[Marxism] The Military Brass Embraces Hamdan - Rejects Bush

[Brian Shannon <Brian_Shannon@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

THE DEFENSE DEPARTMENT (minus Rumsfield and Co)
VERSUS THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION

Marxists have traditionally used a shorthand explanation of  
imperialist patriotism--economic privilege that allowed the wealthy  
nations to buy off a top layer of the working class. Yet the list of  
elements that reinforce imperialist patriotism is prodigious indeed:  
competition between relative equals; fear of those that you oppress;  
misunderstood responsibility; real and superficial human rights  
within the privileged nation; commitment to one's history and  
ancestors; spontaneous competition; and the ideology of victory  
versus cooperation for human improvement and progress. Economic  
privilege is only one aspect.

The most intense expression of these emotions is in the American  
peoples' attitude towards the armed forces. It is both fostered and  
spontaneous. The ability to focus on sacrifice from a short, even  
peaceful, term of service through the death of loved ones is unique.  
The hundreds of thousands of lives lost to "natural" occurrences such  
as disease and foolish accidents have none of the emotional content,  
accentuated when used by demagogues, of sacrifice that needs to be  
explained. Even those who hate what happened in war and what  
criminality lay behind it, need to feel that somehow the sacrifice  
was not in vain.

The military itself needs a sense of pride. Comparisons to sports  
competition abound. Robert F. Kennedy once said that football was  
second only to military service in building character in men. His  
views were not unique. The life of the famous Marine Corps General  
Smedley Butler, the son of a prominent Quaker politician who left  
school and lied about his age to join the 1898 war against Spain  
contains a bundle of contradictions that touch on many of these  
elements. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smedley_Butler (includes his  
famous anti-imperialist statement of 1935).

In the United States, the subordination of the armed services to the  
civilian government is considered one of the fundamental pillars of  
the constitution. http://usinfo.state.gov/products/pubs/democracy/ 
dmpaper12.htm

Of course, this has been said of many other nations whose military  
later claimed an inherent right to protect the nation. There have  
been several U.S. generals who felt the same. It was feared that  
Nixon had the same view regarding his presidency, and today we see  
that the Bushites, including the attorney general of the United  
States, claim inherent constitutional rights for the Presidency  
superior to that of Congress, despite the clear language of the U.S.  
Constitution and the detailed assertion in the Federalist Papers that  
not only does power emanate from the people, but is embodied above  
all in Congress and in the most democratic house, the House of  
Representatives, in particular.

Putting this always present background danger from presidents and  
military aside, it is clear that the military, in its patriotic mode,  
has learned from Vietnam and Iraq. In fact, Iraq has reinforced the  
lessons from Vietnam. To achieve its mission, for its own self- 
protection, and even as an implicit political criticism, the armed  
forces is now declaring that it must have full authority among its  
own ranks. It will be breached during the passions of any war by rank- 
and-file soldiers and just as importantly by ambitious gung-ho  
officers who aggressively pursue their own careers. The freewheeling  
Colonel Nate Sassaman, cashiered at 40, who covered up the crimes of  
his subordinates, and once put every citizen of a town in Abu Ghraib  
or another prison, comes to mind. http://makeashorterlink.com/?M625218BD

Yet such breaches cannot be allowed as the standard. The planned  
murders of Iraqi civilians by rank-and-file soldiers, encouraged and  
covered up by superior NCOs and officers have to stop. If the recent  
cases are what we know, what don't we know and what has that meant  
for the attitude towards and danger to the troops from the Iraqis?  
And what does it mean to their own lines of command--even more  
important from the point of view of the military brass?

From the beginning of the Iraq war, the Bushite civilian directors  
of the military forces have ignored the military and political views  
of the armed forces. But the military leaders knew that the reasons  
for going to war were a lie. That, however, was not their decision.  
And they respected the civilian authority. But how it was to be  
carried out was supposed to be based on their professional military  
knowledge. Based on the lessons of Vietnam and the relative success  
of the first Gulf War, they called for a massive force, they knew  
that security after the initial onslaught would be needed. All this  
was ignored.

A great deal of this comes across in the explanation of the two new  
documents promulgated yesterday (9/6/2006) by the Defense Department.  
Although George W. Bush trashed the Supreme Court Hamdan decision, it  
is clear that the armed forces are embracing it. In several passages,  
the service spokespeople refer to the worthlessness of information  
extracted through torture and implicitly the danger that torture of  
others poses for their own troops.

Here is the transcript of an exceptionally detailed description of  
some of the reasoning behind the revision and publication of two Army  
Field Manuals. "The first is the Defense Department directive ("The  
Department of Defense Detainee Program.") for detainee programs, and  
the second is the Army field manual for human intelligence collector  
operations."

<http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/06/ 
AR2006090601442.html>
OR http://makeashorterlink.com/?M2F1258BD

Brian Shannon


 
________________________________________________
YOU MUST clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.
Send list submissions to: Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism