harshly threatened that they gave in and went.) This fire and brimstone service in no uncertain terms paints the current geopolitical situation in terms of the Book of Revelations, anoints these trainees as chosen soldiers of God converting and killing heathens, and ends with a conversion ceremony where nonbelievers are peer-pressured into being 'Saved' .”

(In fairness, when I queried soldiers and marines whom I know or could reach via blog, only a minority report having seen this kind of travesty, though more subtle attempts at suasion appear to be common. Notably, none of the sailors I’ve spoken with -- either serving or retired -- have experienced anything like it. But that’s the Navy for you.)

Responding to my recent articles, Bruce Wilson wrote: “I can guarantee your concerns were not overblown. In fact, my research findings have recently demonstrated that.” Wilson acknowledged though, that none of their efforts have yet been directed at what may be the most dangerous part of this trend, an attempt by up to one hundred far-right members of Congress to stock the military academies with young men and women whose allegiance would no longer be Constitutionalist and neutral, but rather, as personal, ideological and lopsidedly political as the praetorians, janissaries, or jaguar warriors of old.

Of course, I had hoped that MRFF would already be monitoring this part of the problem. Perhaps now they will. It could take substantial dedication and research... or else, perhaps, just a simple polling of Congressfolk, under the letterhead of a quasi religious group, asking a straightforward question: “Are you using your Congressional privilege to appoint dedicated evangelical Christians to the military service academies?” One might be surprised how eagerly obliging and up-front some of the representatives are likely to be. (If any of you out there have suggestions or contacts that might be helpful, do contact MRFF. http://militaryreligiousfreedom.org/

I am especially interested in further confirmation of one clear impression -- that the Navy has been stalwart in resisting attempts to “stock” fanatics into Annapolis, while the Air Force has given in completely -- lock, stock and MX missile.

* Again... at least there is the Navy.

God bless the United States Navy.

And let’s go save the Army.

==Continue to Part 7

The GOP vs. the U.S. Military: Part Five - Let The Excuses Roll!

Last time, we discussed two kinds of modern armed conflict -- a bona fide crisis that can be likened to an “emergency room operation” vs. the “elective surgery” of an intervention that is meant to enforce policy. Sure, this dichotomy oversimplifies terribly. But it does clarify some important tradeoffs concerning how best to apply force. Like whether a particular overseas endeavor should be allowed to affect our economy, our honor, our laws, our reputation, our social cohesion... (or return to Part 1 of this series.)

...and especially our overall military readiness. Of all my “j’accuse” points, the one that angers me most is the Bushite betrayal of the National Guard and Reserves, using them up and stripping us bare, in an endeavor that is - at best - an attempt at utopian nation-building.

In response, a commenter posted his own powerful observation:

“The evisceration of the Reserves and Guard ought to enrage states' rights conservatives. Not only has disaster relief in the near term been compromised, but future recruitment is virtually doomed. People once joined up expecting to help their communities, fight fires or conduct disaster relief, and only deploy abroad in case of an urgent, temporary emergency or major conflict. Now they've got to take into account the probability that they’ll be thrown in the line in endless, grueling missions, as if they were full time soldiers.

“We haven't begun to experience the fallout from this particular insanity.”

* Excuses Abound!

Any Boy Scout will tell you that it’s best to “be prepared.” So what do neocons say, when you point out that our military readiness has -- inarguably -- plummeted during the GOP’s watch?

Their first line of defense is to reply that none of the rules for “elective policy wars” apply, since this really is an emergency! Indeed, a State of Emergency has been declared and re declared by George W. Bush, so often that the word loses resonance. Its primarily effect is to let administration cronies bypass stringent rules for competitive bidding of military and associated contracts, allowing billion dollar deals to be assigned, at whim, to whatever friends the administration chooses.

Again, if it were a real emergency, all of us -- rich and poor -- would be asked to sacrifice. And we would sacrifice! In order to act decisively and put the emergency behind us. (Though the last thing we would surrender is our civil liberties.)

Anyway, if the world is so dangerous, shouldn’t readiness be out top military priority?

A second excuse for abandoning high levels of military readiness goes like this: “Exactly what is the point, any more, of the US Army being trained to fight major unit conventional warfare, as if going "toe-to-toe with the Russkies" in the Fulda Gap? No one fights that way any more!”

Consider how bizarre this is. The "no one will fight that way anymore" argument is put forward by defenders of the Bush family.... who in 1991 and 2003 chose precisely to fight Saddam Hussein in the old, brute force way. Both Bushes hurled large field armies into frontal assaults against entrenched enemy forces, ignoring reasonable alternatives that might have removed Iraq’s mad tyrant far more cheaply. Now, that Army the Bushes fielded is essentially gone. Can anyone explain why this weird flip is greeted with shrugs?

