October 27, 2006
Mercenaries At The Helm?
Sometimes there's a difficult distinction to be made between stupidity and criminality. Difficult because of a natural predisposition not to want to acknowledge that criminals are running our lives. Dr. Andrew J. Bacevich, unfortunately, doesn't really get it. But that's OK, he's still an interesting fellow. I've enjoyed reading his essays on the military for years—he's a lively writer (look for his recent book, The New American Militarism) and knows whereof he speaks on quite a number of issues, most importantly, perhaps, on the nature of civil-military relations. So despite butting heads a bit it was a real pleasure to talk with him. Andrew's definitely worth listening to and, indeed, you may find you agree with him more than with me. Total runtime of about an hour and thirteen minutes. Enjoy!
Comments
Dear George,
Thank you for this podcast. Excellent conversation between Prof. Bacevich and you.
I'm not as confident as the two of you are that Iran is not going to be attacked. The formidable armada being assembled in the Persian Gulf, with orders to be ready to deployed, helped by the concentration of EU (NATO) navies in the Eastern Mediterranean and troops in Lebanon are clear indications of a potential Airforce/Navy-combined strike against Iran -- not just a bluff.
The chaos in Iraq and an overstretched military are certainly impediments but the greater Middle East strategy remains on track. Furthermore, it seems to me that, one of the traits of Mr. Bush, highlighted by Prof. Bacevich -- that is, the president is a determined man -- contradicts the analysis. Bush has repeatedly said that he would not allow Iran to pursue its nuclear program and that he would deal with the "threat" before the end of his presidency. If, as Prof. Bacevich suggests, Mr. Bush means what he says and acts accordingly, and all the equipment has been put in the theater of action (at great financial costs) one reaches the conclusion that a strike against Iran will take place in the near future.
The stakes are too big (e.g., control of the Mid-East and Eurasia, encirclement of the Russian Federation, knocking on the doors of China...) for the abandonment of the project.
There is a bipartisan consensus on the policies being implemented; both humanitarian liberals and neo-cons are in sync on the grand strategy. As Bacevich points out, the aim of liberation justifies military interventions.
As to the American people having a word in these matters, I can only ask: When is the last time the American people had a say and what is the last war they did not cheer for, at least in the initial stages?
Otherwise, I think that Prof. Bacevich errs when he gives the benefit of the doubt to the elites in government and in the military, and apparently fails to grasp the significance of the military/industrial/congressional complex and the business interests at stake. I'm indeed surprised that he does not make a correlation between the war and the corporate profits being generated. The evidence is so overwhelming that Bacevich's position is utterly puzzling.
Finally, Prof. Bacevich is a military man par excellence. I am not. So, it won't particularly surprise you that his wish for the renewal of a sense of obligation to serve in the military left me rather cold. It's the opposite this country needs: a demilitarization of the entire culture, at least if one wishes prosperity and longevity for the American experiment.
Thank you again.
Sincerely,
Gilles d'Aymery
Swans Commentary
Posted by: Gilles d'Aymery | October 27, 2006 3:40 PM