Twenty-Four Key Issues That Neither the Washington Elite Nor the Corporate
Media Consider Worth Their Bother
Monday, May 08, 2017
By Andrew Bacevich, TomDispatch | Op-Ed
Donald Trump's election has elicited impassioned affirmations of a renewed
commitment to unvarnished truth-telling from the prestige media. The common
theme: you know you can't trust him, but trust us to keep dogging him on
your behalf. The New York Times has even unveiled a portentous new
promotional slogan: "The truth is now more important than ever." For its
part, The Washington Post grimly warns that "democracy dies in darkness,"
and is offering itself as a source of illumination now that the rotund
figure of the 45th president has produced the political equivalent of a
total eclipse of the sun. Meanwhile, National Public Radio fundraising
campaigns are sounding an increasingly panicky note: give, listener, lest
you be personally responsible for the demise of the Republic that we are
bravely fighting to save from extinction.
If only it were so. How wonderful it would be if President Trump's
ascendancy had coincided with a revival of hard-hitting, deep-dive,
no-holds-barred American journalism. Alas, that's hardly the case. True, the
big media outlets are demonstrating both energy and enterprise in exposing
the ineptitude, inconsistency, and dubious ethical standards, as well as
outright lies and fake news, that are already emerging as Trump era
signatures. That said, pointing out that the president has (again) uttered a
falsehood, claimed credit for a nonexistent achievement, or abandoned some
position to which he had previously sworn fealty requires something less
than the sleuthing talents of a Sherlock Holmes. As for beating up on poor
Sean Spicer for his latest sequence of gaffes -- well, that's more akin to
sadism than reporting.
Apart from a commendable determination to discomfit Trump and members of his
inner circle (select military figures excepted, at least for now),
journalism remains pretty much what it was prior to November 8th of last
year: personalities built up only to be torn down; fads and novelties
discovered, celebrated, then mocked; "extraordinary" stories of ordinary
people granted 15 seconds of fame only to once again be consigned to
oblivion -- all served with a side dish of that day's quota of suffering,
devastation, and carnage. These remain journalism's stock-in-trade. As
practiced in the United States, with certain honorable (and hence
unprofitable) exceptions, journalism remains superficial, voyeuristic, and
governed by the attention span of a two year old.
As a result, all those editors, reporters, columnists, and talking heads who
characterize their labors as "now more important than ever" ill-serve the
public they profess to inform and enlighten. Rather than clearing the air,
they befog it further. If anything, the media's current obsession with
Donald Trump -- his every utterance or tweet treated as "breaking news!" --
just provides one additional excuse for highlighting trivia, while slighting
issues that deserve far more attention than they currently receive.
To illustrate the point, let me cite some examples of national security
issues that presently receive short shrift or are ignored altogether by
those parts of the Fourth Estate said to help set the nation's political
agenda. To put it another way: Hey, Big Media, here are two dozen matters to
which you're not giving faintly adequate thought and attention.
1. Accomplishing the "mission": Since the immediate aftermath of World War
II, the United States has been committed to defending key allies in Europe
and East Asia. Not long thereafter, US security guarantees were extended to
the Middle East as well. Under what circumstances can Americans expect
nations in these regions to assume responsibility for managing their own
affairs? To put it another way, when (if ever) might US forces actually come
home? And if it is incumbent upon the United States to police vast swaths of
the planet in perpetuity, how should momentous changes in the international
order -- the rise of China, for example, or accelerating climate change --
affect the US approach to doing so?
2. American military supremacy: The United States military is undoubtedly
the world's finest. It's also far and away the most generously funded, with
policymakers offering US troops no shortage of opportunities to practice
their craft. So why doesn't this great military ever win anything? Or put
another way, why in recent decades have those forces been unable to
accomplish Washington's stated wartime objectives? Why has the now
15-year-old war on terror failed to result in even a single real success
anywhere in the Greater Middle East? Could it be that we've taken the wrong
approach? What should we be doing differently?
3. America's empire of bases: The US military today garrisons the planet in
a fashion without historical precedent. Successive administrations,
regardless of party, justify and perpetuate this policy by insisting that
positioning US forces in distant lands fosters peace, stability, and
security. In the present century, however, perpetuating this practice has
visibly had the opposite effect. In the eyes of many of those called upon to
"host" American bases, the permanent presence of such forces smacks of
occupation. They resist. Why should US policymakers expect otherwise?
4. Supporting the troops: In present-day America, expressing reverence for
those who serve in uniform is something akin to a religious obligation.
Everyone professes to cherish America's "warriors." Yet such bountiful, if
superficial, expressions of regard camouflage a growing gap between those
who serve and those who applaud from the sidelines. Our present-day military
system, based on the misnamed All-Volunteer Force, is neither democratic nor
effective. Why has discussion and debate about its deficiencies not found a
place among the nation's political priorities?
5. Prerogatives of the commander-in-chief: Are there any military actions
that the president of the United States may not order on his own authority?
