Washington, D.C.

Targeting Steny Hoyer for his contempt for the rule of law

Efforts are under way to disrupt the plans of the House Democratic leadership to give the president warrantless eavesdropping powers and the telecom industry full-fledged amnesty.

  • more
    • All Share Services

(Updated belowUpdate IIUpdate III

Update IV — Wed. morning)

It is now definitively clear that House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer is the driving force behind a bill — written by GOP Sen. Kit Bond — to vest the President with vast new warrantless eavesdropping powers and to vest lawbreaking telecoms with amnesty. Even as his office dishonestly denies that he is doing so, still more reports yesterday — this one from the NYT and this one from Roll Call (sub req’d) — confirm that a so-called “compromise” is being spearheaded by Hoyer and the House Democratic leadership. The ACLU and EFF are holding a joint call tomorrow to denounce Hoyer’s “compromise” as nothing more than disguised guaranteed immunity for telecoms and, further, because “the proposed deal could be used to authorize dragnet surveillance of Americans’ communications in violation of the Fourth Amendment.”

As a result, there is a major new campaign beginning today aimed at Hoyer and a handful of other key members of Congress who enable telecom immunity and warrantless eavesdropping. In order to raise as much money as possible for this campaign — far more than the $85,000 raised (and still being spent) in Chris Carney’s district as a result of his support for warrantless eavesdropping and telecom amnesty — we are working to create an alliance with numerous organizations and factions across the ideological spectrum which oppose civil liberties erosions, as well as with as many blogs as possible (modeled vaguely after the ideologically diverse alliance that has arisen in Britain in opposition to the sprawling and lawless surveillance state there).

We hope to announce details about the participating individuals and groups very shortly, as well as the exact details of what we’re doing. But given the time pressures, it’s vital to be able to have as many resources as possible, as quickly as possible, for this campaign. The more money raised, the greater the disruptive impact will be.

For the moment, contributions can be made here. All the money raised will be spent exclusively on ad campaigns aimed at the short-term vulnerabilities of those in Congress responsible for delivering this indescribably tyrannical package of surveillance powers to the President and the accompanying corrupt gift to lawbreaking telecoms.

* * * *

It’s vital to note what the Federal Judge presiding over the telecom lawsuits — Bush-41-appointee Vaughn Walker — wrote about the allegations made against these telecoms when he refused to dismiss the lawsuits against them [Decision (.pdf) at p. 68]:


As Judge Walker ruled, the alleged actions by the telecoms “violate the constitutional rights clearly established” by prior Supreme Court rulings and “no reasonable entity in [the telecoms'] position could have believed [the spying program] was legal.” Beyond that, the telecoms — by allowing the Bush administration to spy on their customers with no warrants — knowingly violated at least four separate federal statutes (.pdf).

Despite that, Steny Hoyer and other House Democrats are about to block the court from ever ruling on those issues and, instead, hand the telecoms something that no ordinary citizen would ever receive: namely, complete immunity without their ever having to answer for their conduct in a court of law. It is corruption in its most extreme and transparent form.

The message of the campaign we are going to launch will be that ordinary Americans who run afoul even of the pettiest laws, such as alleged minor drug possession offenses and the like, have the full weight of the criminal justice system smash mercilessly down upon them. People and small businesses who are sued in court are required to defend themselves no matter the expense. Steny Hoyer and his comrades do nothing to oppose that.

Instead, Hoyer spends his time in Washington expending enormous amounts of his political capital and energy working to obtain amnesty for the nation’s richest and most powerful telecom corporations which, for years, broke far more serious laws in enabling the Bush administration illegally to spy on Americans. Hoyer is working to perpetuate a two-tiered system of justice in America where rich corporations with lobbyists and big campaign contributions are literally allowed to break our most serious laws and receive retroactive amnesty, while ordinary citizens have their lives destroyed over the pettiest offenses, as America turns itself into the world’s largest prison state.

