Dear Patrick,
Thanks for forwarding "Permanent
Militarization." http://
I am increasingly committed to
promoting two years' obligatory national service -- for everyone, no
exceptions.
As I see it, young women and young men
would be able to choose between service in "The War Corps" or a
greatly-expanded "Peace Corps." http://paxonbothhouses.blogspot.com/2012/07/proposal-for-two-years-of-obligatory.html
Socio-politically, we have seen that
"sola fide" is a course of in-action whose dire damage is evident across The Bible Belt and throughout The
Tea Party.
Betsy Crites' tag line --- "World peace through nonviolent means is neither absurd
nor unattainable. All other methods have failed." Martin
Luther King Jr. --- reminds me of Buckminster Fuller's observation that "The
most idealistic is the realistically most practical."
Having said that, I hasten to add
Merton's view of "Impossibly Pure Principles" and the paradoxical
mutation of "imposed ideals" into Evil.
"The terrible thing about our time
is precisely the ease with which theories can be put into practice. The
more perfect, the more idealistic the theories, the more dreadful is their
realization. We are at last beginning to rediscover what perhaps men knew
better in very ancient times, in primitive times before utopias were thought
of: that liberty is bound up with imperfection, and that limitations,
imperfections, errors are not only unavoidable but also salutary. The best is
not the ideal. Where what is theoretically best is imposed on everyone as
the norm, then there is no longer any room even to be good. The best,
imposed as a norm, becomes evil.” Conjectures of a Guilty
Bystander - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
A few days ago, I had opportunity to
send all my Merton posts to a cradle Catholic -- current Unitarian -- whom I
met while canvassing for Obama.
Pax vobiscum
Alan
PS Mitt Romney's Mormonism reminds me
that "we are made for mission." My "takeaway" from Mitt's
campaign is that imbuing every young person with a lived sense of
"missionary" service is an indispensably good idea.
***
***
By AARON B. O’CONNELL
Published: November 4, 2012
Annapolis, Md.
IN 1961, President Dwight D. Eisenhower left office warning of the growing power of the military-industrial complex in American life. Most people know the term the president popularized, but few remember his argument.
In his farewell address, Eisenhower called for a better equilibrium between military and domestic affairs in our economy, politics and culture. He worried that the defense industry’s search for profits would warp foreign policy and, conversely, that too much state control of the private sector would cause economic stagnation. He warned that unending preparations for war were incongruous with the nation’s history. He cautioned that war and warmaking took up too large a proportion of national life, with grave ramifications for our spiritual health.
The military-industrial complex has not emerged in quite the way Eisenhower envisioned. The United States spends an enormous sum on defense — over $700 billion last year, about half of all military spending in the world — but in terms of our total economy, it has steadily declined to less than 5 percent of gross domestic product from 14 percent in 1953. Defense-related research has not produced an ossified garrison state; in fact, it has yielded a host of beneficial technologies, from the Internet to civilian nuclear power to GPS navigation. The United States has an enormous armaments industry, but it has not hampered employment and economic growth. In fact, Congress’s favorite argument against reducing defense spending is the job loss such cuts would entail.
Nor has the private sector infected foreign policy in the way that Eisenhower warned. Foreign policy has become increasingly reliant on military solutions since World War II, but we are a long way from the Marines’ repeated occupations of Haiti, Nicaragua and the Dominican Republic in the early 20th century, when commercial interests influenced military action. Of all the criticisms of the 2003 Iraq war, the idea that it was done to somehow magically decrease the cost of oil is the least credible. Though it’s true that mercenaries and contractors have exploited the wars of the past decade, hard decisions about the use of military force are made today much as they were in Eisenhower’s day: by the president, advised by the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the National Security Council, and then more or less rubber-stamped by Congress. Corporations do not get a vote, at least not yet.
But Eisenhower’s least heeded warning — concerning the spiritual effects of permanent preparations for war — is more important now than ever. Our culture has militarized considerably since Eisenhower’s era, and civilians, not the armed services, have been the principal cause. From lawmakers’ constant use of “support our troops” to justify defense spending, to TV programs and video games like “NCIS,” “Homeland” and “Call of Duty,” to NBC’s shameful and unreal reality show “Stars Earn Stripes,” Americans are subjected to a daily diet of stories that valorize the military while the storytellers pursue their own opportunistic political and commercial agendas. Of course, veterans should be thanked for serving their country, as should police officers, emergency workers and teachers. But no institution — particularly one financed by the taxpayers — should be immune from thoughtful criticism.
Like all institutions, the military works to enhance its public image, but this is just one element of militarization. Most of the political discourse on military matters comes from civilians, who are more vocal about “supporting our troops” than the troops themselves. It doesn’t help that there are fewer veterans in Congress today than at any previous point since World War II. Those who have served are less likely to offer unvarnished praise for the military, for it, like all institutions, has its own frustrations and failings. But for non-veterans — including about four-fifths of all members of Congress — there is only unequivocal, unhesitating adulation. The political costs of anything else are just too high.
For proof of this phenomenon, one need look no further than the continuing furor over sequestration — the automatic cuts, evenly divided between Pentagon and nonsecurity spending, that will go into effect in January if a deal on the debt and deficits isn’t reached. As Bob Woodward’s latest book reveals, the Obama administration devised the measure last year to include across-the-board defense cuts because it believed that slashing defense was so unthinkable that it would make compromise inevitable.
- 1
- 2
Aaron B. O’Connell, an assistant professor of history at the United States Naval Academy and a Marine reserve officer, is the author of “Underdogs: The Making of the Modern Marine Corps.
No comments:
Post a Comment