Why the Sanders "Revolution" Must Take on the Permanent War State
Tuesday, 28 June 2016 00:00 By Gareth Porter, Truthout | Op-Ed
Nina Turner, a former Ohio state senator, speaks to the crowd at The
People's Summit at McCormick Place in Chicago, June 18, 2016. (Photo: Kelly
Wenzel / The New York Times)
The People's Summit in Chicago June 17-19 dramatically displayed both the
strengths and the vulnerabilities of what has emerged in 2016 as one of the
most potentially powerful movements for fundamental change in the United
States in many decades. The event, which brought together 3,000 committed
movement activists to rally in support of the "political revolution" given
impetus by Bernie Sanders' campaign, was an opportunity to ensure that the
movement will not dissipate in the wake of Hillary Clinton's clinching the
Democratic nomination.
The leaders of the movement sought to use the summit to reconcile
conflicting activist views on the relationship between movement
organizations and electoral politics. The summit may have succeeded in
keeping the coalition of those who privilege electoral politics and those
who see it as a distraction from their local struggles from splitting up.
But despite the political sophistication and pragmatism of the organizers,
the gathering failed to deal seriously with the problem of the "permanent
war state" -- the central power bloc in the US government that looms
menacingly over everything the movement hopes to accomplish.
The permanent war state is the 800-pound gorilla in US society and political
life. As the old joke goes, the answer to the question, "Where does an
800-pound gorilla eat?" is, "Anywhere he likes." As long as the organs of
"national security" continue to retain the extraordinary power to
appropriate budgetary resources and to involve the United States in foreign
conflicts without real accountability, US politics will be grotesquely
distorted to the profound disadvantage of the movement for fundamental
change. The Pentagon, the CIA and the National Security Agency will continue
to control most of the $1.1 trillion federal discretionary spending budget,
crowding out programs that would benefit people. And beyond wielding that
obvious financial power, by maintaining the premise that the United States
must continue to make war indefinitely, they will also wield an ideological
weapon that helps the economic elite maintain the status quo.
For more original Truthout election coverage, check out our election
section, "Beyond the Sound Bites: Election 2016."
But that fundamental obstacle to change was not even mentioned by any of the
speakers who introduced the main themes of the conference on the first
night. On the second day, US Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-Hawaii) strongly
denounced moves by powerful interests for a new war for regime change in
Syria, but she did not address the underlying system of institutional
interests and power that keeps the United States at permanent war. There was
one breakout session entitled "Healthcare Not Warfare," which highlighted
what people already know -- that spending for war and preparation for war
robs the people of resources needed to build a more prosperous and equitable
society. But it was evidently an afterthought for conference organizers, and
did not interest many of the attendees, drawing perhaps 30 people.
THE PERMANENT WAR STATE IS THE 800-POUND GORILLA IN US SOCIETY AND POLITICAL
LIFE.
The Sanders campaign never explicitly raised the issue of the permanent war
state during the primary election contest, either. He did present a sharp
contrast to Hillary Clinton when they debated foreign policy, effectively
demolishing her position urging a more militarily aggressive policy in
Syria. He called for a policy that "destroys ISIS" but "does not get us
involved in perpetual warfare in the quagmire of the Middle East."But he
never talked about ending the unprecedented power that national security
institutions have seized over the resources and security of the American
people.
It is not difficult to see why Sanders did not take on that larger issue.
The power of the military-industrial-congressional complex that has morphed
into a permanent war state has long been the real "third rail" in US
politics, which anyone aspiring to national office touches only at the risk
of being branded "anti-American." News media coverage constantly reinforces
the idea that US global military presence and aggressiveness are legitimate
responses to foreign threats. So, for politicians, explaining why the power
of that combination of institutions is a danger not only to people's
economic interests, but also to their physical security is seen as extremely
difficult and fraught with political risk. Sanders, who had no problem
opposing specific wars, undoubtedly feared that an effort to deal with the
interests and power behind the wars that most Americans oppose would force
him to respond to attacks from the Clinton camp and the corporate media, and
thus interfere with his populist message.
