We had a server outage, and we're rebuilding the site. Some of the site features won't work. Thank you for your patience.
imc indymedia

Los Angeles Indymedia : Activist News

white themeblack themered themetheme help
About Us Contact Us Calendar Publish RSS
latest news
best of news




A-Infos Radio

Indymedia On Air

Dope-X-Resistance-LA List


IMC Network:

Original Cities

www.indymedia.org africa: ambazonia canarias estrecho / madiaq kenya nigeria south africa canada: hamilton london, ontario maritimes montreal ontario ottawa quebec thunder bay vancouver victoria windsor winnipeg east asia: burma jakarta japan korea manila qc europe: abruzzo alacant andorra antwerpen armenia athens austria barcelona belarus belgium belgrade bristol brussels bulgaria calabria croatia cyprus emilia-romagna estrecho / madiaq euskal herria galiza germany grenoble hungary ireland istanbul italy la plana liege liguria lille linksunten lombardia london madrid malta marseille nantes napoli netherlands nice northern england norway oost-vlaanderen paris/Île-de-france patras piemonte poland portugal roma romania russia saint-petersburg scotland sverige switzerland thessaloniki torun toscana toulouse ukraine united kingdom valencia latin america: argentina bolivia chiapas chile chile sur cmi brasil colombia ecuador mexico peru puerto rico qollasuyu rosario santiago tijuana uruguay valparaiso venezuela venezuela oceania: adelaide aotearoa brisbane burma darwin jakarta manila melbourne perth qc sydney south asia: india mumbai united states: arizona arkansas asheville atlanta austin baltimore big muddy binghamton boston buffalo charlottesville chicago cleveland colorado columbus dc hawaii houston hudson mohawk kansas city la madison maine miami michigan milwaukee minneapolis/st. paul new hampshire new jersey new mexico new orleans north carolina north texas nyc oklahoma philadelphia pittsburgh portland richmond rochester rogue valley saint louis san diego san francisco san francisco bay area santa barbara santa cruz, ca sarasota seattle tampa bay tennessee urbana-champaign vermont western mass worcester west asia: armenia beirut israel palestine process: fbi/legal updates mailing lists process & imc docs tech volunteer projects: print radio satellite tv video regions: oceania united states topics: biotech

Surviving Cities

www.indymedia.org africa: canada: quebec east asia: japan europe: athens barcelona belgium bristol brussels cyprus germany grenoble ireland istanbul lille linksunten nantes netherlands norway portugal united kingdom latin america: argentina cmi brasil rosario oceania: aotearoa united states: austin big muddy binghamton boston chicago columbus la michigan nyc portland rochester saint louis san diego san francisco bay area santa cruz, ca tennessee urbana-champaign worcester west asia: palestine process: fbi/legal updates process & imc docs projects: radio satellite tv
printable version - js reader version - view hidden posts - tags and related articles


by C/O Diogenes Monday, Jul. 07, 2003 at 8:17 AM

I'll concede that having a permanent war might seem an odd thing to want, but let's put aside the "why" question for the time being, accepting that you wouldn't want it unless you stood to gain something important from it. If, however, for reasons you found adequate, you did want to have a permanent war, what would you need in order to make such a policy viable in a democratic society such as the United States?

The battle on terrorism is an excuse to make fighting permanent

Robert Higgs
Sunday, July 6, 2003
©2003 San Francisco Chronicle | Feedback

URL: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2003/07/06/IN245802.DTL

I'll concede that having a permanent war might seem an odd thing to want, but let's put aside the "why" question for the time being, accepting that you wouldn't want it unless you stood to gain something important from it. If, however, for reasons you found adequate, you did want to have a permanent war, what would you need in order to make such a policy viable in a democratic society such as the United States?

First, you would need that society to have a dominant ideology -- a widely shared belief system about social and political relations -- within which having a permanent war seems to be a desirable policy, given the ideology's own content and the pertinent facts accepted by its adherents. Something like American jingo-patriotism cum anti-communism might turn the trick.

It worked pretty well during the nearly half-century of the Cold War. The beauty of anti-communism as a covering ideology was that it could serve to justify a wide variety of politically expedient actions both here and abroad. The Commies, you'll recall, were everywhere: not just in Moscow and Sevastopol,

but maybe in Minneapolis and San Francisco. We had to stay alert; we could never let down our guard, anywhere.

Second, you would need periodic crises, because without them the public becomes complacent, unafraid, and hence unwilling to bear the heavy burdens that they must bear if the government is to carry on a permanent war. As Sen. Arthur Vandenberg told Harry Truman in 1947 at the outset of the Cold War, gaining public support for a perpetual global campaign requires that the government "scare hell out of the American people."