* * * *

What makes this behavior all the more appalling is that it contradicts every claim the Democratic Congressional leadership has made about what they believe. When the Lewis Libby criminal proceeding was pending, the entire House Democratic leadership — including Hoyer — wrote a letter to President Bush demanding that he not pardon Libby because — and this is really what they said — it is vital that the rule of law apply equally to everyone. Just look at this letter signed by many of the same people — led by Hoyer — who are about to violate every single one of the standards they claimed to embrace by vesting telecoms with immunity:

Dear Mr. President:

At the heart of the criminal indictment of I. Lewis Libby, former Chief of Staff to Vice President Cheney, are indications of a serious and reckless disregard for the public trust. We write to you today to request you make efforts to restore this public trust, with a pledge to the American people that no one under investigation in connection with the misuse of classified information involving the identity of CIA officer Valerie Plame will receive special treatment from the White House during the course of the investigation. . . .

Under our system of law, all are innocent until proven guilty. But another fundamental tenet is that of equal treatment under the law. It is only by allowing the special prosecutor’s essential investigations to continue without interference, and abiding by the results of any legal determinations based on the facts of those investigations, that we can reassure the American people that the White House officials are not above the law.

Perjury and obstruction of justice are serious crimes. . . . We ask that you uphold the rule of law by making clear that no one who has been charged, or is being investigated in the Plame matter, will be pardoned.

We look forward to your earliest response on this vital matter.

Respectfully,

Nancy Pelosi

House Democratic Leader

Steny Hoyer

Democratic Whip

Robert Menendez

House Democratic Caucus, Chair

James E. Clyburn

House Democratic Caucus, Vice Chair

The telecom amnesty they’re about to hand to companies that are major contributors of theirs violates every one of these principles exactly to the same extent, and for exactly the same reasons, as Bush’s pardon of Libby would have (and as Bush’s commutation of Libby’s sentence did). By compelling the dismissal of lawsuits against telecoms even if they broke our domestic spying laws, Hoyer and other House Democrats are about to trample on what they called — when it came time righteously to rail against George Bush — the “fundamental tenet [] of equal treatment under the law.”

More amazingly still, Hoyer himself — back in March of this year — pointed to the above-cited ruling from Judge Walker and argued that amnesty for telecoms would be corrupt and wrong. This is what Hoyer himself said back then:

Let me remind my colleagues of the statement by Judge Vaughn Walker, the chief judge of the Northern District of California, in a case involving AT&T’s participation in this warrantless program.

Judge Walker, a Republican appointee, wrote: “AT&T cannot seriously contend that a reasonable entity in its position could have believed that the alleged domestic dragnet was legal.”

I submit that a reasonable –- responsible -– Congress would not seek to immunize conduct without knowing what conduct or misconduct it is immunizing.

What Steny Hoyer back in March called unreasonable and irresponsible is exactly what he is now about to do.

Finally, just listen to this lecture Hoyer gave on the House floor back in March when speaking out against telecom amnesty. In it, he said “the most important thing this body does” is “uphold the law. Not just pass the law. Uphold the law.” Yet now, he’s about to betray what he said is the “most important thing” the Congress does — “uphold the law” — by giving immunity to companies that Hoyer himself said very likely broke the law and violated the Constitutional rights of Americans, and by vesting the type of domestic spying powers in the President which — as our own Government repeatedly has said — are the hallmark of tyrannical regimes.

* * * * *

No matter what, the Democrats are going to control the House and Senate after the 2008 election. What people like Hoyer and Rahm Emanuel are pursuing is the consolidation of their power so that they become entrenched and can control Congress for the next decade, at least. That’s obviously their first and only objective, and they are willing to sacrifice anything that they perceive at all threatening to that goal — including efforts to stop the war in Iraq, basic constitutional liberties, protections against warrantless eavesdropping, and the equal and firm application of the rule of law.

This isn’t about whether Republicans or Democrats should control the Congress. That is already a settled matter. The Democrats are going to have control over both houses of Congress after 2008, and nobody disputes that. This is about whether the Democrats who control the Congress are even minimally accountable in how they exercise that control, whether they’ll be permitted to trample upon the most basic principles in order cravenly to preserve their own power.

