Here are some macro ideas and thoughts about America’s latest war of choice with Iran:
1. It’s a war so call it that. It’s not “strikes” or “major combat operations.”
2. It’s an unconstitutional, illegal, immoral, and potentially escalatory war.
3. The war has no clear objective other than decapitation of the Iranian leadership (achieved?) and installation of a new regime that will play ball with USA/Israel. That latter outcome is extremely unlikely.
4. It’s a war for Israel to advance its regional hegemony.
5. In the main, the war is neither supported nor understood by the American people. That fact doesn’t seem to matter to the Trump administration.
6. For all those involved, the war will prove increasingly expensive in blood and treasure.
7. Recklessly begun, the war is utterly unpredictable in its final outcomes.
8. The war does not serve the national defense interests of the U.S., as Iran posed no imminent threat to U.S. national security.
9. With no clear Congressional mandate, the war lacks the critical support of the American people. Again, the Trump administration remains unconcerned here.
10. For these reasons, among others, there should be an immediate ceasefire followed by negotiations, leading to discussion of war reparations to be paid by the aggressors. (This scenario, I realize, is unlikely in the extreme.)
Yesterday, I went on “Judging Freedom” with Judge Andrew Napolitano to discuss the Iran War.
As I said to the Judge, I am still confused about America’s true rationale, its intent, and its goals, and I have no clear idea of how this war is going to proceed, let alone end. War is inherently unpredictable, much like fire. Trying to predict its path of destruction, what it will burn and what it will leave behind, and when it will end, is nearly impossible. We must work to contain and extinguish this new fire in the Middle East before it becomes an inferno that engulfs even wider areas, leading to yet more innocents dead.
I woke to the news that Israel/USA is launching attacks (New York Times) and strikes (NBC News) against Iran. The BBC used “joint attack” for the Israeli/U.S. war plan. Three sources, and all three avoiding that useful descriptive word, war.
I suppose Mr. Trump doesn’t have to ask Congress for a declaration of war since it’s not a war—it’s just attacks or strikes or “major combat operations,” as Trump said today.
“All I want is freedom for the [Iranian] people,” Trump also said. Once again, “freedom” is synonymous with war and death.
So perhaps Orwell had it wrong. It’s not war is peace; it’s war is freedom.
It’s funny: I’m listening to ABC News and they keep using the words “strike” or “joint strike” or “preemptive strike.” Or even “larger-scale strike.” Trump sees it as a “noble mission,” but not apparently a Nobel Peace Prize one.
So many lies, so much dishonesty, so much illegality.
Grim times.
If you can stand it, here’s Trump talking about Iran’s terror. Iran has “soaked the earth with blood and guts,” so he claims. I’m glad the USA is innocent of death and violence. No blood and guts from our military “strikes.”
It’s not a war. It’s just “strikes” or “attacks” or something
So remember America: Don’t speak of war. You have no say anyway. Just sit back and watch the strikes and attacks ordered by two paragons of virtue, Bibi Netanyahu and Donald Trump.
Update (2/28, Noonish)
The words of James Madison resonate here:
Of all the enemies of true 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 debt 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 manner and of morals, engendered in both. No nation can preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare …
Allegedly, we’re bombing for freedom in Iran, even as freedom in America vanishes. Is it time to drop “freedom” bombs on ourselves?
Ask Americans (or any other people) being bombed if they think it’s conducive to greater freedom.
If you’re looking to “your” military to resist wrongful wars, you’re looking in the wrong place.
I should know. I was still on active duty in 2003 during the run-up to the disastrous Iraq War. What I remember was a sense of inevitability. The Bush/Cheney administration obviously wanted a settling of accounts with Saddam Hussein, and the war was going to happen irrespective of diplomatic efforts. One clear sign was that the good-faith efforts of weapons inspectors were discarded in a rush to war.
I did not speak out against the Iraq War until 2007 (I retired in 2005). Some profile in courage!
As I’ve commented here, “It’s not easy for us military lifers to get a grip on organizational betrayal because we’re part of the organization–our identities and ideals are linked to it. We are too close–we are reluctant to believe we’re being misled by lies spread from the very top of the pyramid.”
I submit this as a partial explanation, not as an excuse. Within the military, there’s a strong emphasis on staying in your lane. Do your job. Leave the decisions to the higher-ups. They have the intelligence, not you. Yours not to reason why … yours but to do and die.