Which president did work closely and respectfully with the scholar generals, to implement a “revolution in military affairs”... while maintaining high levels of conventional readiness? Bill Clinton’s campaign in the Balkans -- blatantly the most successful war in U.S. history -- applied overwhelming but surgical force toward the achievement of crystal-clear goals in rapid time. (Losing not a single American serviceman or woman along the way.)

Likewise, our post-9/11 retaliation against the Taliban regime, in Afghanistan, utilized similar procedures and doctrines, following detailed plans that were laid down during Clinton’s tenure. (Bush only had time to say “Go!” to blueprints already on the shelf and local alliances that were already in place, a fact that is clear in the timing, and yet never gets mentioned.)

.* Crux time.

“Nobody fights that way anymore" is a rationalization of stunning hypocrisy. It could as easily have been said about the way we waged war in Vietnam, allowing our forces to get embroiled in a futile, mindless, draining, alienating, counter-insurgency war of attrition on the continent of Asia. We swore that would never happen again. Yet, it did.

They offer that lame excuse in order to distract from the core point, one that needs to be hammered again and again. George W. Bush and his allies are demolishing the United States Army and Marines.

We can argue whether this vile effect is due to massive incompetence, or deliberate planning.
Whether to fix the problem by mobilizing society to greater martial commitment, or else by pulling out of a senseless quagmire and letting the pros get back to training.
We can either see this in the larger context of a neocon “war against professionalism”...

...or else focus only on the men and women of the military, who are the Bushites’ paramount victims. All of these secondary issues, reasonable people might ponder and dispute honestly.

But not the bald fact of this crime against America. That George W. Bush and his allies are demolishing the United States Army and Marines.

Only then, alas, Babylon, it gets even worse.

--continue to Part 6 of this series...

The GOP vs. the U.S. Military: Part Four - Wars of Emergency vs Wars of Policy

Last time, we pondered the ghost at the banquet. A scandal that few seem able or willing to discuss. The plummeting combat readiness of the United States Army, Marines and Reserves. Their steeply declining ability -- trapped and worn down in a faraway desert -- to meet any military challenge that might suddenly confront the nation, in dangerous times. (Or return to Part 1 of this series.)

So relentless and systematic has been the Bush Administration’s demolition of U.S. military readiness that one might even give in to temptation and imagine this along the lines of a lurid thriller novel, wherein this destructive process did not arise out of dogmatism and blithering incompetence, but something else. Something even more odious and deliberate.

But let’s not give into that temptation here. There’s too much on our plate that is blatant and irrefutable. So we’ll concentrate, this time, on fundamentals. Like how any sensible leadership ought to use armed force in dangerous times.

What follows may seem cynical and hard-headed to some liberals, while striking a neoconservative as idealistic. In fact, it is neither. Alas, these points may be too subtle for dogmatists of either left or right to grasp. So, once again, I’ll be talking to the harried middle.

Those who believe that pragmatism and idealism can -- and should -- coincide in a complex world.

* Does anybody remember -- “last resort”?

Almost any member of the U.S. Officer Corps, serving or retired, will recite a nostrum about how often he or she has prayed not to go to war. For the diplomats and politicians -- (and yes, covert operatives) -- to find alternative solutions to any given problem or crisis, short of using brute military force.

Yes, the services have a principal task, to make themselves ready for every conceivable variety of conflict. Indeed, that readiness is viewed as the ultimate deterrent to war. But, in the George Marshall tradition, it is deemed rash and immature to rush violent action -- if for no other reason, because wars are always costly and messy, and seldom go according to plan.

Go ask an officer... any military officer... and see if they use the phrase ”last resort.”

(Those that have gone according to plan -- e.g. the Balkans intervention and the Afghanistan campaign, succeeded because they hewed closely to what was ironically called the “Powell Doctrine” -- a policy of applying overwhelming force with surgical precision, maintaining clear goals, coordination with local allies, and a plan for the aftermath, along with close teamwork between diplomats, warriors, politicians and a well-informed people... a doctrine that, was diametrically and weirdly betrayed during the tenure of Secretary of State Colin Powell.)

So, what ever happened to “last resort?” When all but one of the leading Republican presidential candidates declare that they would rush to use torture, dispatch bombers, and trade away civil liberties, faster and more harshly than the others, should not even a cynic or practitioner of realpolitik pause and wonder? When they all speak of a “permanent state of emergency,” shouldn’t even rational conservatives ask a simple question:

“What kind of a decent, mature or prudent person speaks of torture and war without, at minimum, applying those two words? Last resort?”

Such is the madness that our professionals must deal with, today. Especially in the military, where the resort to war has been treated with cavalier carelessness by meddlesome politicians, to a degree that beggars our memory of Vietnam.

Which brings us to a subtle but important point about the use (or misuse) of America’s varied armed forces.

* Wars of Emergency vs Wars of Policy: Either way, we’re betrayed

Elsewhere I distinguish between two kinds of foreign intervention: Wars of Emergency vs Wars of Policy. Those that are like “emergency room” operations and others that more resemble “elective surgery.”