The permanent war state also appears to be outside the political comfort
zone of National Nurses United, the single most influential organization in
planning and funding the People's Summit. As a senior official of National
Nurses United explained, the organization is able to talk about corporate
control of the health care system because nurses constantly see the
consequences in their own work, but most have no such personal experiences
enabling them to talk about the war system.
But despite these understandable reasons for taking a pass on the issue, the
leadership of the movement inspired by the Sanders campaign is making a big
mistake by failing to take on the problem of the permanent war state. The
popular organizations represented in Chicago understand this, but they have
hesitated to go up against the most powerful combination bureaucratic
interests the world has ever known, in part because they have not had any
clear idea about how those interests could be defeated. What has been not
been tried, however, is a strategy that attacks the war system where it is
most vulnerable -- the fact that the war system bureaucrats have
systematically pursued their own personal and institutional interests at the
expense of the American people.
The publicly available records of US intervention and war, especially since
the beginning of the Cold War, reveal an endless succession of policies and
programs that were utterly useless and provoked reactions from states and
from non-state actors that threatened the safety of the American people. But
the policy makers preferred those policies, because they gave them and their
organizations more power, more budgetary resources, more people under their
command, more new technology, more foreign bases and perquisites, and more
lucrative jobs and contracts when they leave the government for private
companies.
All the services were looking for a boost in military appropriations when
they pushed Presidents John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson to intervene
militarily in Vietnam. The US Air Force sold its "shock and awe" strategy
for regime change in Iraq to then-Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld in
order to capture a larger share of the military budget. The CIA got control
over a major new mission when it convinced President George W. Bush to
launch a drone war in Pakistan.
But the American people suffered the direct and indirect consequences of
these wars in each case.
The fundamental conflict between the national interest and the personal and
bureaucratic interests of the policy makers of the permanent war state
explains why the system has continued to produce uniformly disastrous
policies decade after decade.
So the strategy of the movement that the Sanders campaign has mobilized must
include a broadly concerted campaign that explains to young people,
disaffected working-class people and others how the permanent war state
produces winners and losers. The winners are the national security organs
themselves, as well as those who make careers and fortunes from the
permanent state of war. The losers are those who must suffer the
socioeconomic and other consequences of such reckless policies. Such a
campaign should aim at nothing less than taking away the flow of money and
the legal authority that the permanent war state has seized on the pretext
of "threats" that are largely of its own making.
Even though the permanent war state seems to be at the peak of its power,
like all essentially hollow institutions, it has a serious political
vulnerability. Millions of Americans know that the wars the war-state
agencies have wrought over the past half century -- from the Vietnam War to
the war in Afghanistan -- were worse than useless. So the legitimacy of the
permanent war state is extremely tenuous. A determined campaign to challenge
that legitimacy, carried out with sufficient resources over a few years with
the participation of a broad coalition, could shake it to its roots. Such a
campaign must be included in the work to open up new political spaces and
propel the movement for change.
Copyright, Truthout. May not be reprinted without permission.
GARETH PORTER
Gareth Porter is an independent investigative journalist and historian
writing on US national security policy. His latest book, Manufactured
Crisis: The Untold Story of the Iran Nuclear Scare, was published in
February of 2014. Follow him on Twitter: @GarethPorter.
RELATED STORIES
How the Mainstream Media's Islamophobia Fuels Endless War
By Mike Ludwig, Truthout | Report
Healing From War: Thanking a Veteran for Her Service Is Not Enough
By Camillo Mac Bica, Truthout | Op-Ed
One Man's War: Bringing Iraq to the United States
By Mark Wilkerson, TomDispatch | Op-Ed
________________________________________
Show Comments
Hide Comments
<a href="http://truthout.disqus.com/?url=ref";>View the discussion
thread.</a>
Error! Hyperlink reference not valid.