History indicates that dissent within any military will be tightly constrained. And of course the U.S. military, if necessary, will use the UCMJ (uniform code of military justice) to imprison and otherwise to silence those who represent a threat to “good order and discipline.”
A separate question is this: How does a rebellious military even work? Alternatively, if a military is a hotbed of dissent and rebellion, it suggests a dishonest war and poor leadership as well. Are we headed in that direction now with respect to Iran? Are we already there? Perhaps this is one reason why there’s so much talk of “warriors” today in the U.S. military–the idea our soldiers fight as mercenaries for the thrill of it, not because they’re citizen-soldiers upholding the Constitution.
*****
Let’s be blunt: We are not supposed to go to war based on presidential whims, pressure from foreign powers like Israel, corporate profits, imperial dominance, and similar imperatives. Only Congress has the power to declare war in the name of the American people. But ever since World War II, Congress has been shunted aside by the National Security State. A few members of Congress may protest, but Congress writ large has abdicated its responsibility over war. This is perhaps the leading reason why we fight wrongful wars.
Another reason is our poor choice of leaders. Donald Trump spoke plainly early in 2016 that he believed the military should and would follow his orders irrespective of their legality. Trump believes he is not constrained by the U.S. Constitution, that his orders are the law. He should have been disqualified from running for office when he admitted he saw himself as being above the law; instead, he was elected and reelected.
And, let’s face it, “our” government treats we the people like mushrooms, keeping us in the dark while feeding us bullshit. Along with being actively misled, warmongers like Dick Cheney simply don’t care what the people think. As Cheney infamously replied when he was told the American people were losing faith in the Iraq War: “So?” Who cares? America’s leaders don’t care what you think. They don’t require your approval—only your obedience.
Finally, we the people, writ large, have acquiesced in the construction of a U.S. military machine based on global reach, global power, and full-spectrum dominance. We’ve “invested” gargantuan sums to create a military machine of great enormity. A military machine that we hold in high esteem. There will always be a temptation to use that machine, to see every problem as a Gordian knot that can be easily cut by our well-honed military saber.
To come back to the U.S. military: First, troops are trained to obey, not so much educated to think, and they certainly aren’t encouraged to disobey. Pilots want to be the best pilots they can be; maintainers want to be skilled maintainers; and so on. Sergeants and lieutenants leave bigger questions to their COs, their commanding officers. This is how militaries have worked for millennia.
The harsh realities of war
*****
Again, I write this as a partial explanation about why we wage wrongful wars. It’s not meant as an excuse.
Ten years ago, I wrote an article for TomDispatch on why it’s so difficult for military members to speak out, even against illegal wars. (And who’s to say what is illegal?) Here’s an excerpt from that article:
Leaving military insularity, unit loyalty, and the pressure of combat aside, however, here are seven other factors I’ve witnessed, which combine to inhibit dissent within military circles.
1. Careerism and ambition: The U.S. military no longer has potentially recalcitrant draftees — it has “volunteers.” Yesteryear’s draftees were sometimes skeptics; many just wanted to endure their years in the military and get out. Today’s volunteers are usually believers; most want to excel. Getting a reputation for critical comments or other forms of outspokenness generally means not being rewarded with fast promotions and plum assignments. Career-oriented troops quickly learn that it’s better to fail upwards quietly than to impale yourself on your sword while expressing honest opinions. If you don’t believe me, ask all those overly decorated generals of our failed wars you see on TV.
2. Future careerism and ambition: What to do when you leave the military? Civilian job options are often quite limited. Many troops realize that they will be able to double or triple their pay, however, if they go to work for a defense contractor, serving as a military consultant or adviser overseas. Why endanger lucrative prospects (or even your security clearance, which could be worth tens of thousands of dollars to you and firms looking to hire you) by earning a reputation for being “difficult”?
3. Lack of diversity: The U.S. military is not blue and red and purple America writ small; it’s a selective sampling of the country that has already winnowed out most of the doubters and rebels. This is, of course, by design. After Vietnam, the high command was determinednever to have such a wave of dissent within the ranks again and in this (unlike so much else) they succeeded. Think about it: between “warriors” and citizen-soldiers, who is more likely to be tractable and remain silent?
4. A belief that you can effect change by working quietly from within the system: Call it the Harold K. Johnson effect. Johnson was an Army general during the Vietnam War who considered resigning in protest over what he saw as a lost cause. He decided against it, wagering that he could better effect change while still wearing four stars, a decision he later came deeply to regret. The truth is that the system has time-tested ways of neutralizing internal dissent, burying it, or channeling it and so rendering it harmless.
