There are many reasons for this state of affairs. Our civilian
leaders encourage us to be deferential toward our latest
commander/savior, whether Tommy Franks in
2003, David
Petraeus in 2007, or Stanley
McChrystal in 2010. Our media employs retired
officers, most of them multi-starred generals, in a search for
expertise that ends in an unconditional surrender to military agendas. A
cloud of secrecy and “black budgets” combine to obscure military
matters, ranging from global strategy to war goals to weapons
procurement. The taxpayer, forced to pony up about
one trillion dollars yearly to fund our military, national security
infrastructure, and wars, is sent a simple message: stay clear and
leave it to the experts in uniform.
The powerlessness of ordinary Americans in military matters is no
accident. Recall the one-word
reply -- “So?” -- Dick Cheney offered in March 2008, when asked to
comment on popular opposition to the war in Iraq. The former vice
president was certainly far blunter than Washington usually is, and for
that we may owe him a measure of thanks. By highlighting the arrogant
dismissiveness of Washington’s warrior-elite when it comes to American
public opinion, he revealed more than he intended.
Time for Vatican II at the Pentagon
If military power is the church at which we worship and the Pentagon
is our American Vatican, then it is desperately in need of the
equivalent of Vatican II
which, in the early 1960s, opened the Catholic Church to greater
participation by the laity, a vitally important change in ethos.
Instead of continuing to pray at the altar of their particular services,
we need our Pentagon “priests” to turn to the laity -- us -- and seek
our input and sanction. Instead of preaching in unintelligible
Pentagonese, with its indecipherable acronyms, secret doctrines, and
spidery codenames, it’s long past time for them to talk to us in a
language that reasonably informed adults can understand.
Think about this: last year, our country held innumerable public
hearings on health-care reform. Congress continues to fight about it.
It’s constant news. There’s a debate alive in the land. All this for a
program that, in ten years, will cost the American people as much as
defense and homeland security cost in a single year.
Yet runaway
defense budgets get passed each year without a single “town hall”
meeting, next to no media coverage, and virtually no debate in
Congress. Indeed, you’d think each Pentagon budget was an ex
cathedra pronouncement, given the way Congress genuflects before
them and Americans accept them without so much as a peep of protest.
Those “Crazy” Kiwis
Imagine, for a moment, if Pentagon officials, supposedly toiling in
our name, actually condescended to ask us for our thoughts. What do we
think about global military strategy, garrisoning the planet, the ways
in which our forces are structured, and how, where, and for what they
should be deployed abroad?
Sound
crazy? Here in the U.S.A. it most distinctly does, but not to the
citizens of New Zealand. A Kiwi friend of mine recently sent me
“Defence Review 2009,” a publication of New Zealand’s Ministry of
Defence (MoD). And catch this: it includes a survey soliciting the
advice of ordinary New Zealanders with respect to military affairs. It
actually asks for the counsel of civilians on a “top ten” list of
questions whose topics are remarkably comprehensive, including what the
priorities of the country’s Defence Force should be, both now and in the
future. Citizens can even present their views on military matters at a
public hearing attended by MoD representatives, all in the name of
public consultation. And the Defence Minister responds
to the people in clear English sans the cobwebs of jargon that
typically entangle our military pronouncements.
In case you haven’t noticed, here in the U.S.A., requests from the
Pentagon for citizen feedback aren’t flooding our email boxes. So I
thought -- since no one in that five-sided fortress on the Potomac has
asked a thing of me -- the least I could do was ask a few questions on
my own. Here, then, is my own top-five list of questions that we, the
American people, should ask the Pentagon, even if none of its officials
want to hear from us. Maybe they’re a tad more pointed than those in
the Kiwi survey, but that shouldn’t be surprising. After all, they’ve
been a long time in coming.
1. Our military is supposed to be a means to an
end: national security. Due to its immense size and colossal budget,
has our military not become an end as well as means?