Why the Sanders "Revolution" Must Take on the Permanent War State
Tuesday, 28 June 2016 00:00 By Gareth Porter, Truthout | Op-Ed
. font size Error! Hyperlink reference not valid. Error! Hyperlink
reference not valid.Error! Hyperlink reference not valid. Error! Hyperlink
reference not valid.
. Nina Turner, a former Ohio state senator, speaks to the crowd at
The People's Summit at McCormick Place in Chicago, June 18, 2016. (Photo:
Kelly Wenzel / The New York Times)
. The People's Summit in Chicago June 17-19 dramatically displayed
both the strengths and the vulnerabilities of what has emerged in 2016 as
one of the most potentially powerful movements for fundamental change in the
United States in many decades. The event, which brought together 3,000
committed movement activists to rally in support of the "political
revolution" given impetus by Bernie Sanders' campaign, was an opportunity to
ensure that the movement will not dissipate in the wake of Hillary Clinton's
clinching the Democratic nomination.
The leaders of the movement sought to use the summit to reconcile
conflicting activist views on the relationship between movement
organizations and electoral politics. The summit may have succeeded in
keeping the coalition of those who privilege electoral politics and those
who see it as a distraction from their local struggles from splitting up.
But despite the political sophistication and pragmatism of the organizers,
the gathering failed to deal seriously with the problem of the "permanent
war state" -- the central power bloc in the US government that looms
menacingly over everything the movement hopes to accomplish.
The permanent war state is the 800-pound gorilla in US society and political
life. As the old joke goes, the answer to the question, "Where does an
800-pound gorilla eat?" is, "Anywhere he likes." As long as the organs of
"national security" continue to retain the extraordinary power to
appropriate budgetary resources and to involve the United States in foreign
conflicts without real accountability, US politics will be grotesquely
distorted to the profound disadvantage of the movement for fundamental
change. The Pentagon, the CIA and the National Security Agency will continue
to control most of the $1.1 trillion federal discretionary spending budget,
crowding out programs that would benefit people. And beyond wielding that
obvious financial power, by maintaining the premise that the United States
must continue to make war indefinitely, they will also wield an ideological
weapon that helps the economic elite maintain the status quo.
For more original Truthout election coverage, check out our election
section, "Beyond the Sound Bites: Election 2016."
But that fundamental obstacle to change was not even mentioned by any of the
speakers who introduced the main themes of the conference on the first
night. On the second day, US Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-Hawaii) strongly
denounced moves by powerful interests for a new war for regime change in
Syria, but she did not address the underlying system of institutional
interests and power that keeps the United States at permanent war. There was
one breakout session entitled "Healthcare Not Warfare," which highlighted
what people already know -- that spending for war and preparation for war
robs the people of resources needed to build a more prosperous and equitable
society. But it was evidently an afterthought for conference organizers, and
did not interest many of the attendees, drawing perhaps 30 people.
The permanent war state is the 800-pound gorilla in US society and political
life.
The Sanders campaign never explicitly raised the issue of the permanent war
state during the primary election contest, either. He did present a sharp
contrast to Hillary Clinton when they debated foreign policy, effectively
demolishing her position urging a more militarily aggressive policy in
Syria. He called for a policy that "destroys ISIS" but "does not get us
involved in perpetual warfare in the quagmire of the Middle East."But he
never talked about ending the unprecedented power that national security
institutions have seized over the resources and security of the American
people.
It is not difficult to see why Sanders did not take on that larger issue.
The power of the military-industrial-congressional complex that has morphed
into a permanent war state has long been the real "third rail" in US
politics, which anyone aspiring to national office touches only at the risk
of being branded "anti-American." News media coverage constantly reinforces
the idea that US global military presence and aggressiveness are legitimate
responses to foreign threats. So, for politicians, explaining why the power
of that combination of institutions is a danger not only to people's
economic interests, but also to their physical security is seen as extremely
difficult and fraught with political risk. Sanders, who had no problem
opposing specific wars, undoubtedly feared that an effort to deal with the
interests and power behind the wars that most Americans oppose would force
him to respond to attacks from the Clinton camp and the corporate media, and
thus interfere with his populist message.
