Category: Politics and Letters

Commentary and reviews

David Remnick vs. Dwight Eisenhower

In The Talk of the Town (The New Yorker, Mar. 20, 2017) David Remnick writes, “One does not have to be ignorant of the CIA’s abuses — or of history in general — to reject the idea of an American Deep State. Previous Presidents have felt resistance, or worse, from elements in the federal bureaucracies; Eisenhower warned of “the military-industrial complex …”

These statements need a little unpacking. Leaving aside, for the moment, the almost Jamesean qualities of the first sentence, the most striking thing is the airy disregard for Eisenhower. With a wave of his hand, David Remnick dismisses the parting words of the man who was Supreme Commander of Allied Forces in WWII and a two-term President. I can’t help but feel that Eisenhower might know a little more about politics, government and the role of the “military-industrial complex” than Mr. Remnick gives him credit for. Eisenhower’s final address was his legacy to the nation he devoted his life to serving. His words deserve better than to be dismissed out of hand. They should be taken to heart.

The import of Remnick’s remarks is to dismiss “the military-industrial complex” along with “the idea of an American Deep State.” Earlier in his piece, he tells us that the term “Deep State” has its origins in Turkey and is defined as “a clandestine network, including military and intelligence officers, along with civilian allies …” Now, I would say that is an excellent working definition of what we have in the United States, but Remnick comfortably disregards Eisenhower’s warning as just another example of what isn’t a Deep State. Like the Deep State in Turkey, the Deep State in the United States is hidden in plain sight. According to Remnick, in Turkey, its “mission was to protect the secular order established in 1923 by …. Ataturk.” So it is possible to know the participants (if not always their actual names) and the mission, of the Deep State.

Let’s return for a moment to Remnick’s remarkable first sentence. How shall we consider the person who is “ignorant of the CIA’s abuses.” He doesn’t have to be ignorant to reject the idea of the Deep State yet, if he is ignorant … he can reject the idea just as well as the informed person. Have I got this right? He “doesn’t have to be ignorant” but that still allows room for him to be ignorant, I take it.

As for “history in general” it is difficult to imagine “one” who is ignorant of history in general. Is there such a person? Or, conversely, “one” who is not ignorant of history in general? One thing we do know is that history is being written, and rewritten, all the time. Isn’t that what is happening in this piece, rewriting history? Ambiguity, multiple levels of meaning, opacity, and contradiction can all be effective literary devices but they don’t really belong in a piece about realpolitik. Remnick is seized with the same incoherence that many writers experience when trying to explain away the “unwarranted influence of the military-industrial complex.” Contorted and mysterious prose often features in reporting on the Deep State so Remnick is not alone in this.

The Deep State in America is revealed if we look at the people and organizations that made the decisions to invade Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq. In short, it is the war machine, whose mission is to create wars and spend ever more on armaments in a self-perpetuating cycle. They even want to weaponize space. To what end you might ask? The end, so to speak, is plain to see for all who care to look; to dominate the world militarily and control the world’s resources.

What were the imperative reasons we went to war? What was the public good these wars produced? Was our nation in danger? Tell me again why we needed to invade Iraq, Afghanistan and Vietnam.

What Remnick does not grasp is that the existence of the military-industrial complex is not in question; no one doubts its existence. What makes it synonymous with the Deep State is the“unwarranted influence” that was actually the substance of Eisenhower’s warning.

Here is the text of Eisenhower’s final address:

As we peer into society’s future, we — you and I, and our government — must avoid the impulse to live only for today, plundering for our own ease and convenience the precious resources of tomorrow. We cannot mortgage the material assets of our grandchildren without risking the loss also of their political and spiritual heritage. We want democracy to survive for all generations to come, not to become the insolvent phantom of tomorrow.

Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense. We have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security alone more than the net income of all United States corporations.

Now this conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence — economic, political, even spiritual — is felt in every city, every Statehouse, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet, we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources, and livelihood are all involved. So is the very structure of our society.