Right now, they perceive that the only political cost comes from opposing the Far Right on matters of constitutional protections and civil liberties. Thus, they’re willing — eager — to trample on those protections and liberties in order to protect their own power. That dynamic needs to be reversed. They need to know that there is a bigger price to pay when they betray the promises they repeatedly make, the principles they continuously espouse, and the duties that they have to preserve basic precepts of equality under the law and core constitutional protections. I expect to post a lot more details about this campaign throughout the rest of the day and tomorrow. For now, contributions can be made here.

UPDATE: A few additional points:

* There are reports from very reliable sources that Hoyer, after engineering this “compromise” and ensuring it has enough votes to pass, will then vote against it so he can claim it’s not his fault (as will Pelosi). Worse, the Democratic leadership in the Senate (Reid and Durbin) have been saying that while they oppose the “compromise” and will vote against it, they will do nothing to impede its passage. From The Hill just now (after I wrote this update):

Senate Democratic leaders said Tuesday that they would not stand in the way of a compromise overhaul of the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), despite their concerns with the impacts of the sprawling measure.

Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), who also sits on the Judiciary Committee, said some Democrats are “not happy with that, but there may be enough to get a majority vote.”

When asked if he would whip his conference to vote against it, Durbin said: “I doubt if it’s going to be a caucus position.”

Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.) predicted Tuesday that there is enough support within the Democratic Conference to approve a contentious overhaul of the FISA legislation. . . . .

Reid said that he would not ask his members to vote against the bill and that he still had not reviewed the language, pointing out that negotiators have been saying for weeks that they had a deal on the contentious issue.

When Tom DeLay ran the House, and Bill Frist ran the Senate, there wasn’t a comma that made it to the floor that they didn’t support. The fact that they intend to engage in deceit of this sort — on top of letting this horrendous bill pass — makes matters worse, not better.

* Barack Obama has previously expressed emphatic opposition to telecom amnesty and warrantless eavesdropping, but his opposition has amounted mostly to pretty words, not actions. That ought to change.

* Regarding false denials by Hoyer’s office that the bill contains amnesty, see here. Regarding speculation as to why Congressional Democrats are doing this — what their base motives are — see here.

* Russ Feingold and Chris Dodd have issued a joint statement vehemently condemning this “compromise.”

*Just in the first hour 30 minutes after this was posted, so far, almost $8,000 $10,000 $20,000 has been raised. Other blogs and groups are beginning now to raise funds, too, so that number should continue to skyrocket.

UPDATE II: A broad alliance is now forming to raise money for and support this specific campaign, with the intent to work together on an ongoing basis on all civil liberties, constitutional rights and rule of law issues. It now includes the ACLU, as well as the faction that masterminded the online money bombs for the Ron Paul presidential campaign, represented by Break the Matrix, Rick Williams and Trevor Lyman.

We intend shortly to announce the support of a broad-based coalition of office holders and candidates who are devoted to preserving basic constitutional liberties against the ongoing erosion by the Beltway establishment, but for the moment, the goal is to work together to raise as much money as possible for this specific campaign to impede the corrupt FISA/telecom amnesty deal, the enablers in Congressional leadership and various vulnerable supporters of it. Even if they manage to pass this bill — and everything will be done to stop it — a coalition of this sort can generate very serious resources to undermine those responsible. For now, contributions can be made here.

UPDATE III: The announcement of this alliance from the Ron Paul/liberty-minded Right (as opposed to the authoritarian-minded Right) is here. The ACLU will distribute its Press Release tomorrow about this campaign. I really do think the British model I referenced above which is battling similar issues in England (which I wrote about a couple of days ago) is a very formidable one for opposing the Beltway Establishment’s evisceration of constitutional restraints and the rule of law. As indicated, we expect to put together a wide ranging group of current office holders and Congressional candidates to support this effort, too. As Digby wrote today in encouraging her readers to contribute: “It’s a shame it has come to this, but there’s really no option. It’s impossible to get through to these people any other way.”

UPDATE IV (Wednesday morning): In the first 16 hours of this campaign, an extraordinary sum — more than $60,000 $70,000 — has been raised. We’ll announce more details later today about specifically how Hoyer is being targeted, what other Congressional enablers will be targeted as well, and new members of the alliance we’re forming.