Our rush into Iraq was initially justified entirely on the first of these models, stoked by an appeal to fear and imminent danger. But when weapons of mass destruction and Iraqi terror links proved chimerical, the administration’s rhetoric flipped like a switch to the other genre of justification. That we should pour all available resources into a utopian exercise in nation building, planting democracy in the rockiest of ground, as a matter of (ill-considered, hubristic, impractical and profoundly immature) national policy.

Forgive the parenthetical remark. Because, for just a moment, we need to put aside whether a particular “elective policy endeavor” is sensible and well-planned, or venial and moronic. However good or bad a policy-based act of power projection may be, there would appear to be several basic “don’ts” when it comes to a political war -- or an intervention that’s “elective surgery.”

1) Don’t send in the reserves. They are -- by law, tradition, and common sense, reserved for the protection of our communities and homeland. Brief use of the National Guard overseas, in bona fide emergencies? Sure. But it is rash -- bordering on criminal -- for the Commander in Chief to use citizen militia as tools of optional foreign policy.

Whether or not a President’s policy is sensible, if he cannot achieve the nation’s policy aims with the field army at his command, he should ask for a bigger field army.

(Note to Congress. Try focusing on the Guard. Push a bill limiting their overseas stints to six months, then dare a filibuster! Even Red Staters will rouse and start wondering.)

2) In “elective surgery” wars, you might use elite, fast-reaction troops, sparingly, committing them for a brief time, perhaps for their ability to shock and overwhelm. Only then, the elite shock troops -- e.g. airborne and Marines -- should be withdrawn again, to concentrate on readiness for either an emergency or some more important policy endeavor.

Retraining such units for extended constabulary duty is beyond stupid. It is a pure waste.

3) Even regular Army divisions should not be spent wantonly on policy-based conflict. The old nostrum of being prepared to win two major regional wars at once may be obsolete. But the underlying wisdom is not. Those who assure us otherwise bear the steepest burden of proof.

4) Whether a projection of force is an emergency operation or an elective enforcement of national policy -- truthful evaluation of short and long term costs is essential. If the nation must sacrifice its warriors, its treasury, its international goodwill and peace of mind, then we should be called upon to mobilize, as our ancestors did, rich and poor, to willingly pay whatever must be paid. If convinced, millions would step up to enlist. And the rich would, as in times past, come forward to offer billions.

That neither thing has happened -- that our forces are being ground down while American youths and moguls hold back -- demonstrates how little enthusiasm either of these vital sectors have for the policy itself.

5) Finally, do not break faith with the troops. Using extraordinary measures and coercion to maintain an army in the field is not consistent with an elective, policy-based intervention. These extraordinary measures include “stop loss” retention of servicemembers who are finishing their enlistments, or keeping men and women stationed in hellish places for more than a year without a break. Such measures constitute a creeping and dishonest form of conscription, or impressment.

Again, if it is an “emergency” -- and the neocons keep saying so -- then stop treating this as elective surgery. As a political program of nation-building that should be funded and staffed by peacetime means. Choose one justification or the other!

If this is a policy-war, then achieve your goals efficiently, without theft, crony-deals, deficit spending, torture, stop-loss betrayals, and ruined readiness.

But if it is a true emergency, then have the guts to step up and do what Lincoln did. What Wilson and Roosevelt did.

Ask us to give up butter for guns, till it’s over.

Ask for volunteers.

Ask for a draft.

--Next: Let The Excuses Roll!

or return to Part 1 of this series

The GOP vs. the U.S. Military: Part Three - Destroying Readiness

In Parts 1 and 2 we covered an important aspect of the war being waged by George W. Bush & co. against the United States Military. In an accomplishment of prodigious magnitude, the neocons have succeeded at systematically destroying two precious and useful abstractions -- our reputation for invincibility and our reputation for taking the high moral ground.

While never perfect, both of these hard-won images were powerful incentives for people and nations to try to be allies of America and its people, rather than enemies. Indeed, they underpinned a nearly-worldwide consensus, before 2003, to accept a “unipolar world.”

Today, both of these important images lie shattered. That consensus has dissolved. And the world - despite so much sacrifice -- is a far more dangerous place.

* It gets even worse.

But enough about image and reputation. Now let’s talk about the actual, day-to-day situation in today’s U.S. military.

I have elsewhere addressed the declining state of US military readiness, offering -- for example -- a glimpse at the horrific condition of our National Guard and Reserves, whose principal task should be preparing for emergency service at home, or (at most) overseas in some dire and temporary crisis. Not to be hurled -- at presidential whim -- into lengthy and grinding foreign adventures or political wars. The devastation of our reserves, tearing families apart, breaking solemn promises and leaving communities defenseless, should be a major scandal. It certainly is part and parcel of the overall demolition of our military.

Now that the “Revolt of the Generals” is finally getting some attention, will journalists and mass media finally start doing their jobs, investigating and telling the stories America needs to hear?