Each crisis piques the people's insecurities and renders them once again disposed to pay the designated price, whether it takes the form of their treasure, their liberties or their young people's blood. Something like the (alleged) missile gap, the (alleged) Gulf of Tonkin attacks on U.S. naval vessels, or the (actual!) hostage-taking at the U.S. Embassy in Tehran will do nicely, at least for a while. Crises by their very nature eventually recede, and new ones must come along -- or be made to come along -- to serve the current need.

Third, you would need some politically powerful groups whose members stand to gain substantially from a permanent war in terms of achieving their urgent personal and group objectives. Call me crass, but I've noticed that few people will stay engaged for long unless there's "something in it for them."

During the Cold War, the conglomeration of personally interested parties consisted of those who form the military-industrial-congressional complex. The generals and admirals thrived by commanding a large armed force sustained by a lavish budget. The big defense contractors enjoyed ample returns at minimal risk (because they could expect that, should they screw up too royally, a bailout would be forthcoming). Members of Congress who belonged to the military oversight and appropriations committees could parlay their positions into campaign contributions and various sorts of income in kind.

Presiding over the entire complex, of course, the president, his National Security Council, and their many subordinates, advisers, consultants, and hangers-on enjoyed the political advantages associated with control of a great nation's diplomatic and military affairs -- not to speak of the sheer joy that certain people get from wielding or influencing great power.

No conspiracy here, of course, just a lot of people fitting into their niches, doing well while proclaiming that they were doing good (recall the ideology and the crisis elements). All seeking only to serve the common public interest. Absolutely.

The foregoing observations have been widely accepted by several generations of students of the Cold War. Yet now, you may protest, the Cold War is over, the USSR nonexistent, the menace of communism kaput. Under post-Cold War conditions, how can we have a permanent war? Well, all we need to do is to replace the missing piece.

If the ideology of anti-communism can no longer serve to justify a permanent war, let us put in its place the overarching rationale of a "war on terrorism." In fact, this substitution of what President Bush repeatedly calls "a new kind of war" amounts to an improvement for the leading actors, because whereas the Cold War could not be sustained once the USSR had imploded and international communism had toppled into the dustbin of history, a war on terrorism, with all its associated benefits, can go on forever.

After all, so long as the president says he has intelligence information to the effect that "they" are still out there conspiring to kill us all, who are we to dispute that the threat exists and must be met? The smoke had scarcely cleared at Ground Zero when Vice President Dick Cheney declared on Oct. 19, 2001, that the war on terrorism "may never end. It's the new normalcy."

Just as during the Cold War hardly any American ever laid eyes on an honest- to-God Commie, although nearly everybody believed that the Commies were lurking far and wide, so now we may all suppose that anyone, anywhere might be a lethal terrorist in possession of a suitcase nuke or a jug of anthrax spores.

Indeed, current airport-security measures are premised on precisely such a belief -- otherwise it makes no sense to strip-search Grandma at Dulles International Airport.

Potential terrorists are "out there," no doubt, in the wonderful world of Islam, an arc that stretches from Morocco across North Africa, the Middle East,

and Southwest Asia to Malaysia, Indonesia and Mindanao, not to mention London,

Amsterdam and Hamburg. And that's good, because it means that U.S. leaders must bring the entire outside world into compliance with their stipulated rules of engagement for the war on terrorism. It's a fine thing to dominate the world, an even finer thing to do so righteously.

Better yet, the potential omnipresence of the terrorists justifies U.S. leaders in their efforts to supercharge the surveillance-and-police state here at home, with the USA Patriot Act, the revival of the FBI's COINTELPRO activities, and all the rest. Adios, Bill of Rights. The merest babe should understand that these new powers will be turned to other political purposes that have nothing whatever to do with terrorism. Indeed, they have been already. As the New York Times reported on May 5, "The Justice Department has begun using its expanded counterterrorism powers to seize millions of dollars from foreign banks that do business in the United States" and "most of the seizures have involved fraud and money-laundering investigations unrelated to terrorism."

The war-on-terrorism rationale has proved congenial to the American public, who have swallowed bogus government assurances that the so-called war is making them more secure. Much of this acceptance springs, no doubt, from the shock that many Americans experienced when the terrorist attacks of September 11 proved so devastating. Ever alert, the president's national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, asked the National Security Council immediately afterward "to think seriously about "how you capitalize on these opportunities" to fundamentally change American doctrine and the shape of the world in the wake of September 11.

The president's most powerful and influential subordinates -- Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz and their coterie -- then set in motion a series of actions (and a flood of disinformation) to seize the day, measures that culminated in the military invasion and conquest first of Afghanistan and then of Iraq, among many other things.