Regarding Hoyer’s ongoing, false denials that he is engineering the bill to provide telecom amnesty, yesterday’s article from The Hill specifically says that “[t]he latest development comes after Rockefeller, Sen. Kit Bond (R-Mo.), House Minority Whip Roy Blunt (R-Mo.), House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) and the Bush administration reached an accord late last week to break a weeks-long stalemate over balancing electronic surveillance with the right to privacy for American citizens, according to several people familiar with the talks.” And here is what Dow Jones reported yesterday (h/t Joan McCater):

The top two Democratic leaders in the Senate said Tuesday they will oppose a wiretapping deal under discussion with lawmakers and the White House, but they acknowledged that it could pass anyway. . . .

“There is a plan that will pass the House that (Majority Leader) Steny Hoyer, D-Md., is supporting but some members of the Democratic House leadership may not be supporting,” said Senate Majority Whip Richard Durbin, D-Ill.

The fact that Hoyer is outright lying about his central role in this deal, along with what is obviously the insultingly deceptive plan of Congressional Democrats to pretend that this bill somehow doesn’t provide amnesty when the bill makes immediate and conclusory dismissal of the telecom lawsuits a foregone conclusion (without any inquiry into whether telecoms broke our laws) — a sham process which the ACLU calls “judicial theater” — only compounds the cravenness and deceit here.

Glenn Greenwald

Follow Glenn Greenwald on Twitter: @ggreenwald.

D.C. firm inks lucrative public-relations contract with Bahrain

As the Gulf monarchy cracks down on an international aid group, it hires Qorvis for $40,000-per-month P.R. job

  • more
    • All Share Services

D.C. firm inks lucrative public-relations contract with BahrainA Shiite Bahraini woman gestures as others shout anti-government slogans outside a public forum Saturday, July 23, 2011, outside a religious community center in Sanabis, Bahrain, denouncing the alleged destruction and vandalizing of Shiite mosques, community centers and cemeteries during a government crackdown on a largely Shiite spring uprising. Clerics who spoke during the meeting, blamed Saudi Arabia for targeting religious sites, because they allegedly distrust their own Shia minority and sent forces to help quell the Bahrain uprising. (AP Photo/Hasan Jamali)(Credit: AP)

Bahrain is in the news again, this time for what appears to be the comically evil persecution of the humanitarian group Doctors Without Borders.

So, naturally, the ruling monarchy of the Gulf nation has hired a top Washington public relations firm to burnish (or attempt to salvage) its image, according to a new foreign agent registration filing. Qorvis Communications will be paid $40,000 per month, plus expenses, for the public relations work, according to a contract submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.

Here is the latest on the events in Bahrain, where the Sunni regime’s crackdown on a Shia protest movement is now focusing on prosecuting or harassing those — including doctors — who came to the aid of protesters back in the spring:

The trouble for the group — which is also known by its English name, Doctors Without Borders — started about a week ago. Activists say a young man who had been protesting in his village was hit in the head at close range by police firing a tear-gas canister.

The protester went to the MSF office in the capital, Manama. Owing to the severity of his injuries, an ambulance was called, and the patient was taken to the hospital. On July 28, the next day, 14 police vehicles pulled up to the MSF office. Authorities raided the building and reportedly took away furniture, medicine and patient files — and arrested the group’s local driver, Saeed Mahdi.

Now, the rented villa that used to house the MSF office is locked up and empty.

Qorvis distributed a statement to American journalists writing about the incident, with the Bahrain Health Ministry claiming that Doctors Without Borders “was operating an unlicensed medical center in a residential apartment building.”

Qorvis, which promises clients “integrated strategies to help you tell your story better,” did not immediately respond to a request for comment about its work for Bahrain. The contract is signed by Qorvis partner Matthew Lauer, who was previously a public diplomacy official in the Bush State Department and a spokesman for the South Carolina Democratic Party.