Or should we stop passing the buck and start looking in the mirror? Back when I first raised this issue, I never expected that the American people would let these horrific trends continue.

But we have. Indeed, things are even worse. And, ultimately, the fault lies at our own feet.


* America’s Plummeting Readiness for Real War.

Two years ago, I spent a fascinating several days at Fort Irwin, in California’s Mojave Desert (to film an episode of my "Architechs" TV show) riding armored hummers and interviewing Special Forces sergeants. There, at the National Training Center, US Army Brigades used to assemble for large scale field exercises, practicing the art of full-force combat in order to hone the very skills that were used so effectively against Saddam’s huge military machine, both in 1991 and in 2003. These are the capabilities -- to fight large-scale land warfare -- that seemed so impressive to the rest of the world, that many potential adversaries seemed ready to admit that they would never achieve parity with such a formidable US Army.

That was then. Today, no brigades come to the National Training Center, anymore, to forge their large scale war-fighting skills in fiercely realistic exercises. Now, small units arrive weekly to blitz in and out of fake Arab villages, simulating urban counter-insurgency tactics. In essence, we have turned almost all of the US Army into one giant SWAT team. Yes, it is an important modern skill. We need to invest in 21st Century counter-insurgency tools and doctrines. But have we forgotten that the principal purpose of the Army is to defend our nation from those who would wage real war against us?

Consider the divisions that were sent to topple Saddam Hussein’s regime in 2003 -- what now seems ages ago. Heavily outnumbered -- a mere corps, that was sent (against professional advice) to do the job of a full army -- those professional units nevertheless performed brilliantly against the a deeply-entrenched Republican Guard. Whatever one thinks of the dismal Bushite caste, who first nurtured Saddam Hussein, then deliberately left him in power, in 1991, to continue brutalizing his people for twelve more years, then finally toppled him, but botched the aftermath...

....putting all of that aside, each of those divisions took on herculean labors for a month, demonstrating how much warriors can achieve, when their training, equipment, doctrines and morale are honed to a mighty peak. Only, now ask the officers and noncoms of the Third Infantry, or the Marines, if they feel ready to perform such miracles again, after four years rotating in small units, getting worn down as an occupation constabulary, re-taking the same dusty streets, over and over again, bleeding without apparent goal or purpose, for people who - to a large degree - just want them to go away.

Are there any exceptions to this near-utter turn of the US Army away from training for war? Well, one brigade of the 101st and one of the 82nd are kept on standby, at a high level of readiness. But they are light, air-mobile forces... essentially SWAT teams in their own right. So, when it comes to heavy warfare, they don’t count. No. If you look carefully, we only have a couple of brigades that are ready, at this moment, to perform a heavy war-fighting role. And those are in Korea. That’s two brigades. Maybe three. Far away from home.


* We Could Not Defend Our Borders Against Canada.

Of course the preceding sentence creates an absurd image. Yet, it was inspired by something said to me recently, by a senior officer.

Speaking off the record, a recently retired general confided: “The Army that George Bush Senior fielded in 1991... or the one that Bill Clinton commanded ... could beat our present force, hands down. Even hobbled and blindfolded. Hell, I wonder if we could keep the Mexican Army out if (purely in theory) they decided to invade.”

Imagine what an issue this would be, if laid out, cogently, before the American people! Fortunately for the neocons, most Democrats and moderates seem unable to grasp the potential power of this scandal, transcending old definitions of left and right.

Take the “two wars doctrine” that was prevalent throughout the 1980s and 1990s. Throughout his administration, President Bill Clinton was harshly criticized for maintaining a land force that would “only marginally” be ready to overcome two major regional challenges at the same time. .So, what are we to make of the consensus among U.S. generals, that our present land force could not even deal with one small or moderate surprise conflict?

On land, that is. All indications suggest that the U.S. Navy is still in decent shape. Still training for wide range of contingencies. Still ready to fight for us. At sea, that is.

Why isn’t this a major public scandal? If Democrats and the Media seem unable to perceive the power of the readiness issue, wouldn’t you expect some conservatives -- the quaint, old-fashioned Goldwater-types, who cared more for country than culture war -- to broach this subject? Indeed, at long last, a few are speaking up -- if in muted, grudging tones. Columnist George F. Will -- often a poster boy for rationalized double standards -- nevertheless lifts his head out of the ostrich hole, now and then. On September 23, 2007, he remarked on how an endless quagmire was affecting one service:

“For Marines.. fighting such a war (in Iraq) for more than four years jeopardizes the skills essential to its core mission -- combat as an expeditionary force.” Indeed, taking this from a strictly realpolitik point of view, the Marines Corps is precisely the branch of service that should maintain high readiness levels, in order to project U.S. power as a matter of (hopefully well-considered and mature) national policy. That’s their mission.

Only, they have been betrayed. And so have we.

* Well, at least there is the Navy.