2. In World War II, Americans could explain “Why We Fight” in
part because the government provided a clear and compelling rationale
for war. Why are the goals of today’s wars so opaque to most Americans?
3. If our military provides us with our way of
“nation building” abroad, won’t countries and peoples be more likely to
copy our military ways and weaponry than our democratic teachings?
4. America is facing painful budgetary belt
tightening. Why is the military immune?
5. Why does “support our troops” seemingly end
when they leave the service, leading us to tolerate such inequities as
an unemployment
rate of 21% for young veterans?
Keep in mind that there are 10, 20, 30 more questions where those
five came from -- and our military badly needs to hear and respond to
them all.
Every recruit is taught to stretch, to go the extra mile, to push
until you can go no further. Our military needs some stretching and
push-back: this time, from us. Unfortunately, most of us don’t think
our opinions matter when it comes to our military -- unless, that is,
they consist solely of slavish adoration. The fact is most of us are
detached from military affairs precisely because we know in our hearts
that the Pentagon serves its own needs, that it may be interested in
listening in on us, but certainly not in listening to
us.
Challenge the Pentagon Church Militant
Kiwis have the reputation of being practical types with an admirable
dash of humility, and I like to think that their Ministry of Defence
solicits the views of its citizenry not just because it’s required by
statute, but because their officials don’t believe they have a monopoly
on good ideas.
Perhaps the MoD recognizes as well the difficulty military
professionals have in thinking outside the box. Despite its gargantuan
size and its endless advisory committees and boards, our Department of
Defense is, in essence, a well-insulated church of likeminded believers,
administered by tightly-wound power-brokers. It sees the world only as
an arena of, and for, conflict. Wherever it looks, even within its own
ranks, it sees rivals and enemies. It cannot help dividing the world
into believers and heretics, friends and foes.
And it’s true that the world is a dangerous place. The problem is:
the Pentagon is part of that danger. Our military has grown so
strong and so dominates our government, including its foreign
policy and even aspects of our culture, that there’s no effective
counterweight to its closeted, conflict-centered style of thinking.
In fact, the Pentagon’s heft gives new meaning to the term “full
spectrum dominance” and helps explain the lack of change in war
policy since the 2008 elections. A vote that constituted an
unmistakable call to end our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan -- and so
lessen the military’s influence -- has led only to fresh war “surges”
and mushrooming Pentagon budgets. And yet, as the Pentagon charges
forward, debate is nearly nonexistent and Congress can muster just
65 votes for a resolution to curtail the endless conflict in
Afghanistan.
It’s shameful that only a so-called far left congressman like Dennis
Kucinich has enough sense (and guts) to insist on Congressional debate
about our forever-war in Afghanistan. Equally shameful: that Congress
allotted only three hours to that debate on matters of life, death, and
even financial well-being. Do we really need reminding that debate
makes democracy stronger? Evidently so. Take it from me as a retired
Air Force officer: our troops won’t be demoralized by more debate and
greater citizen participation.
Let’s face it, all of this represents a long-term sea change in
American consciousness. Sadly, the old idea of the citizen army is
dead, and because of this, most of us lack any direct connection to the
military (and seemingly could care less). In the name of safety,
security, and solidarity, we’ve buttoned our lips. We worship, but
don’t partake.
Centuries from now, historians will look back on American history and
wonder how so many gave away so much to so few. It should be our right
to have a say in what defines the “defense” of our country. That right
has been surrendered to the few. Our future may depend on genuine
input from the many.
How about it? Are you ready to challenge the Pentagon church
militant? Or are you content to mouth the usual catechism, while
continuing to dump billions each week into the collection basket?
Citizens of courage will surely choose the path of challenge.
William J. Astore is a retired lieutenant colonel (USAF) and
TomDispatch regular. He currently teaches history at the Pennsylvania
College of Technology and may be reached at wastore@pct.edu.
Copyright 2010 William J. Astore