Earlier this year Huffington Post reported that several Qorvis partners had departed the firm because, in the words of one unnamed insider, “I just have trouble working with despotic dictators killing their own people.” Qorvis had previously worked for Bahrain through another PR firm, Bell Pottinger.

Continue Reading Close
Justin Elliott

Justin Elliott is a reporter for ProPublica. You can follow him on Twitter @ElliottJustin

Poll: Public sides with Obama on deficit

The potentially catastrophic effects of a default are finally sinking in with Americans

  • more
    • All Share Services

Poll: Public sides with Obama on deficitIn this July 14, 2011, file photo, President Barack Obama sits with House Speaker John Boehner of Ohio, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi of California, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor of Virginia, as he meets with Republican and Democratic leaders regarding the debt ceiling in the Cabinet Room of the White House in Washington, Thursday, July 14, 2011. Obama's decision to haul lawmakers in day by day to negotiate a debt deal comes down to reality: He has no other choice. The president has essentially cleared his agenda to deal with one enormous crisis. (AP Photo/Charles Dharapak)(Credit: AP)

Most Americans want to see a compromise on the debt ceiling, according to a new NBC/Wall Street Journal poll.

62 percent of self-identified Democrats said they would want Democratic leaders in the House and Senate to make compromises to gain consensus on the current budget debate, while only 43 percent of Republicans want to see their party leaders concede some of their positions. However, around 70 percent of independent respondents said they wanted to see both parties compromise.

The poll results, released Tuesday show that 55 percent of respondents think that failing to raise the debt ceiling would be “a real and serious problem,” while only 18 percent said it would not be. This contrasts starkly to results gleaned from a Gallup survey in May, in which 47 percent of people said they would want Congress to vote against raising the debt ceiling.

Meanwhile, support for President Obama’s proposal for lowering the deficit significantly trumps that for Republican proposals: 58 percent of NBC/WSJ poll respondents said they preferred Obama’s suggestions to lower the federal deficit by $4 trillion over 10 years by cutting federal spending, raising tax revenue from the wealthy and reducing some Medicare spending. Contrastingly, only just over a third prefer the House Republican proposal to reduce the deficit by $2.5 trillion over 10 years through cutting spending alone and not raising additional revenues.

Continue Reading Close

Natasha Lennard covers the Occupy movement for Salon. A British-born, Brooklyn-based journalist, she has been covering Occupy Wall Street since before the first sleeping bag was unrolled in Zuccotti Park. One of the first journalists arrested at an Occupy action, she has managed to enrage Andrew Breitbart, Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck. You can follow her on Twitter (@natashalennard), and email her any Occupy updates/videos/ideas to natasha.lennard@gmail.com

Lobbyists are overtaking Congress

Since the GOP takeover, the number of lobbyists in congressional staff positions has more than doubled

  • more
    • All Share Services

Lobbyists are overtaking Congress

(Updated below)

A new report from the Center for Responsive Politics (CRP) looks at the pervasiveness of former lobbyists now working in congressional staff positions. The number of former lobbyists in Congress has more than doubled between the last Congress and the current one, with a significant partisan skew. In the current 112th Congress, 79 former lobbyists work for Republicans while 48 for Democrats; during the Democratic-led 111th Congress (which ran from 2009-2010), 33 worked for Democrats, while 27 worked for Republicans.

The report, titled “From Hired Guns to Hired Hands: ‘Reverse Revolvers’ in the 111th and 112th Congresses,” is available in full here and has a number of noteworthy takeaways:

  • 60 former lobbyists worked in critically important staff positions in the 111th Congress, 128 former lobbyists can be found working in the same positions in the 112th Congress.
  • The House Energy and Commerce and the House Financial Services committees have the highest cumulative number of former lobbyists employed by their members. The lobbyists of certain companies may be highly desirable to members of Congress serving on committees that handle legislation of concern to these companies. AT&T alone has six former lobbyists who at one point lobbied on behalf of AT&T and now work for senators or representatives sitting on the Senate or House committees related to energy and commerce.
  • 50 former finance sector lobbyists work in the 112th Congress, as do 44 former telecommunications sector lobbyists and 40 former healthcare industry lobbyists. Meanwhile, only seven former labor lobbyists occupy these congressional staffer positions.
  • Certain companies — particularly telecommunications, healthcare and defense contracting firms — are well-represented in the portfolios of former lobbyists now working on Capitol Hill. CRP notes a particular example involving Lockheed Martin. “Charles Kinney, currently working for Sen. Joe Manchin (D- W.Va.), lobbied on behalf of Lockheed in 2004… Now, Kinney is deputy chief of staff and general counsel for Manchin, who currently sits on the Senate Armed Services Committee, as well as the Senate Budget Committee” reads the report. [Update: a representative from Manchin's office informs us that Kinney stopped working for Manchin in May. He was still staffer for the senator at the time of CRP's research]