At last, a part of this that requires only one sentence, given all that we have seen. Just this glimmer of hope.

God bless the United States Navy.

Next time... two kinds of war... and two ways to botch it....

The Real Bush War -- Neocons vs. the U.S. Military

Part Two - Staining the Honor of our Armed Forces

Our topic is the number one accomplishment of the George W. Bush administration. Not the record deficits, or stagnant science, or rampant theft, or even a legacy of nation-dividing Culture War. Rather, it is something that until a few years ago seemed downright impossible -- bringing low the finest and most professional national military the world has ever seen.

Especially the U.S. Army, which incoming Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Admiral Michael Mullen, has called “in critical condition.”

Despite frantically posturing as tough, flag-waving patrots, the neoconservative cabal (led largely by men who avoided or took cushy military service) has in fact succeeded in making America far less safe. Not only by driving away allies and spurring recruitment of Islamic radicals, but -- even worse -- by demolishing much of the power, elan, and reputation of the services that are dedicated to protecting us.

This problem ranges far beyond the military, of course. Elsewhere I speak to what ought to be the core issue of our coming elections. A broad campaign, led by our president, to bully, quash, subdue and politicize the professionals of the Civil Service, the intelligence and law enforcement agencies, the scientific community and countless other skilled public servants. A campaign whose paramount victims are the brave men and women of America’s armed forces.

In Part One we focused on one specific aspect of this travesty... the ruination our military’s hard-earned reputation for invincibility.

In this segment, we’ll another aspect of reputation. The cost of losing the high moral ground.

Then, in Parts 3 and 4 we’ll move on to matters even more horrific: the negligent squandering of our our military readiness and the ongoing effort to purge the United States Officer Corps.

But first...

* ...some added words about the value of reputation.

Along with “invincibility,” our nation -- and military -- used to benefit immensely from another advantage in the realm of appearances. A reputation for honorable behavior, hewing to the high moral standing that we established when we shocked the world by showing kindness to defeated enemies, like Germany and Japan. As George Marshall clearly saw -- with zealous agreement by (among others) Douglas MacArthur -- it can be not only good, but also profoundly pragmatic to seize the moral high ground. Because, over the long run, your nation will face more allies, instead of enemies or fence-sitting neutrals, if it is trusted, admired, and liked.

Do not let neocons get away with cynical shrugs (“who cares what foreigners think?”) We should all care, because nowadays. world popularity translates into power. We all saw this in the early nineties, when folk in Eastern Europe bravely told their communist masters “Either let us join NATO and the West, or shoot us!” They would never have done that, forcing the Cold War’s end game, if they thought that East and West were morally equivalent.

Would the Founding Fathers agree with my view, that it matters what the world thinks? Just re-read the very first sentence of the Declaration of Independence. The part that declares a solemn and basic duty to pay “a decent respect for the opinions of mankind...”

Moreover, this abrogation of our nation’s paramount moral standing (as we saw in Part One) has not only harmed us at a diplomatic and strategic level. It also has devastating effects on a smaller, tactical scale.

Suppose that last resort measures like torture are truly reserved for super-rare and desperate occasions -- at the level of top spies and secret agents -- the way our government operated, by bipartisan consensus, for generations. Then further suppose that, as far as the battlefield is concerned, our soldiers in the field are trained to try -- whenever possible -- to fight with honor and obey the Laws of War, including fair treatment of prisoners. Does this hamper or help the soldiers, over the long run?

Ask any experienced warrior, what kind of victory is best. He will say that he prefers a foe who surrenders, over one who fights to the death. And enemies are more likely to lay down their arms if they confidently expect to be treated well, not subjected to Guantanamo water-boarding.

Over any span of time, tactical or strategic, decent, grownup and principled behavior is not only the higher moral path, it is also the practical road, leading to better long term results.

Yes, this is a statement that many neoconservatives would call sappy or naive. Witness how all but one of the present Republican presidential candidates claimed to be more eager to use torture than the others. (An ends-justify-the-means attitude to which Stalin, also, prescribed.) The words “last resort” were never used.

But we all know those words ought to be used. By adults.

* The Generals Agree

Want an example? Across several years, I’ve spoken repeatedly about how the United States Officer Corps is the third-best-educated clade in America today, just after college professors and medical doctors. Their dedication to skill, responsibility and strict attention to lawful process is matched by a level of scholarship that most civilians would find surprising. Senior leaders know an awful lot about history, about the world and its dangers. And this depth of knowledge gives them perspective on the pragmatic benefits of ethical behavior.

Moreover, a great many of our senior officers are worried. Not only about the ongoing political purge of their ranks and physical destruction of the Army (we’ll get to those), but also about a steady sliming of the honor of the armed forces.

