HOME
DV NEWS
SERVICE ARCHIVE SUBMISSIONS/CONTACT ABOUT DV
The
Military is Being Invited into the Heart of Politics in the US
by
George Monbiot
October
14, 2003
The
relationship between governments and those who seek favours from them has
changed. Not long ago, lobbyists would visit politicians and bribe or threaten
them until they got what they wanted. Today, ministers lobby the lobbyists.
Whenever a big business pressure group holds its annual conference or dinner,
Tony Blair or Gordon Brown or another senior minister will come and beg it not
to persecute the government. George Bush flies around the United States,
flattering the companies which might support his re-election, offering
tax-breaks and subsidies even before they ask.
But
while we are slowly becoming aware of the corporate capture of our governments,
we appear to have overlooked the growing power of another recipient of this
back-to-front lobbying. In the United States a sort of reverse military coup
appears to be taking place. Both the president and the opposition seem to be
offering the armed forces, though they do not appear to have requested it, an
ever greater share of the business of government.
Every
week, the State Department makes a list of Mr Bush's most important speeches
and visits, to distribute to its embassies around the world. The embassy in
London has a public archive dating from June last year. During this period,
Bush has made 41 major speeches to live audiences. Of these, 14 -- just over a
third -- were delivered to military personnel or veterans. [1]
Now
Bush, of course, is commander-in-chief as well as president, and he has every
right to address the troops. But this commander-in-chief goes far beyond the
patriotic blandishments of previous leaders. He sometimes dresses up in the
uniform of the troops he is meeting. He quotes their mottos and songs, retells
their internal jokes, mimics their slang. He informs the "dog-faced soldiers"
that they are "the rock of Marne", [2] or asks
naval cadets whether they give "the left-handed salute to Tecumseh, the
God of 2.0". [3] The television audience is
mystified, but the men love him for it. He is, or so his speeches suggest, one
of them.
He
starts by leading them in chants of "Hoo-ah! Hoo-ah!", then plasters
them with praise, then reminds them that (unlike those of any other workers in
America) their pay, healthcare and housing are being upgraded. After this, they
will cheer everything he says. So he uses these occasions to attack his
opponents and announce new and often controversial policies. The Marines were
the first to be told about his interstate electricity grid; [4]
he instructed the American Legion about the reform of the Medicare programme; [5] last week he explained his plans for the taxation of
small businesses to the National Guard. [6] The troops may
not have the faintest idea what he's talking about, but they cheer him to the
rafters anyway. After that, implementing these policies looks like a patriotic
duty.
This
strikes me as an abuse of his position as commander-in-chief, rather like the
use of Air Force One (the presidential aeroplane) for political fundraising
tours. The war against terror is a feeble excuse. Indeed, all this began long
before September 2001: between February and August of that year he gave eight
major speeches to the military, some of which were stuffed with policy
announcements. [7]
But
there is a lot more at stake than merely casting the cloak of patriotism over
his corporate welfare programmes. Appeasing the armed forces has become, for
President Bush, a political necessity. He cannot win the next election without
them. Unless he can destroy the resistance in Iraq, the resistance will destroy
his political career. But crushing it requires the continuous presence of a
vast professional army and tens of thousands of reservists. There is plenty of
evidence to suggest that the troops do not want to be there, and that at least
some of their generals regard the invasion as poorly planned. At the moment,
Bush is using Donald Rumsfeld, the defence secretary, as his lightning
conductor, just as Blair is using Geoff Hoon. But if he is to continue to
deflect the anger of the troops, the president must give them everything they
might want, whether or not they have asked for it.