What does this all mean? As CRP is careful to note, there are numerous reasons why lobbyists might take congressional staffer jobs. “For some people,” the report states, “working in government is exciting, fulfilling work, where the psychic rewards make up for the smaller paycheck. In other cases, people may have lost lobbying jobs due to the poor economy and find the Hill to be a place where their expertise and skills are highly valued.” However, the K Street/Congress revolving door could well spin into concerning territory, as the report concludes:

It may, plausibly, be the case that these individuals are able to keep the wishes of their former clients separate from the wishes of the constituents their bosses represent. But it may also be the case that these former lobbyists are now in the position to exercise considerable sway over everything from policy outcomes to government contract decisions and anti-trust decisions. Particularly where the issues are complicated and do not drive significant constituent interest, former clients of ex-lobbyists now working in Congress could be well placed to reap the rewards of enhanced access and deeper connections into government’s legislative branch.

 

Continue Reading Close

Natasha Lennard covers the Occupy movement for Salon. A British-born, Brooklyn-based journalist, she has been covering Occupy Wall Street since before the first sleeping bag was unrolled in Zuccotti Park. One of the first journalists arrested at an Occupy action, she has managed to enrage Andrew Breitbart, Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck. You can follow her on Twitter (@natashalennard), and email her any Occupy updates/videos/ideas to natasha.lennard@gmail.com

Shariah law instituted steps from the White House!

Predicting an overblown right-wing outrage

  • more
    • All Share Services

Shariah law instituted steps from the White House!Do I spot crescents in this CityCenterDC promotional brochure?

There is a giant real estate development happening in downtown Washington, D.C., near the White House, on the site of the old convention center. Boring news for non-D.C. residents. But I’m willing to bet that the CityCenterDC complex — office space, retail, condos, your standard massive downtown “revitalization” project — will soon be very interesting to a lot of people who don’t live in the area. Not because anyone cares about urban land-use issues, but because of one of the project’s investors: Muslims.

The Washington City Paper noticed a bombshell buried at the bottom of a New York Times piece:

Even before the Qatari investors became involved, Hines and Archstone determined that leasing to banks would not help them create lively shopping streets, Mr. Alsup said. But as it happened, their hesitancy on bank branches meshed with the policies of their financial partners, who adhere to the restrictions of Shariah, or Islamic law, including the ban on collecting interest. Restaurants will be able to serve liquor, but retailers whose primary business involves selling alcohol will not be allowed, Mr. Alsup said.

That’s right: Shariah law, a stone’s throw from the U.S. Capitol. I am assuming the Times just neglected to mention that in addition to banning bars from the complex, all women will be required to wear the niqab, and obviously all infidels will be murdered, while shopping at the Apple store or whatever ends up there. And no dancing!

What’s astounding is that as far as I can see, Matt Drudge hasn’t picked this up. Pamela Geller hasn’t written a lengthy screed about it. Robert Spencer has not weighed in. No one at the Corner has mocked liberals for mocking the threat of creeping Shariah. Get on it, guys! SHARIAH LAW HAS BEEN IMPOSED IN WASHINGTON!

Continue Reading Close
Alex Pareene

Alex Pareene writes about politics for Salon and is the author of "The Rude Guide to Mitt." Email him at apareene@salon.com and follow him on Twitter @pareene

What line between civilian and military authority?