5. The constant valorization of the military: Ever since 9/11, the gushing pro-military rhetoric of presidents and other politicians has undoubtedly served to quiet honest doubts within the military. If the president and Congress think you’re the best military ever, a force for human liberation, America’s greatest national treasure, who are you to disagree, Private Schmuckatelli?
America used to think differently. Our founders considered a standing army to be a pernicious threat to democracy. Until World War II, they generally preferred isolationism to imperialism, though of course many were eager to take land from Native Americans and Mexicans while double-crossing Cubans, Filipinos, and other peoples when it came to their independence. If you doubt that, just read War is a Racket by Smedley Butler, a Marine general in the early decades of the last century and two-time recipient of the Medal of Honor. In the present context, think of it this way: democracies should see a standing military as a necessary evil, and military spending as a regressive tax on civilization — as President Dwight D. Eisenhower famously did when he compared such spending to humanity being crucified on a cross of iron.
Chanting constant hosannas to the troops and telling them they’re the greatest ever— remember the outcry against Muhammad Ali when, with significantly more cause, he boasted that he was the greatest? — may make our military feel good, but it won’t help them see their flaws, nor us as a nation see ours.
6. Loss of the respect of peers: Dissent is lonely. It’s been more than a decade since my retirement and I still hesitate to write articles like this. (It’s never fun getting hate mail from people who think you’re un-American for daring to criticize any aspect of the military.) Small wonder that critics choose to keep their own counsel while they’re in the service.
7. Even when you leave the military, you never truly leave: I haven’t been on a military base in years. I haven’t donned a uniform since my retirement ceremony in 2005. Yet occasionally someone will call me “colonel.” It’s always a reminder that I’m still “in.” I may have left the military behind, but it never left me behind. I can still snap to attention, render a proper salute, recite my officer’s oath from memory.
In short, I’m not a former but a retired officer. My uniform may be gathering dust in the basement, but I haven’t forgotten how it made me feel when I wore it. I don’t think any of us who have served ever do. That strong sense of belonging, that emotional bond, makes you think twice before speaking out. Or at least that’s been my experience. Even as I call for more honesty within our military, more bracing dissent, I have to admit that I still feel a residual sense of hesitation. Make of that what you will.
Bonus Reason: Troops are sometimes reluctant to speak out because they doubt Americans will listen, or if they do, empathize and understand. It’s one thing to vent your frustrations in private among friends on your military base or at the local VFW hall among other veterans. It’s quite another to talk to outsiders. War’s sacrifices and horrors are especially difficult to convey and often traumatic to relive. Nevertheless, as a country, we need to find ways to encourage veterans to speak out and we also need to teach ourselves how to listen — truly listen — no matter the harshness of what they describe or how disturbed what they actually have to say may make us feel.
My fellow Americans, it’s nice to think we have a semblance of a constitutional republic, but that warship has sailed. This time, to Iran.
*****
This AM, I read an interesting story on the Supreme Court’s repeal of Trump’s tariffs. Justice Neil Gorsuch made the point that his fellow justices’ interpretation of the law often changes based on whether the president is a Republican or Democrat. This, to state the obvious, is not how the law is supposed to work.
*****
Years ago, I spied a bumper sticker that read: “I’m already against the next war.” It’s on my mind again.
******
I’ll support a war when Hollywood celebrities and sports stars willingly enlist. And when the sons and daughters of presidents and senators and CEOs happily join them in the ranks.
*****
Do you think it’s a coincidence that Bibi Netanyahu keeps visiting the White House even as the Trump administration prepares for yet another war in the Middle East?
*****
A great book for this moment is “Deadly Betrayal: The Truth About Why the United States Invaded Iraq” (2024) by Dennis Fritz. Fritz, a retired AF command chief master sergeant, was in the halls of power when the Bush/Cheney administration decided to invade Iraq in 2003. He identifies three main reasons for the Iraq War fiasco: U.S. leaders’ concerns about “credibility” and the perpetual fear of being perceived as “weak”; serving the security needs of Israel, especially by weakening Hamas and Hezbollah together with Iraq; and neocon fever dreams of imperial dominance in the Middle East connected to the control of oil.
In his conclusion, Fritz is scathingly blunt:
More than 4,500 [U.S. troops] made the ultimate sacrifice, and 100,000 have been wounded for life. There were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Saddam Hussein posed no threat to our national security. The Iraq War wasn’t an honest mistake. It was a calculated lie—a deadly betrayal. Our service members were used as pawns by the government to fulfill an imperialist ideology. Their sacrifice had no basis in national defense. All Americans should be outraged, and we should never let this happen again. The troops didn’t even know why they were going to war.