This
is one of the reasons for a military budget which is now entirely detached from
any possible strategic reality. As the website www.wsws.org
has pointed out, when you add together the $368 billion for routine spending,
the $19 billion assigned to the department of energy for new nuclear weapons,
the $79 billion already passed by Congress to fund the war in Iraq and the $87
billion that Bush has just requested to sustain it, you find that the federal
government is now spending as much on war as it is on education, public health,
housing, employment, pensions, food aid and welfare put together. [8] This is the sort of allocation you would expect in a
third world military dictatorship. But all this has come from the civilian
leadership. It is not just Bush. Such is the success of his re-ordering of
national priorities that not a single Democrat on the congressional
appropriations panel dared to challenge the government's latest request. [9]
Bush's
other big problem, which has quietly tracked him ever since he declared his
candidacy, is that he is a draft-dodger who failed even to discharge his duties
as a national guardsman, [10] while some of his most
prominent political opponents are war heroes and generals. To win the
Republican nomination, he had to beat John McCain, the fighter pilot and
prisoner of war who won the silver star, bronze star, purple heart, legion of
merit and distinguished flying cross for his bravery in Vietnam. To go to war with
Iraq, Bush had to overcome the resistance of his Secretary of State Colin
Powell, the general who was formerly chairman of the joint chiefs of staff. To
win the next election, he may have to beat Wesley Clark, commander of NATO
forces during the war in Yugoslavia and currently the Democrats' favoured
candidate. Bush's reverse coup has meant that the Democrats must suck up to the
armed forces as well, in order to be seen as a patriotic party. Wesley Clark's
campaigning slogan is "a new American patriotism". [11]
The
last general to have been appointed president, though as belligerent as any
other, understood that there was a potential conflict between his two public
roles. As a result, Dwight Eisenhower never wore a uniform while in office, or
engaged in the hooting and chest-thumping with which George Bush greets his
troops. His warning about the dangers of failing to contain "the
military-industrial complex" has been forgotten. [12]
Tony
Blair has also played the tin soldier, but with less success. He was the first
western leader to arrive in Iraq after George Bush prematurely announced
victory there. But when he addressed the troops, they remained silent. I am
told by a good source that the generals are furious with him for sending them
to war on false pretences.
But
in America, the armed forces, whether they want it or not, are being dragged
into the heart of political life. A mature democracy is in danger of turning
itself into a military state.
George Monbiot is Honorary Professor at
the Department of Politics in Keele and Visiting Professor at the Department of
Environmental Science at the University of East London. He writes a weekly
column for the Guardian newspaper of London. His recently released book, The
Age of Consent (Flamingo Press), puts forth proposals for global democratic
governance. His articles and contact info can be found at his website: www.monbiot.com.
* The
Enemies of Science: Nothing Damages Science More than Forcing Researchers to
Develop GM
* The
Philosophy of Cant: Part Three of Three-Part Series on Trade
* Whose Side
Are You On?: Part Two of a Three-Part Series on Trade
* The Worst of
Times: Part One of a Three-Part Series on Trade
* Beware the
Bluewash: The UN Should not Become the Dustbin for America's Failed Adventures
* Poisoned
Chalice: Wherever it is Prescribed, a Dose of IMF Medicine Only Compounds
Economic Crisis
* SleepWalking
to Extinction
* Driven
Out of Eden
* Shadow of
Extinction: Only Six Degrees Separate Our World from the Cataclysmic End of an
Ancient Era
* I Was
Wrong About Trade: “Localization” is Both Destructive and Unjust
* Seize the Day:
Using Globalization As Vehicle For the First Global Democratic Revolution
* Trashing
Africa: Blair Has Ensured that Europe and the US Will Continue to Promote
Famine
* War
Crimes Case in Belgium Illustrates Folly of Blair’s Belief That US is
Interested in Justice
References:
1. http://www.usembassy.org.uk/bush.html
2. George W. Bush, 12th February 2001. Remarks by the President to
the Troops of Fort Stewart Cottrell Field, Fort Stewart, Georgia. http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/20010212.html
3. George W. Bush, 25th May 2001. Remarks by the President at U.S.
Naval Academy Commencement. U.S. Naval Academy Stadium, Annapolis, Maryland http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/05/20010525-1.html
4. George W. Bush, 29th May 2001. Remarks by the President at Camp
Pendleton, California http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/05/20010529-6.html
5. George W. Bush, 29th August 2001. Remarks by the President at
the American Legion's 83rd Annual Convention, San Antonio Convention Center. http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/08/20010829-2.htm
l
6. George W. Bush, 9th October 2003. Remarks by the President to
New Hampshire Air National Guard, Army National Guard, Reservists and Families.
Pease Air National Guard Base, Portsmouth, New Hampshire. http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/10/20031009-9.html
7. http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/
8. Bill Vann, 26th September 2003. US Congress passes $368 billion
for Pentagon war machine. http://www.wsws.org/articles/2003/sep2003/pent-s26.shtml
9. ibid.
10. Paul Krugman, 6th May 2003. Man on Horseback. New York Times.
11. See http://www.clark04.com/
12. Dwight D. Eisenhower, 17th January 1961. Farewell Radio and
Television Address to the American People. Read at http://www.jfklink.com/speeches/dde/1960_61/dde421_60.html