Let me illustrate with a recent excerpt, describing one soldier who stood up: "This past November, U.S. Army Brigadier General Patrick Finnegan, the dean of the United States Military Academy at West Point, flew to Southern California to meet with the creative team behind the hit TV show 24. Finnegan, who was accompanied by three of the most experienced military and F.B.I. interrogators in the country, arrived on the set as the crew was filming.... (They) had come to voice their concern that the show's central political premise—that the letter of American law must be sacrificed for the country's security—was having a toxic effect. In their view, the show promoted unethical and illegal behavior and had adversely affected the training and performance of real American soldiers. "I'd like them to stop," Finnegan said of the show's producers. "They should do a show where torture backfires."

(A cynical aside: how long, do you think, before Finnegan is purged, just like scores of other flag officers, whose only crime was to be grownups, at a time when they are bullied by political brats and? And how long shall we have to wait before Democrats, liberals and moderates realize that this is the issue? One that could rouse "ostrich Republicans" and tear apart Karl Rove's Big Tent coalition?)

* But should we be surprised?

After all, this is the same list of names -- Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and so on -- that committed the ignominious Shame of 1991, deliberately leaving Saddam Hussein with his boot on the necks of the Iraqi people, just days after Bush Sr. had gone on radio, personally, asking that the people rise up in rebellion, because we’re on our way. Gen. Schwarzkopf could have -- with 12 more hours -- liberated most of southern Iraq, leaving Saddam isolated and penniless, in a rump state without oil. Simply by offering southern Shiites the same protection we were already giving the Kurds - and going nowhere near Baghdad - Bush Sr.’s promise would have been kept, instead of betrayed, in one of the worst stains on American honor in our lifetimes.

Instead we had to come back 12 years later, squandering our boys and girls, our treasury and our alliances, in order to fix a festering sore of hatred that was in large part of our own making.

All of which prompts the question, was there ever a time when these people did anything right? (Certainly not if we go back even farther in time, when the same list of names were among Saddam’s best pals, and sent arms and training money to ... Osama bin Laden.)

No, we should not be surprised. We should wake up. We should take our soldiers, sailors, airmen, reservists and marines out of the hands of blustering brat-amateurs who treat those fine men and women like toys.

So far, we’ve dealt with stupid, impractical and immoral stains upon our honor. In part 3 we’ll move on to crimes against the U.S. military that are even worse.

==Continue to Part 3

or return to Part 1 of this series

The Real War of G.W. Bush -- Against the U.S. Military

One of the key points I keep trying to raise is that our core problem is not the War in Iraq, per se.

The real issue people should be talking about is what is being done to America. A nation that has been -- and remains -- historically vastly more important to the future of our descendants, and humanity in general. A country and civilization that is steadily being diminished, crippled, robbed and distracted. Not by a party or a movement, but by a bona fide criminal gang.

We need to remember that the Iraq war is a horror, but its core effect has been to divide, corrupt, cheat, demoralize and steal from the people of the United States.

This time, specifically, I want to aim at one aspect of the betrayal of America. One that I was among the very first (anywhere!) to point out, as long ago as 2004...

... that the number one accomplishment of the Bush Administration has been the partial-destruction of the United States military. Accompanied by (in some ways even worse) a near-complete demolition of its hardwon reputation for overwhelming invincibility.

This problem lies not only at the feet of the mad, neocon right, but also on some bad habits that Bush opponents have to break. It will be impossible for liberals to deal with the devastation of the Bush Era, if they nurse even a scintilla of simplistic hostility toward our men and women in uniform. That silly reflex is not only inaccurate and unjust -- picking on the wrong target -- but also self-defeating. We need these people. They are the Bushites’ worst victims.

Moreover, they are a large part of our hope, for the restoration of a lawful, constitutional and confident American Republic.

* But first, some preliminary data dumps.

One of you wrote in about an article in this month’s Rolling Stone "The great Iraq Swindle," covering a topic I have long spoken-of - that the Iraq incursion features truly vast amounts of contractor graft and corruption. So much that theft from the US taxpayer may plausibly have been one of the principal drivers of the entire misguided campaign.

Consider that our ongoing “Mess o’ Potamia” never followed the standard leftist scenario preached by Michael Moore and others, of being "about grabbing oil."

What oil? Do you see any Iraqi oil on the market? Standard left-wing excuses -- that the Bushites simply botched the oil grab -- look tired, after so many years. Especially since the FOBs (friends of Bush) have proved stunningly competent at getting rich off this war, by other means. (Indeed, keeping Iraqi oil OFF the market serves the desire of the world’s very top FOBs.)

No, the swindle is simple. In a "war" or "emergency," normal competitive contracting rules can be thrown away, enabling a Decider Presidency (look up "autarchy") to privatize anything it wants, any way it wants, and hand deals to its favorite, family friends.

Note that defenders of privatization do not even try any longer to justify it as "more efficient," since it takes four times as much (on average) to pay contractors in Iraq to accomplish nothing, as it took soldiers and civil servants.

This is one of a dozen issues that would let Democrats attack the Bushites from a conservative perspective, awakening “ostrich Republicans” and tearing apart Karl Rove's Big Tent coalition. That is, if any of the dems had enough savvy to look at the big picture.