An increasingly powerful Pentagon is taking over the culture of Washington

  • more
    • All Share Services

What line between civilian and military authority?U.S. President Barack Obama meets with troops at Bagram Air Base, December 3, 2010.

I have a fairy tale for you. Once upon a time, a representative democracy was established with a constitution that distilled the wisdom of the ages. Its foundational principles included civilian control of the military and a system of checks and balances that encouraged vigorous public debate as a basis for effective policy-making.

In this fabled land, the role of civilian leaders was, in part, to serve as a check on military ambition and endless wars. They were to prove cautious, too, in committing their citizen-soldiers to battle, and when they did, they would issue Congressional declarations of war so that everyone could grasp the nature of the national emergency at hand and the necessity of military action. In waging war, they would rely on shared sacrifice and even raise taxes. When necessary, it was their job to rein in or even remove military leaders who acted like Caesar (read: General Douglas MacArthur) rather than Cincinnatus (read: General George Washington).

Yes, you’ve guessed it: It’s not a fairy tale, or at least not completely. It’s the United States — an older America that, despite a decidedly checkered and often imperial past, was nevertheless proud of its reluctance to fight, but steadfast in its commitment to win once it decided that battle was the course of action. Even then, this America remained resolute in its reluctance to embrace a military ethos or bow down before military gods, committed as it was to civilian primacy and the avoidance of a large standing army.

Paradoxically, the last vestiges of this America could still be seen some 50 years ago under President Dwight D. Eisenhower, himself a retired five-star general, who tried with varying degrees of success to limit defense spending, and who famously warned in his farewell address in 1961 of the dangers of a surging “military-industrial complex.”

And leaping forward almost four decades, here’s another paradox for you: prior to September 11, 2001, what many leading pundits and commentators fretted most about was an alleged widening gap between American civilians and their now all-volunteer military. In 1997, Wall Street Journal Pentagon correspondent Tom Ricks typically worried about an all-volunteer military that saw civilians as privileged and flabby, increasingly considered itself a breed apart, and held the public it served in contempt.

Concerned as well was Richard Kohn, former chief historian of the U.S. Air Force. In a special lecture to Air Force Academy cadets in 1999 on “the erosion of civilian control of the military in the United States today,” Kohn worried about a military that openly disrespected President Bill Clinton, its commander-in-chief, even as it meddled in areas like policy-making for which it was not suited and from which it had been excluded by the Constitution.

How times have changed. In the post-9/11 world, a far more insidious problem confronts us. That gap, if it ever existed, is no more. Instead, at the highest levels, what’s civilian and what’s military are increasingly difficult to tell apart as the two spheres blur and blend. Today, civilian control of the military is largely a principle without a meaning, while inside Washington’s Beltway, even with a scorecard it’s hard to tell the players apart.

In the process, the military has gained a kind of unspoken and distinctly un-American primacy. Put another way, after a decade-long budgetary feeding frenzy, the Pentagon has soared, while an eclipsed Department of State, all those civilian diplomats, has been left to eke out a living on budgetary scraps or, as in Iraq today, arm and militarize itself. State, in other words, has become a remora clinging to the predatory shark that is the Department of Defense.

Large and small, symbolic or otherwise, signs of this civil-military blending (with the military significantly running the show) can be found almost anywhere you look. Civilian presidents regularly appear in military flight gear or jackets, as George W. Bush famously did before his “Mission Accomplished” speech on the deck of the U.S.S. Abraham Lincoln in 2003 and as President Obama did on a visit to U.S. troops in Afghanistan in 2010. Military leaders are now regularly put in charge of previously civilian intelligence agencies, as in the case of General David Petraeus, now nominated to leave the Afghan battlefield and become director of the Central Intelligence Agency.

Civilian agencies now militarize themselves and wage war (as the CIA has done or is doing in various drone wars in the Greater Middle East, often in conjunction with the military). America’s part-time citizen-soldiers have morphed into full-time warriors and warfighters, if not the equivalent of foreign legionnaires. America’s civilian embassies continue to morph into so many militarized fortresses protected by armed mercenaries. And above all, among policy arguments in Washington, whether you’re a civilian official or a military one, the choices are increasingly between militarized alternatives — say, counterinsurgency versus counterterror — with that most civilian of all options, peace, not even on that “table” where officials eternally claim that all options are placed.

