BS: Opposing Militarism & Unilateral War

Subject: BS: Opposing Militarism & Unilateral War
From: GUEST,Civil Society Internationalist
Date: 12 Apr 03 - 02:30 PM

Perhaps now that the military phase of the war on Iraq is winding down, the use of emotionally laden "support the troops" propaganda appeals can be put behind us, and serious efforts to reign in the obscene levels of US military spending, and dramatically curtail the dominance of US civil society by the Defense Dept/Pentagon, the intelligence community, and the corporate interests benefiting from that political and social dominance, can begin in earnest again.

I was reminded again of this profound need to end militarist domination of US society with the passing of the 2003 Bush administration budget this week, once again with more money being given to the military (around 52% of the total US budget) than to all domestic concerns combined.

Another trigger was that, for the first time since 9/11, the World Bank is balking at the Bush administration's demands for increased spending on the US global militarism agenda in it's so-called war on terrorism, at the expense of the entire developing world. This week, the World Bank challenged the automatic assumptions of the Bush administration, that the World Bank would fund Iraq's post-war reconstruction, at the expense of much poorer, much needier post-conflict nations, such as Afghanistan and Rwanda. As of yesterday, the World Bank's position was that without international agreement, and UN support in the form of a Security Council resolution, the World Bank would not involve itself in the Bush administration's post-war reconstruction of Iraq.

The evaporation of the post-Cold War "peace dividend" does not seem newsworthy anymore. But it should certainly be news that since the end of the Cold War there has been a dramatic proportional increase in US military spending compared to welfare, environmental protection, worker safety, education, and such. This shift in government priorities toward the military and away from civilian services merits a headline article, yet the US media, despite the budget battles this week, and this weekend's meetings in Washington DC of the World Bank/IMF, are ignoring the story altogether.

In addition, the scale of the US military budget results from US global activity, and American globalization thus appears in rather different light when the US budget's priorities are taken into account. Could US global militarism be an important part of America's global identity? The benign guise of US globalization represented by American "world business" is certainly more attractive and well-publicized; but the US budget indicates another reality.

So when the mainstream media begins demonizing the anti-globalization protesters in Washington this weekend for the IMF/World Bank meetings, I think it is important for those who opposed the war on Iraq to remember a few salient points about US global militarism and it's imperial reach:

1. Militarists in the U.S. have funded and assisted in the rise to power of the very "enemies" they now claim the US will engage in a perpetual war with (like Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein), at the expense of civil society's needs in the US and around the globe.

2. Militarists are often poor strategists, and the war on Iraq may well create a much greater terrorist backlash threat to US and global security than previously seen.

3. Militarists are not necessarily promoting defense of the US homeland at all, but rather, as many disarmament intellectuals have long argued: the policies of the big technology/big science "Defense Department" are geared less to "defensive" measures than offensive ones, linked to imperial ambitions, such as the war on terrorism (to replace the Cold War and justify the obscenely bloated military spending that is now endangering the fabric of US civil society itself)and the imperialist "manageable conflict" wars, like Iraq and Afghanistan.

4. Militarism threatens democracy in the U.S. and around the world. It further promises to intellectually co-opt ever more of the formerly pro-democracy intellegentsia to support militarism and militarist solutions. The Gulf War co-opted one group, the Kosovo conflict another. Now, the war on terrorism is helping militarists in the U.S. in their campaign to further reduce expenditures in needed areas like housing, healthcare, mass transportation and environmental renewal. A McCarthy-like hysteria has gripped the entire US government and mainstream media (not just the Bush administration), as we have witnessed in the passage of the US Patriot Act, the detention of foreign nationals without trials, etc.

Subject: RE: BS: Opposing Militarism & Unilateral War
From: Tiger
Date: 12 Apr 03 - 04:15 PM

Subject: RE: BS: Opposing Militarism & Unilateral War
From: Tiger
Date: 12 Apr 03 - 04:17 PM

(Yawn)

Subject: RE: BS: Opposing Militarism & Unilateral War
From: gnu
Date: 12 Apr 03 - 04:48 PM

Subject: RE: BS: Opposing Militarism & Unilateral War
From: GUEST,Civil Society Internationalist
Date: 12 Apr 03 - 06:10 PM

And I note that the Bush administration has just made a 180 degree about face about the UN, France, Germany, and Russia not being involved in post-war reconstruction today, as a result of the World Bank/IMF meetings.

So much for Freedom Fries.

Subject: RE: BS: Opposing Militarism & Unilateral War
From: Gareth
Date: 12 Apr 03 - 07:17 PM

I think we can be content with the realisation that any thing the French Goverment says will be, to use Tricky Dicky phrases, will be 'non opperative' very shortley.

Gareth

Subject: RE: BS: Opposing Militarism & Unilateral War
From: Bobert
Date: 12 Apr 03 - 08:32 PM

Well, without the "smoking gun" one has to begin wondering what the motivations for attacking Iraq actaully were. And now we're beginning to see just glimpses of the stategy to occupy Iraq for a laudry list of strategic reasons, none having much to do with either Saddam or WMD.

Watch and see what kind of PR crap is gonna be pumped out for mass consumption over the next week or two.

Bottom line: Like the stealing of the election, Bush ain't givin' up nuthin' to no one. Scrw worl opinion and screw democracy.

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Opposing Militarism & Unilateral War
From: CarolC
Date: 13 Apr 03 - 01:17 AM

Here's an interesting article on this subject:

Beyond Regime Change By Sandy Tolan and Jason Felch (LA Times
December 1, 2002)

Subject: RE: BS: Opposing Militarism & Unilateral War
From: GUEST,Civil Society Internationalist
Date: 13 Apr 03 - 09:16 AM

I am pretty much in agreement with the substance of that article, linked to by CarolC. But one just cannot dismiss how much this invasion and occupation of Iraq is about money.

The meetings this weekend of the IMF and World Bank are intriguing to say the least.

First, the announcement that has taken the Bush administration aback was made, that there will be no international monetary assistance for post-war Iraq without a UN resolution, from either the IMF or the World Bank. Both institutions announced they would assist with post-invasion reconstruction construction costs once the UN provides them with the mandate to do so. That is a clear defeat of the Bush administration's plans, and a victory for the Europeans, including Blair--but also Chirac, Putin, and Schroeder.

So if the American occupiers are intent on seizing the oil spoils of war, they will be viewed as the ultimate looters of Baghdad (indeed, many in the international community already view them as precisely that anyway), rather than the Iraqis themselves. But the most fascinating game being played by the Americans right now is over debt forgiveness for Iraq.

Of course, they are merely attempting to punish the French, Germans, and Russians, with whom Iraq has the lion's share of it's debt. But the thing is, that opens up the question of the IMF and World Bank forgiving debt incurred in other poor nations, who were run into the debt problems by despotic dictators no longer in power. The Americans would also like nothing better than to see the oil money go straight into their pockets first, rather than service the debts to France, Russia & Germany.

Now, if the result of that is a beginning of debt forgiveness for the poorest countries, I'm all for it!