Maine Owl

U.S. political bias for military blank checks


University of California Television Conversations with History program, March 7, 2007, posted July 29, 2007: host Harry Kreisler interviews Chalmers Johnson on his new book, Nemesis.

Thanks to KayinMaine and Gerald for comments under "Clinton the hawk" a couple of posts back. Gerald wrote something I find quite interesting and profound:

Gerald: Once the AUMF was approved, unless a large coalition of Dem's stood firm and said, "No new money to continue the occupation, only new funds to bring the troops home safely" (which is what Allen has repeatedly supported), the GOP simply said the Dem's weren't "supporting the troops in the field." It didn't matter if I and others said that the best way to support them was to pull them the f'out of harms way - the media doesn't visit my house. [emphasis added]

I think the key moment is the approval of the "AUMF" -- Authorization to Use Military Force. There is extreme pressure and extremely strong bias in the U.S. political system for our legislative branch to sign away to the executive its Constitutional check on application of military force. (In Section 8 of Article I, Congress has the power "To declare war" and "To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces.") 9/11 has enhanced this bias in ways rarely seen throughout U.S. history. Very few in Congress have seen fit to resist.

This deserves a lot of discussion that I will engage from time to time because I think it is at the root of why a peace candidate like Dennis Kucinich miserably fails politically and peace movements have a very difficult time sustaining traction, even though many Americans are skeptical and troubled by our military adventures. It also explains why the sky is the limit on the war budget.

To begin, I offer the "Conversations with History" interview featuring Chalmers Johnson that you may watch in the embedded video above. Johnson is pessimistic:

Chalmers Johnson: The political system has failed us, and it couldn't be fixed. It's very hard to imagine any president, in either party, that could stand up to the military-industrial complex, or the CIA, or whatever. We have effective Constitutional procedures for dealing with an unsatisfactory president. We can impeach him. One who lies the country into war, who violates the law on secrecy and the 4th Amendment right to privacy....

Last November [2006], the public in an inchoate manner, not well informed, [with a] a press that is failing us daily, universities that do nothing except promote each other, ... We elect the opposition party. On virtually the day they come to power, the leader of the opposition party says "impeachment is off the table." If impeachment is off the table, then maybe democracy is off the table.

If we are interested in addressing the militarism on which our country is basing its power both in terms of active wars and the spread of weaponry and promotion of use of force by client states, especially Israel, we must examine and expose the roots of this political failure. Discussion/ideas welcome...