It saddens me to think that Fritz may soon need to write “Deadly Betrayal II” about the forthcoming war with Iran.
In Israel, the two defense officials said that significant preparations were underway for the possibility of a joint strike with the United States, even though no decision has been made about whether to carry out such an attack. They said the planning envisions delivering a severe blow over a number of days with the goal of forcing Iran into concessions at the negotiating table that it has so far been unwilling to make.
The U.S. buildup suggests an array of possible Iranian targets, including short and medium range missiles, missile storage depots, nuclear sites and other military targets, such as headquarters of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps.
The ultimate decision on scope of targets is largely up to Mr. Trump, U.S. officials said.
Strangely, nowhere in this article is it mentioned that U.S. military attacks on Iran legally require a Congressional declaration of war. Apparently, it’s all up to Mr. Trump and Israel whether Iran gets hammered soon.
We the people have absolutely no say. The U.S. Constitution simply doesn’t matter.
Iran poses no direct threat to U.S. national security. There is no clear and present danger; no defensible reason to launch yet another attack on Iran. Yet it seems those attacks will soon be coming, as long as Israel has something to say about this (and that country most certainly does).
Why war with Iran? Apparently for “regime change,” apparently for the oil, and apparently for Israel.
A diplomatic settlement appears to be a long shot here. Perhaps more like a “Hail Mary” pass.
No matter how unconstitutional, no matter how unnecessary to national defense, war always seems to find a way. I sure hope I’m wrong here.
The Pentagon has failed eight consecutive financial audits. For decades it has been unable to account for trillions of dollars. It has not won a major war since World War II. That is not a record of excellence. It is a record of entrenched failure.
Naturally, President Trump’s answer is to give it another $500 billion in next year’s budget.
If enacted, that would drive annual U.S. military spending north of $1.5 trillion. The math is almost too neat: U.S. GDP hovers around $30 trillion; five percent of that is $1.5 trillion. Somewhere along the way, the arbitrary idea that “defense” spending should equal 5 percent of GDP hardened into dogma. A considered strategy no longer informs budgets. Arbitrary numerology does.
Did the Pentagon request an extra half-trillion dollars? No. Has the administration identified a new existential threat that requires it? No. There is no grand strategy unveiled to justify this “surge.” Just a number — large, round, politically expedient.
An institution that cannot pass an audit is not prepared to manage another half-trillion dollars. Pouring money into a system riddled with cost overruns, duplicated programs, and strategic confusion does not produce security. It produces contractors’ profits and future disasters.
Let’s be honest about what this really is. The national security state — the blob, the military-industrial-congressional-intelligence-media-academia-think tank complex — is already the most powerful force in Washington. When you add “defense,” nuclear weapons, intelligence, veterans’ programs, and homeland security, it consumes well over half of federal discretionary spending. It is the unofficial fourth branch of government, and arguably the first in power.
Few presidents confront it. Dwight D. Eisenhower warned about the military-industrial complex — and even he presided over huge Cold War budgets. John F. Kennedy spoke of peace while deepening involvement in Vietnam. Lyndon B. Johnson escalated that war catastrophically. Barack Obama accepted a Nobel Peace Prize and then defended the necessity of permanent American war. Presidents learn quickly: you appease the Pentagon or you risk political ruin.
And so Trump does what presidents do. Even as he talks of peace, he feeds the war machine.
We are told this is about safety. That peace comes only through overwhelming force. That America must dominate every domain — land, sea, air, space, cyberspace — indefinitely. That garrisoning the globe is synonymous with freedom. That “exceptional” nations do not generate blowback.
Yet two decades in Iraq and Afghanistan ended not in triumph but exhaustion and retreat. Each failure somehow justifies a larger budget. Nothing succeeds like failure.
In a functioning democracy, military spending would be tied to actual defense. It would be scrutinized, debated, constrained. Instead, military failure yields medals and ribbons. Audit failure yields budget growth. Strategic stalemate yields expansion. The larger the disappointment, the louder the demand for more money and authority.
When an institution grows more powerful no matter how poorly it performs, accountability has died. When elected officials dare not meaningfully challenge it, civilian control becomes theater. Call it what you will, but a republic that cannot rein in its military establishment is drifting toward a system where the sword outweighs the ballot and proves mightier than the pen.