At the same time, a new civic religion at whose heart is military-worship implores us to “support our troops” (without any concomitant call to uphold our laws and our Constitution). And even as ordinary Americans express serious doubts about the wisdom and cost of an open-ended commitment to Afghanistan — 64 percent of Americans don’t believe the Afghan war is worth fighting, and 73 percent would prefer sizable withdrawals of U.S. troops this summer, according to a recent Washington Post/ABC News poll — the Pentagon continues to prepare for a future of “two, three, many Afghanistans,” as Michael Klare, defense correspondent for the Nation magazine, noted in April 2010.

Clearly, if we’re not careful, the civilian and military will become the Washington equivalent of Siamese twins, co-joined at the head and, however bitter their internecine arguments, sharing the same underlying militarized thought processes.

Militarism Run Rampant

To separate such twins is a dicey thing, medically speaking, and no less so politically when the lines between civilian and military authority are being so rapidly erased. Make no mistake, as President Obama is wont to say, the impact of this erasure has been devastating.

It’s both sensible and logical to argue that our president and elected representatives must serve as a check on the military establishment, rather than issuing blank checks to them. It’s both sensible and logical to argue that all wars, as required by the Constitution, must have a Congressional declaration before American troops and treasure are committed. It’s both sensible and logical to argue that, as good as our military is, it ultimately can’t win someone else’s civil war (Iraq) or nation-build in a place where the concept of “nation” is little more than notional (Afghanistan).

Sensible and logical, yes, but such arguments have been made — and roundly ignored. They aren’t given the time of day among serious policy types in Washington, where to question the efficacy and legitimacy of the forces and tactics being used is simply not acceptable. Sharing one brain and one ethos means being incapable of grasping one’s own militarized rigidity or truly recognizing the perils that have been unleashed on this nation.

There’s a word for this disease, even if after all these years it remains remarkably foreign to American ears: militarism. When Americans think of that word, they tend to conjure up images of fanatical jackbooted Nazis or suicidal Japanese kamikazes, and so the concept seems eminently dismissible. But militarism also describes a situation in which a country’s civil society and political culture are permeated to the point of dominance by military attitudes and values — an undeniable fact of life, I would argue, in America today.

Militarists see war as productive, as offering solutions rather than posing problems. They see it as heroic. (President Bush famously waxed poetic about the “exciting” and “romantic” nature of fighting in Afghanistan.) When wars are romanticized as action-packed tests of a nation’s warriors, cuts to war spending are naturally seen as perfidiously unpatriotic — as kneecapping those same heroes. Hence our ever-growing “defense” budgets, even as a sledgehammer of a national debt hobbles America’s economic vitality and social security.

The end result of this militaristic mindset is a garrison state, constantly girding itself for national security crises, real or perceived, as in the last decade’s open-ended and frantic “war on terror.”

A singular danger of such a mindset, as pointed out by Laurence Radway in a telling article on “militarism” in the “International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences,” is that militarists, unable to select means appropriate to true defense needs, end up jeopardizing the very national security they say they’re seeking to safeguard. By exaggerating threats, defining all responses to those threats in military terms, dismissing dissenters as weak and deluded (even when they prove right), and being incapable of questioning their principles, they repeat the same mistakes again and again.

Until Americans turn away from militarism and learn again how to “support our Constitution” more than our troops (and don’t worry: those troops swear an oath to that very Constitution), until we return to a broader vision of national security that deemphasizes a garrison mentality, we will continue to wound, perhaps mortally, a once great republic.

And that’s no fairy tale, it’s a fact.

Continue Reading Close

William J. Astore is a retired lieutenant colonel. He has taught cadets at the U.S. Air Force Academy, officers at the Naval Postgraduate School, and currently teaches at the Pennsylvania College of Technology. He is the author of "Hindenburg: Icon of German Militarism," among other books. He may be reached at wastore@pct.edu.

Page 1 of 272 in Washington, D.C.