-------
Here is sad and worrisome news. Two US soldiers who helped write an article from the front saying America had "failed on every promise" in the Iraq war have been killed in Baghdad. Staff Sergeant Yance Gray, 26, and Sergeant Omar Mora, 28, were among a group of seven soldiers serving in Iraq who wrote a piece excoriating America's conduct of the war, published in The New York Times last month. ... Their public criticism caused a flurry of debate in the US because of the candor with which the men, all serving in the elite 82nd Airborne, described the war. "Four years into our occupation, we have failed on every promise," the seven wrote. "When the primary preoccupation of average Iraqis is when and how they are likely to be killed, we can hardly feel smug as we hand out care packages."

------
View Keith Olbermann’s latest “J’accuse” polemic toward the Gang of Crooks and Liars.

* And now, on to the main part of this missive.

To reiterate, our main focus here concerns the number one accomplishment of the Bush Administration -- the ongoing demolition of the United States military.

...accompanied by (in some ways even worse) a near-complete evaporation of its hardwon reputation for overwhelming invincibility.

* The illusion is as important as the substance

Let there be no mistake. When it comes to practical politics in a dangerous world, these two things -- both actual and real power -- are equally important. For perception often guides what others do. Indeed, as recently as 2002, it seemed that the US military services could do nothing wrong. That their skills and equipment and elan were so far ahead of any possible combination of foes, that any future adversaries would have to act against us in secret, or not at all.

This impression was doubly reinforced after stunning military (though not political) success in the first Gulf War (1991), followed by almost perfect execution of skilled diplomacy and policy in the Balkans Intervention. (All stated goals were achieved within weeks, at zero cost in US lives, clear exit strategies were followed to the letter, all “nation building” chores were delegated to others, readiness and budgets were unaffected and our popularity in the Muslim world went up.)

Moreover, if anyone was still unconvinced of US prowess, there came 9/11, followed by our swift intervention in Afghanistan when President GW Bush said “Go!” to an existing Clinton-Clark plan - one that hewed closely to the Powell Doctrine of professionalism, intense diplomacy and selective application of overwhelming (if surgical) force.

If Osama’s ultimate 9/11 plan was (according to many experts) to draw us into the Kush Mountains’ killing zone, where he had already helped to humble one superpower, he was shocked and bitterly disappointed when the US led a coordinated campaign, combining local forces with air power and extensive local expertise, swiftly eliminated the Taliban regime that had succored bin Laden. An entire enemy regime toppled - fair enough retaliation for 9/11... and Osama was running for his life.

And all of these successes (since 1992) were accomplished without any truly substantial stains upon our nation’s or the military’s honor. (Indeed, at that point -- with the Taliban toppled -- shouldn’t we all have been allowed to get back to our lives? Would not that have been the ultimate punishment of terrorists?)

At this point, there also seemed to be a peak in international acceptance of unipolarity... the notion that having just one superpower is a good thing. Despite some gnashing of teeth in Moscow, Paris and Beijing, very few other nations sent delegates to meetings on the topic “what shall be done about America?” We were that popular. That strong. And apparently that unbeatable.

Only now... where is that reputation?

Reiterating: even if you put aside all the unnecessary death and theft and incompetence and immorality of recent years, you would still be left with a Bush Administration that has squandered and spoiled something both pragmatic and precious -- an appearance of invincibility that helped to keep the peace, better than whole divisions.

Now that inestimable aura is gone. Ask anyone, around the world, what their perception is, of a US Army that flounders, mired up to its neck in a quagmire of confusion, sloppy waste, plummeting morale and blurry goals. Is our current reputation an effective deterrent? Or does it encourage others to restore a multipolar, militarily competitive world?

Even (especially) American conservatives should find this a case of utter - and possibly criminal - betrayal of leadership.

A multi-part series on the GOP vs. the U.S. Military:
Next time... Part 2: But it Gets Even Worse: Neocons vs. the U.S. Military
Part 3: Destroying Readiness
Part 4: Botching Both Kinds of War
Part 5: Let the Excuses Roll!
Part 6: Purging the Officer Corps
and More on the War Against Professionalism in Government

==Also see: How Republicans and Democrats wage war

A Top Capitalist Speaks About War and America

Time to upset some stereotypes. Let me quote extensively from a recent interview, given at the recent FiRe FiVe Conference (Future In REview) where I am a yearly guest speaker. These words are from Robert Hormats, of Goldman Sachs International, discussing his new book The Price of Liberty - Paying For America’s Wars...

HORMATS: The title comes from Alexander Hamilton. After the American Revolution, the government – the Continental Congress – had accumulated a lot of debt. The states had accumulated debt. Some of that debt was to foreigners, and Hamilton concluded, with some degree of opposition from others [who believed] that perhaps we shouldn’t pay that debt, Hamilton said we should definitely pay the debt because we need to establish the credit-worthiness of the new country, and because critically important to the success of the U.S. during the Revolution was the ability to borrow from abroad, particularly from France and the Netherlands.