If so, what are they? Bit by bit, decade by decade, Congress has abdicated
its assigned role in authorizing war. Today, it merely rubberstamps what
presidents decide to do (or simply stays mum). Who does this deference to an
imperial presidency benefit? Have US policies thereby become more prudent,
enlightened, and successful?
6. Assassin-in-chief: A policy of assassination, secretly implemented under
the aegis of the CIA during the early Cold War, yielded few substantive
successes. When the secrets were revealed, however, the US government
suffered considerable embarrassment, so much so that presidents foreswore
politically motivated murder. After 9/11, however, Washington returned to
the assassination business in a big way and on a global scale, using drones.
Today, the only secret is the sequence of names on the current presidential
hit list, euphemistically known as the White House "disposition matrix." But
does assassination actually advance US interests (or does it merely recruit
replacements for the terrorists it liquidates)? How can we measure its
costs, whether direct or indirect? What dangers and vulnerabilities does
this practice invite?
7. The war formerly known as the "Global War on Terrorism": What precisely
is Washington's present strategy for defeating violent jihadism? What
sequence of planned actions or steps is expected to yield success? If no
such strategy exists, why is that the case? How is it that the absence of
strategy -- not to mention an agreed upon definition of "success" -- doesn't
even qualify for discussion here?
8. The campaign formerly known as Operation Enduring Freedom: The conflict
commonly referred to as the Afghanistan War is now the longest in US history
-- having lasted longer than the Civil War, World War I, and World War II
combined. What is the Pentagon's plan for concluding that conflict? When
might Americans expect it to end? On what terms?
9. The Gulf: Americans once believed that their prosperity and way of life
depended on having assured access to Persian Gulf oil. Today, that is no
longer the case. The United States is once more an oil exporter. Available
and accessible reserves of oil and natural gas in North America are far
greater than was once believed. Yet the assumption that the Persian Gulf
still qualifies as crucial to American national security persists in
Washington. Why?
10. Hyping terrorism: Each year terrorist attacks kill far fewer Americans
than do auto accidents, drug overdoses, or even lightning strikes. Yet in
the allocation of government resources, preventing terrorist attacks takes
precedence over preventing all three of the others combined. Why is that?
11. Deaths that matter and deaths that don't: Why do terrorist attacks that
kill a handful of Europeans command infinitely more American attention than
do terrorist attacks that kill far larger numbers of Arabs? A terrorist
attack that kills citizens of France or Belgium elicits from the United
States heartfelt expressions of sympathy and solidarity. A terrorist attack
that kills Egyptians or Iraqis elicits shrugs. Why the difference? To what
extent does race provide the answer to that question?
12. Israeli nukes: What purpose is served by indulging the pretense that
Israel does not have nuclear weapons?
13. Peace in the Holy Land: What purpose is served by indulging illusions
that a "two-state solution" offers a plausible resolution to the
Israeli-Palestinian conflict? As remorselessly as white settlers once
encroached upon territory inhabited by Native American tribes, Israeli
settlers expand their presence in the occupied territories year by year. As
they do, the likelihood of creating a viable Palestinian state becomes ever
more improbable. To pretend otherwise is the equivalent of thinking that one
day President Trump might prefer the rusticity of Camp David to the glitz of
Mar-a-Lago.
14. Merchandizing death: When it comes to arms sales, there is no need to
Make America Great Again. The US ranks number one by a comfortable margin,
with long-time allies Saudi Arabia and Israel leading recipients of those
arms. Each year, the Saudis (per capita gross domestic product $20,000)
purchase hundreds of millions of dollars of US weapons. Israel (per capita
gross domestic product $38,000) gets several billion dollars worth of such
weaponry annually courtesy of the American taxpayer. If the Saudis pay for
US arms, why shouldn't the Israelis? They can certainly afford to do so.
15. Our friends the Saudis (I): Fifteen of the 19 hijackers on September 11,
2001, were Saudis. What does that fact signify?
16. Our friends the Saudis (II): If indeed Saudi Arabia and Iran are
competing to determine which nation will enjoy the upper hand in the Persian
Gulf, why should the United States favor Saudi Arabia? In what sense do
Saudi values align more closely with American values than do Iranian ones?
17. Our friends the Pakistanis: Pakistan behaves like a rogue state. It is a
nuclear weapons proliferator. It supports the Taliban. For years, it
provided sanctuary to Osama bin Laden. Yet US policymakers treat Pakistan as
if it were an ally. Why? In what ways do US and Pakistani interests or
values coincide? If there are none, why not say so?
18. Free-loading Europeans: Why can't Europe, "whole and free," its
population and economy considerably larger than Russia's, defend itself?
It's altogether commendable that US policymakers should express support for
Polish independence and root for the Baltic republics. But how does it make
sense for the United States to care more about the wellbeing of people
living in Eastern Europe than do people living in Western Europe?