As Joe Biden once said, “Show me your budget, and I’ll tell you what you value.” A $1.5 trillion military budget tells us that war — or at least preparation for it — sits at the center of national life.
Perhaps not so happy
On Presidents’ Day, it is worth recalling that George Washington surrendered military power to constitutional authority. That was the founding act of the republic. The test of any president is whether he sees himself as bound by law — or as a ruler who commands legions.
Empires require Caesars. Republics require restraint. The colossal size of Trump’s proposed war budget suggests which path he (and America) is choosing.
Hello Everyone: here’s an interview I did with Dick Price and Sharon Kyle at LA Progressive about why we can’t seem to heed Ike’s warning about the dangers of the military-industrial complex in 1961.
Other topics covered include sports and the military, Hollywood and the Pentagon, first-person shooter games, and toxic masculinity.
We also discuss what it would take to change America—to redirect energies dedicated to imperialism and war to democracy and peace. I say something here about idealism, a sign perhaps of my own naïveté.
You can have my ideals when you pry them from my cold dead brain.
I’ve been noticing a new word of the moment: “guardrails.” President Trump is smashing the guardrails of democracy. At the same time, new guardrails are the answer to ICE murders in Minneapolis, at least according to Chuck Schumer and Hakeem Jeffries.
New guardrails will stop ICE!
If guardrails are so easy for Trump to smash, how are new ones going to restrain the power of ICE and prevent abuses?
Remember when we used to talk about laws? That you had to obey the law of the land else be prosecuted for violating it? We need clear and enforceable laws and a system that upholds them, not more “guardrails.”
I suppose “guardrail” is a metaphor that’s easily understood—they help keep us on the road, right? Yet cars and trucks do smash through them, so are they really the answer to restraining Trump and ICE?
As Stephen Semler notes here, Schumer and Jeffries promote “guardrails” for ICE even as they propose to fully fund the agency, making it easy for ICE to say, sure, we’ll respect your guardrails even as they drive their SUVs and surplus military equipment through them.
America is supposed to be a nation of laws, not guardrails. If ICE and Trump are like out-of-control trucks, no metaphorical guardrail is going to restrain them. A strong Constitutional system upheld and enforced by officials of integrity and courage, however, could and should.
Who the hell wants to talk about genocide and man’s inhumanity to man?
I taught courses on the Holocaust, where I came across a two-volume encyclopedia of genocide (see list of references at the end). We humans have a remarkable record of killing each other (usually couched as killing the “other,” the “bad” people). That a two-volume encyclopedia of genocide exists says something truly horrendous about the human condition.
Far too often, a chosen people, a “master race,” decides to eliminate barbarians, inferiors, primitives, race enemies, whatever words are used to demonize other humans. Often, it’s said we must kill them before they kill us, so mass murder is defined and defended in terms of safety and security. The “bad” people force us to kill them. We don’t want to do it—they make us! And we hate them all the more for making us kill.
At the same time, mass murder is often quite profitable for the killers. In the Holocaust, the Nazis systematically stole everything from the Jews they were killing. They stole their houses and apartments, their businesses, their furniture, their jewelry, their clothing: everything they could get their greedy murderous hands on. In Gaza today and on the West Bank, we see Israel stealing land and most everything else from murdered and displaced Palestinians. The Israeli government justifies mass theft and mass death as a defensive war against barbaric terrorists, just as the Nazis saw themselves as being at war with inferior Jews and other racial undesirables like the gypsies.
The Nazis claimed the Jews were an existential threat to the “master race,” thus all Jews had to be killed, even women, children, and babies. The Israeli government claims Hamas is an existential threat to Jews and that all Palestinians are, more or less, members or supporters of Hamas and therefore must be eliminated (murdered or expelled). Women, children, babies: they’re all Hamas.
America has its own history of genocide. Various Native American peoples were murdered, shunted aside onto reservations, sent to “civilizing” schools that denied them their history and identity, most of their land stolen from them. This had to be done, the white man claimed, because the Indians were brutal savages, demonically so.
Today, there is great resistance (certainly among U.S. politicians) to the idea that Israel is conducting a genocide in Gaza. Most U.S. politicians prefer to think of it as a morally justifiable war against Hamas, and even if they don’t completely buy that, they give Israel everything it wants, weapons and money, to facilitate that genocide. Like Pontius Pilate, they wash their hands of blood shed in Gaza, blaming Hamas (or, perhaps for a few, quietly blaming Israel without daring to say it).