The permanent war state also appears to be outside the political comfort
zone of National Nurses United, the single most influential organization in
planning and funding the People's Summit. As a senior official of National
Nurses United explained, the organization is able to talk about corporate
control of the health care system because nurses constantly see the
consequences in their own work, but most have no such personal experiences
enabling them to talk about the war system.
But despite these understandable reasons for taking a pass on the issue, the
leadership of the movement inspired by the Sanders campaign is making a big
mistake by failing to take on the problem of the permanent war state. The
popular organizations represented in Chicago understand this, but they have
hesitated to go up against the most powerful combination bureaucratic
interests the world has ever known, in part because they have not had any
clear idea about how those interests could be defeated. What has been not
been tried, however, is a strategy that attacks the war system where it is
most vulnerable -- the fact that the war system bureaucrats have
systematically pursued their own personal and institutional interests at the
expense of the American people.
The publicly available records of US intervention and war, especially since
the beginning of the Cold War, reveal an endless succession of policies and
programs that were utterly useless and provoked reactions from states and
from non-state actors that threatened the safety of the American people. But
the policy makers preferred those policies, because they gave them and their
organizations more power, more budgetary resources, more people under their
command, more new technology, more foreign bases and perquisites, and more
lucrative jobs and contracts when they leave the government for private
companies.
All the services were looking for a boost in military appropriations when
they pushed Presidents John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson to intervene
militarily in Vietnam. The US Air Force sold its "shock and awe" strategy
for regime change in Iraq to then-Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld in
order to capture a larger share of the military budget. The CIA got control
over a major new mission when it convinced President George W. Bush to
launch a drone war in Pakistan.
But the American people suffered the direct and indirect consequences of
these wars in each case.
The fundamental conflict between the national interest and the personal and
bureaucratic interests of the policy makers of the permanent war state
explains why the system has continued to produce uniformly disastrous
policies decade after decade.
So the strategy of the movement that the Sanders campaign has mobilized must
include a broadly concerted campaign that explains to young people,
disaffected working-class people and others how the permanent war state
produces winners and losers. The winners are the national security organs
themselves, as well as those who make careers and fortunes from the
permanent state of war. The losers are those who must suffer the
socioeconomic and other consequences of such reckless policies. Such a
campaign should aim at nothing less than taking away the flow of money and
the legal authority that the permanent war state has seized on the pretext
of "threats" that are largely of its own making.
Even though the permanent war state seems to be at the peak of its power,
like all essentially hollow institutions, it has a serious political
vulnerability. Millions of Americans know that the wars the war-state
agencies have wrought over the past half century -- from the Vietnam War to
the war in Afghanistan -- were worse than useless. So the legitimacy of the
permanent war state is extremely tenuous. A determined campaign to challenge
that legitimacy, carried out with sufficient resources over a few years with
the participation of a broad coalition, could shake it to its roots. Such a
campaign must be included in the work to open up new political spaces and
propel the movement for change.
Copyright, Truthout. May not be reprinted without permission.
Gareth Porter
Gareth Porter is an independent investigative journalist and historian
writing on US national security policy. His latest book, Manufactured
Crisis: The Untold Story of the Iran Nuclear Scare, was published in
February of 2014. Follow him on Twitter: @GarethPorter.
Related Stories
How the Mainstream Media's Islamophobia Fuels Endless War
By Mike Ludwig, Truthout | ReportHealing From War: Thanking a Veteran for
Her Service Is Not Enough
By Camillo Mac Bica, Truthout | Op-EdOne Man's War: Bringing Iraq to the
United States
By Mark Wilkerson, TomDispatch | Op-Ed
Show Comments