19. The mother of all "special relationships": The United States and the
United Kingdom have a "special relationship" dating from the days of
Franklin Roosevelt and Winston Churchill. Apart from keeping the Public
Broadcasting Service supplied with costume dramas and stories featuring
eccentric detectives, what is the rationale for that partnership today? Why
should US relations with Great Britain, a fading power, be any more
"special" than its relations with a rising power like India? Why should the
bonds connecting Americans and Britons be any more intimate than those
connecting Americans and Mexicans? Why does a republic now approaching the
241st anniversary of its independence still need a "mother country"?
20. The old nuclear disarmament razzmatazz: American presidents routinely
cite their hope for the worldwide elimination of nuclear weapons. Yet the US
maintains nuclear strike forces on full alert, has embarked on a costly and
comprehensive trillion-dollar modernization of its nuclear arsenal, and even
refuses to adopt a no-first-use posture when it comes to nuclear war. The
truth is that the United States will consider surrendering its nukes only
after every other nation on the planet has done so first. How does American
nuclear hypocrisy affect the prospects for global nuclear disarmament or
even simply for the non-proliferation of such weaponry?
21. Double standards (I): American policymakers take it for granted that
their country's sphere of influence is global, which, in turn, provides the
rationale for the deployment of US military forces to scores of countries.
Yet when it comes to nations like China, Russia, or Iran, Washington takes
the position that spheres of influence are obsolete and a concept that
should no longer be applicable to the practice of statecraft. So Chinese,
Russian, and Iranian forces should remain where they belong -- in China,
Russia, and Iran. To stray beyond that constitutes a provocation, as well as
a threat to global peace and order. Why should these other nations play by
American rules? Why shouldn't similar rules apply to the United States?
22. Double standards (II): Washington claims that it supports and upholds
international law. Yet when international law gets in the way of what
American policymakers want to do, they disregard it. They start wars,
violate the sovereignty of other nations, and authorize agents of the United
States to kidnap, imprison, torture, and kill. They do these things with
impunity, only forced to reverse their actions on the rare occasions when US
courts find them illegal. Why should other powers treat international norms
as sacrosanct since the United States does so only when convenient?
23. Double standards (III): The United States condemns the indiscriminate
killing of civilians in wartime. Yet over the last three-quarters of a
century, it killed civilians regularly and often on a massive scale. By what
logic, since the 1940s, has the killing of Germans, Japanese, Koreans,
Vietnamese, Laotians, Cambodians, Afghans, and others by US air power been
any less reprehensible than the Syrian government's use of "barrel bombs" to
kill Syrians today? On what basis should Americans accept Pentagon claims
that, when civilians are killed these days by US forces, the acts are
invariably accidental, whereas Syrian forces kill civilians intentionally
and out of malice? Why exclude incompetence or the fog of war as
explanations? And why, for instance, does the United States regularly gloss
over or ignore altogether the noncombatants that Saudi forces (with US
assistance) are routinely killing in Yemen?
24. Moral obligations: When confronted with some egregious violation of
human rights, members of the chattering classes frequently express an urge
for the United States to "do something." Holocaust analogies sprout like
dandelions. Newspaper columnists recycle copy first used when Cambodians
were slaughtering other Cambodians en masse or whenever Hutus and Tutsis
went at it. Proponents of action -- typically advocating military
intervention -- argue that the United States has a moral obligation to aid
those victimized by injustice or cruelty anywhere on Earth. But what
determines the pecking order of such moral obligations? Which comes first, a
responsibility to redress the crimes of others or a responsibility to
redress crimes committed by Americans? Who has a greater claim to US
assistance, Syrians suffering today under the boot of Bashar al-Assad or
Iraqis, their country shattered by the US invasion of 2003? Where do the
Vietnamese fit into the queue? How about the Filipinos, brutally denied
independence and forcibly incorporated into an American empire as the
nineteenth century ended? Or African-Americans, whose ancestors were
imported as slaves? Or, for that matter, dispossessed and disinherited
Native Americans? Is there a statute of limitations that applies to moral
obligations? And if not, shouldn't those who have waited longest for justice
or reparations receive priority attention?
Let me suggest that any one of these two dozen issues -- none seriously
covered, discussed, or debated in the American media or in the political
mainstream -- bears more directly on the wellbeing of the United States and
our prospects for avoiding global conflict than anything Donald Trump may
have said or done during his first 100 days as president. Collectively, they
define the core of the national security challenges that presently confront
this country, even as they languish on the periphery of American politics.
How much damage Donald Trump's presidency wreaks before it ends remains to
be seen. Yet he himself is a transient phenomenon. To allow his pratfalls
and shenanigans to divert attention from matters sure to persist when he
finally departs the stage is to make a grievous error. It may well be that,
as the Times insists, the truth is now more important than ever. If so,
finding the truth requires looking in the right places and asking the right
questions.
To stay on top of important articles like these, sign up to receive the
latest updates from TomDispatch.com here.
Andrew Bacevich
Andrew Bacevich, a TomDispatch regular, is the author of America's War for
the Greater Middle East: A Military History, published by Random House.