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together. (from Wikipedia)

Defund the CIA

According to the Federation of American Scientists the US “fiscal Year 2020 budget request included $62.8 billion for the National Intelligence Program, and $22.95 billion for the Military Intelligence Program.”  What, exactly, does this almost $90 billion buy us?  “Details of the overall United States intelligence budget are classified,” (Wikipedia), so we can never really know what the money is spent on. “Although the government has annually released its overall level of intelligence spending since 2007, it has not divulged how it uses the money or how it performs against the goals set by the president and Congress.” (The Washington Post.)

What we do know is the CIA has it’s own air force, secret air bases and landing strips all over the world and predator drones that have been responsible for the deaths of hundreds of civilians in Afghanistan, Iraq and Yemen and Pakistan, to name just a few of the nations that have been subject to these attacks.  Extra-judicial renditions (kidnapping) and black sites where suspects are tortured are the hall-marks of the CIA. The CIA and American democracy are simply incompatible; you can’t have an unaccountable, secret organization at the heart of government. Democracy requires transparency and public accountability.

The CIA engages in clandestine activities to subvert democratically elected governments all over the world. The American people would not countenance this as public policy if it was brought into the light of day. The worst part is the CIA is a colossal failure.  Despite the hundreds of billions spent on what amounts to a covert foreign policy, the CIA has not made us, or the world, safer.  The list of failures is staggering and the costs of our invading Iraq and Afghanistan incalculable.  Where was the CIA when these truly ignorant and foolish decisions to invade were being made?  Decisions to engage in actions that only created more terrorists and destroyed innocent lives?  Iraq was never a threat to the United States. The disastrous results are with us to this day.  And the greatest failure of all, 9/11.  A small group of young men from Saudi Arabia is able to come to this country, go to flight school and utterly defeat the greatest military and intelligence apparatus the world has ever seen. The main finding of the 9/11 Commission: “a failure of communication,”  was responsible for the success of the attacks. No one lost their job, no one was even demoted.  And the CIA is still with us.

Culture of Violence

The media pundits puzzle over why there are increasing numbers of mass shootings. Who is immune to the culture of violence? The glorification of killing that has been trumpeted by politicians and the Main Stream Media (MSM) makes heroes of Navy Seals who are ordered to assassinate suspects in their homes and then dump the bodies at sea. No trial, no judge, no jury and justice was not served.

There is little question as to who created this climate of violence in the 21st Century. It began with the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan by Bush and Cheney & Co. The enormous sums diverted to the war machine, and the complicity of the MSM in every act of state sponsored terrorism committed by the west, complete the picture. There was no ISIS before the invasion of Iraq. We created ISIS. The bellicosity continued under Obama, winner of the Nobel Peace prize. If he had a shred of honor he would give it back. Does anyone remember the “peace dividend” that was supposed to come with the end of the cold war? The war machine made short work of that. The so-called “war on terrorism is endless.” And now we have a President who makes it a priority to increase military spending and sell arms to everyone he can. This will not improve the prospects for peace.

The media won’t give peace a chance. The relentless violence of TV and movies continues unabated. It is acceptable to punch, kick, stab and shoot a woman in the chest but not to see a woman’s breast being kissed; that’s x-rated. When you foster a culture of violence it’s small wonder that people will respond to it in ways you might have been able to predict.

The battle for Mosul

Dear New Yorker:
It is sad, inexcusable really, that in all his long article, one of the longest I’ve read in the New Yorker, Luke Mogelson makes no mention of the vibrant and vital Mosul that existed not very long ago, before the US invasion of Iraq.  By focusing on one small heroic band of battered, dispossessed Iraqis, “The Avengers of Mosul” (Feb. 6, 2017) misses the big picture of the tragic consequences of our invasion.  No mention is made of the (even at that time) readily available satellite pictures showing the before and after, the ruined, bombed out, devastated city that Mosul had become. That is the context in which we need to view the battle for Mosul. The loss of Mosul is the direct result of the inept and misguided wartime administration of Paul Bremer.  If there had been no US invasion, there would have been no ISIS.