If there were to be another war – which was widely anticipated at the time – the view was that we’d have to borrow again and we would have to go to those same creditors to get the money, and therefore we needed to repay the first war debt in order to borrow again, were there to be another war. And that tradition of borrowing during wars and paying down wartime debt very quickly afterwards really was a key element of American financial policy up until the 1960s. So that was really one point: you had to borrow during a war, but pay it down as quickly as you can. Fiscal responsibility. Because it was seen as not just important for financial stability, but for national security as well.

And the second point that comes through this book, throughout, is that war financing is not just about raising money, it’s about engaging Americans in the war effort. When American troops are fighting abroad, Americans should be making sacrifices at home to support them. In World War I, the treasury secretary, whose name was McAdoo, called it “capitalizing patriotism.”

During World War II, Roosevelt explains to Americans, several days after Pearl Harbor, that war costs money – that means taxes and bonds, bonds and taxes; it means sacrifices from all Americans. And I think that engagement of Americans behind their troops in the war effort has been very important in mobilizing support within the country for what’s going on abroad, so that you don’t have the soldiers fighting on one side and Americans going about their ordinary business and not paying taxes, not making any sacrifices back home.

The great leaders have been very upfront and candid about what war costs, even though the amounts are very high and people don’t particularly want to pay higher taxes – many of them don’t want to buy war bonds, many of them didn’t like the sacrifice of World War II, where they had wage and price controls, and rationing. People didn’t like that. But when their leaders told them it was important for the interests of the country, they went along. If you don’t lead by bold presentation….

(Hormats goes on to describe the myriad ways in which the GW Bush administration has broken with this tradition of frankness and persuaded sacrifice. Concentrating on the fical end - the right wing mania to avoid taxes even while they declare our nation in danger - he does not mention another aspect. The fact that other wars beconed millions of young men to their local recruiting stations. But few are swallowing the “emergency” bait for this one. Despite lowering recruit standards and offering $20,000 signup bonuses, the Army cannot meet its goals.)

...
And the tragedy is, who sacrifices? The troops. The troops don’t get proper body armor. They don’t get proper armaments for their Humvees. Their families back home, many of them have to go on welfare. And as we’ve seen, they don’t get, in some cases, proper care after the war if they’re wounded. And a lot of the Homeland Security things that we should have done – increase public health services, police, firemen – that’s just not done. So, we didn’t establish the correct priorities, we didn’t have a national dialogue, and we’ve sidestepped tough issues. You can’t do that forever in a democracy; you need people who are educated about the issues. You need the American people to have a dialogue with them, and in past wars they’ve done this, but in this one they have not.


...
If there were to be a tragedy, if there were to be a terrorist attack… In 9/11 we had a budget surplus; we were not nearly as dependent on foreign capital. Today, we have budget deficit. The next decade we’re going to have big budget deficits as a result of entitlements, and we’re going to be far more dependent on foreign capital because our savings rate is so low. And that might not be there, or if it’s there it might require very high-risk premiums. So, our lack of sound fiscal policy, which is going to be a big problem in the next decade, is going to constitute both a financial vulnerability and perhaps a national security vulnerability. I think that’s the short story of a long pitch for the book.

...
You need intelligence. You need to have a better education system so people abroad understand what we’re trying to do, and basically you need to have alliances. I mean, the interesting juxtaposition here is the alliance Bush put together for the first Gulf War – the first Bush and the first Gulf War – it had Muslim countries in it, it had other countries contributing, because there was a genuine feeling of working together for a common good. This war... There is really, it’s really a phony alliance. No one’s given us any money. There are no Muslim countries.



Wow. May I remind folks that all of this is coming from a paramount capitalist? In the ultra meaning of that word, a man who lives and breathes what Karl Marx called the process of capital formation through a combination of asset allocation, financial deal-making and entrepeneurialism?

One more piece of evidence that this present crisis has nothing at all to do with the hoary and outmoded and silly so-called “left-right political axis.” Nearly all of the smartest and best capitalists hate the Bush Administration (I know one or two exceptions, Texans all)... as do nearly all of the smartest generals and admirals.... and FBI guys and members of the Intelligence community. A horde of people in crewcuts who were lifelong Republicans, are hearing the whirring, spinning sound of Barry Goldwater, spinning in his grave. Many ostriches are lifting their heads.

Will the democrats... ANY democrats... lift THEIR heads enough to realize the opportunity that this offers? To not only defeat the neocons, but repudiate them, forever? So that they cannot retrench and come roaring back with fresh doses of “culture war”?

This is vital especially to candidates like Hillary and Barak. If they want the presidency to be worth more than a bucket of spit, when they hold it, they must deal with culture war NOW. The only way to do that is to make the issue NOT Iraq, or any liberal agenda item.

The issue has to be America.