Likewise, the military component of the military-industrial complex has entered into fat city. During fiscal year 2000, before Bush had taken office, Department of Defense outlays amounted to $281 billion. Just four years later, assuming that Congress gives the president what he has requested for fiscal year 2004, the department's budget will be at least $399 billion -- an increase of 42 percent.

No wonder the generals and admirals are dancing in the corridors at the Pentagon: all this loot, and wartime citations and promotions to boot!

The flush times for the officer corps have spilled over handsomely onto the big arms contractors, whose share prices have been bucking the trend of the continuing stock-market meltdown nicely during the past couple of years. With only a single exception, all the major weapons systems have survived funding threats, and their manufacturers can look forward to decades of well-paid repose as they supply models B, C, D, and so forth, as well as all the remunerative maintenance and repairs, operational training, software upgrades, and related goods and services for their Cold War-type weaponry in search of an suitable enemy. In the immortal words of Boeing vice president Harry Stonecipher, "The purse is now open."

Amid the all-around rejoicing, however, the power elite appreciate that nearly two years have elapsed since Sept. 11, 2001, and the public's panic has begun to subside. That won't do. Accordingly, earlier this month, the government released a report that there is a "high probability" of an al Qaeda attack with a weapon of mass destruction in the next two years.

So there you have it: The war on terrorism -- the new permanent war -- is a winner. The president loves it. The military brass loves it. The bigwigs at Boeing and Lockheed love it. We all love it.

Except, perhaps, that odd citizen who wonders whether, all things considered, having a permanent war is truly a good idea for the beleaguered U. S. economy and for the liberties of the American people.

Robert Higgs is senior fellow at the Independent Institute. His books include "Crisis and Leviathan" and "Arms, Politics and the Economy."

©2003 San Francisco Chronicle
Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments

Listed below are the 10 latest comments of 31 posted about this article.
These comments are anonymously submitted by the website visitors.
Jump Ball! Thumper Monday, Jul. 07, 2003 at 8:19 AM
This permwar concept You don't know who I am. Monday, Jul. 07, 2003 at 10:43 AM
blood and guts Bush Admirer. FMR G.I. Monday, Jul. 07, 2003 at 11:06 AM
wipe on, wipe off FMR G.I. Monday, Jul. 07, 2003 at 11:13 AM
What a complete crock BushAdmirer Monday, Jul. 07, 2003 at 11:21 AM
What a complete crock BA Monday, Jul. 07, 2003 at 11:23 AM
What you mean "We" Diogenes Monday, Jul. 07, 2003 at 11:24 AM
Diogaynes Diogaynes Tuesday, Jul. 08, 2003 at 1:33 AM
wow asdf Tuesday, Jul. 08, 2003 at 1:45 AM
thanks, i am relatively smart thanks, i am relatively smart Tuesday, Jul. 08, 2003 at 1:46 AM
what a dil. asdf Tuesday, Jul. 08, 2003 at 1:48 AM
Hahaha, asdf, you crack me up Hahaha, asdf, you crack me up Tuesday, Jul. 08, 2003 at 1:51 AM
really? asdf Tuesday, Jul. 08, 2003 at 1:53 AM
Um yeah, youre having a brother Um yeah, youre having a brother Tuesday, Jul. 08, 2003 at 1:55 AM
why? lets move around Tuesday, Jul. 08, 2003 at 1:58 AM
Hahaha, take an issue, our mothers are "issues" Hahaha, take an issue, our mothers are " Tuesday, Jul. 08, 2003 at 2:00 AM
hater bush admirer Tuesday, Jul. 08, 2003 at 2:07 AM
asdf, hmmm, this is getting kinda old asdf, hmmm, this is getting kinda old Tuesday, Jul. 08, 2003 at 2:09 AM
your moms great. asdf Tuesday, Jul. 08, 2003 at 2:12 AM
No, youre gay, shut up gayfer No, youre gay, shut up gayfer Tuesday, Jul. 08, 2003 at 2:15 AM
intolerant fuck, no wonder more minorities... intolerant fuck, no wonder more minorities... Tuesday, Jul. 08, 2003 at 2:22 AM
Ahaha, white people only? Ahaha, white people only? Tuesday, Jul. 08, 2003 at 2:31 AM
Well, its been fun, asdf Well, its been fun, asdf Tuesday, Jul. 08, 2003 at 2:38 AM
This is so funny!!! Josef Tuesday, Jul. 08, 2003 at 5:10 PM
this is so funny moron Wednesday, Jul. 09, 2003 at 1:39 AM
© 2000-2018 Los Angeles Independent Media Center. Unless otherwise stated by the author, all content is free for non-commercial reuse, reprint, and rebroadcast, on the net and elsewhere. Opinions are those of the contributors and are not necessarily endorsed by the Los Angeles Independent Media Center. Running sf-active v0.9.4 Disclaimer | Privacy