Anyhow, these musings came to me as I contemplated a short encyclopedia article I wrote on genocide about 25 years ago. What follows is that article.
GENOCIDE: Legal term coined in 1944 initially to define and condemn Nazi efforts to destroy, deliberately and systematically, Jews as well as Sinti and Roma (Gypsies) in the Holocaust. The term encompasses not only ethnic- and racially-motivated extermination but also cultural, national, and political. Although the term is fairly recent, genocidal practices are nearly as old as recorded history. Witness the Roman annihilation of Carthage at the end of the Third Punic War. Yet genocide as a category is usually applied to events of more recent history, with the Turkish persecution of Armenians during World War I providing a paradigm of ruthless and wholesale murder to extirpate an entire people. Accusing Armenians of being pro-Russian and envying their domination of eastern Anatolia, Turkish officials forced them to emigrate east across mountains in winter. Hundreds of thousands died of exposure, starvation, or in massacres; perhaps 1.5 million died in total from 1915 to 1923.
Josef Stalin’s persecution of Ukrainians in the 1930s also constituted genocide, as Stalin distrusted their political loyalty. By confiscating crops and seed grain and preventing emigration, Stalin consigned five million Ukrainians to early graves. Nazi extermination policies were more racially oriented, as Adolf Hitler considered Jews and Gypsies to be irredeemable biological menaces to the purity of Aryan blood. The machinery of death employed by Nazis—railroads and cattle cars, gas chambers and ovens—and the systematic pillaging and gleeful humiliation of victims set a despicably new standard for human barbarity. Six million Jews and half a million Gypsies died at the hands of this evil regime. The post-war Nuremberg Trials prosecuted a few of the more prominent architects of the so-called Final Solution, but many others escaped judgment.
Although the United Nations’ Genocide Convention (1951) made genocide a crime under international law, lack of military forces and international criminal courts to enforce the convention has crippled efforts to deter or punish perpetrators. Acts of genocide continued, whether by the Khmer Rouge in the Cambodian “killing fields” in the 1970s, where one million perished, or by Hutu extremists in 1994, who massacred 800,000 Tutsis in a matter of months as the international community wrung its hands. Events closer to Europe that endangered Western stability drew greater scrutiny. Thus in 1993 the UN created a War Crimes Tribunal to prosecute practitioners of “ethnic cleansing” in the former Yugoslavia. Despite a handful of convictions, prosecution and prevention of genocidal crimes remain serious challenges facing the international community in the twenty-first century.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Bartov, Omer. Mirrors of Destruction: War, Genocide, and Modern Identity, Oxford, 2000.
Charny, Israel W. Encyclopedia of Genocide, 2 vols, Santa Barbara, CA, 1999.
Power, Samantha. “A Problem from Hell”: America and the Age of Genocide, New York, 2002.
Rosenbaum, Alan S., ed. Is the Holocaust Unique? Perspectives on Comparative Genocide, Boulder, CO, 1998.
I was reading an article by James Baldwin today from July 11, 1966 about the “Harlem Six” and his thoughts on policing. His words resonated as I thought of recent events in Minneapolis and the deaths of Renee Good and Alex Pretti.
James Baldwin
Here’s what Baldwin had to say in 1966:
This is why those pious calls to “respect the law,” always to be heard from prominent citizens each time the ghetto explodes, are so obscene. The law is meant to be my servant and not my master, still less my torturer and my murderer. To respect the law, in the context in which the American Negro finds himself, is simply to surrender his self-respect. [Emphasis added.]
Yes, Renee Good, Alex Pretti, indeed all Americans expect the law to be our servant. We don’t expect the law to be our murderer.
President Trump is now saying Good and Pretti’s deaths shouldn’t have happened even as he’s also said they were no angels (hinting that maybe their murders were justified, or that they somehow were responsible for their own executions).
Of course, Trump and members of his administration have said far worse, reflexively denouncing Good and Pretti as “domestic terrorists” while suggesting the people who’ve suffered the most have been the ICE agents who shot and killed them!
Claims such as these are an insidious form of authoritarian madness.
ICE agents, like all elements of law enforcement, are supposed to be public servants, upholders of the law, not a law unto themselves. When the law becomes a torturer and a murderer, it becomes a moral obscenity, as Baldwin noted.
If we are to make any progress in America, we need equal justice for all; we need to stop blaming the victims; and we must stop kowtowing to murderous authority.
Bracing Views 