Thinking It Doesn’t Make It So
22 HOURS AGO
Yesterday, I was on “Judging Freedom” with Judge Napolitano to discuss America’s state of permanent war and the fantasy of our leaders that America remains the world’s hegemon:
America had its hegemonic moment in 1991 with the collapse of the Soviet Union. For a decade, Pentagon spending was curbed and the Clinton administration produced budgetary surpluses at the tail end of the 1990s. (With U.S. national debt soaring above $40 trillion this year, those budgetary surpluses seem fantastical, a unicorn and rainbow moment.)
How did America throw away its moment of triumph? Hegemonic vainglory was one reason. Mistaking military might for being morally in the right was another. Seeking vengeance after 9/11 in 2001 by declaring an unbounded “war on terror” globally was a third. Meanwhile, no matter how poorly wars went in Afghanistan, Iraq, and now Iran, and no matter how wasteful the Pentagon proved to be in that war (eight failed audits and counting), no one was held accountable for lost wars, wasteful spending and wanton corruption. In fact, those who were punished were patriotic whistleblowers who tried to shed light on what became a massive system of theft from American citizens.
That said, let us not forget all those on the receiving end of U.S. military power—all those killed, maimed, and displaced by America’s state of permanent war across the globe.
And let us not forget as well that U.S. security doesn’t come from vast “investments” in wars and weapons—quite the reverse. Our security comes from the exercise of our constitutional rights and freedoms, our collective wisdom, our willingness to stand for what is right and true.
War isn’t security. War certainly isn’t peace. And a state of permanent war isn’t healthy; in fact, it’s the most insidious threat we face to our way of life, if by “way of life” we mean a people committed to liberty and justice for all, especially the weak and the vulnerable.
“Seeking vengeance after 9/11 in 2001 by declaring an unbounded ‘war on terror’…”
This line is giving me reason to pause, and ask is something even deeper going on? Since 9/11 the “terrorism” label has become widespread, to the point where news items on rather ordinary “if it bleeds, it leads (ledes?)” events routinely end with “authorities do not suspect terrorism.” And then of course there is, “If you see something, say something” (to our version of the Stasi?).
We’re put on edge. We’re told “they’re out to get us” (for our freedoms?). Isn’t it all a diversion from addressing the real threats to this country, extreme wealth inequality, the expense (both monetary and moral) in military adventurism (related to the aforementioned terrorism), the poor health status relative to comparable societies, the ever-mounting national debt, impending environmental collapse, the unsettling prospect that the future will not be better, perhaps even worse, and so much more…
It needs to be kept in mind that the so-called “Patriot Act,” 342 pages in length which no member of Congress or staff read before voting on it just 45 days after 9/11 (formal title, “Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism (USA PATRIOT) Act of 2001”) opened the door to (further) surveillance, investigatory methods, rationale for detentions, and the undermining of civil liberties and other Constitutional protections. In other words, “the system” was well on its way to securing itself from any threats to it, perceived or otherwise, regardless of cost (and speaking of which, we’re now at $1+ trillion per year in “defense” spending, while 26+ million go without health insurance).
LikeLike