The American Empire just lost a war of revenge that took twenty years to accomplish nothing. We have an overly credentialed and under educated populace, a bloated and utterly inefficient government, and an insurmountable debt with nothing to show for it. Isn't it time we had a national moment of clarity?
On 28 August 2021, the American President made a pledge. He would keep sending drones to assassinate Afghans as long as the Taliban persisted in blowing things up near the airport in Kabul. Never mind the utter stupidity of retaliatory strikes while we still had Americans in Kabul, let alone American allies there waiting to escape. Did the American President really think on any level that this would deter anything? Could any human being be so dense?
This is obviously a rhetorical question because for a century now we have deluded ourselves into believing that bombs (or Napalm or strafing or incendiary devices or nuclear weapons or naive optimism or blue jeans) were going to bend the world to our way of thinking, whatever that way of thinking might be. Perhaps this was best summarized by French premier Georges Clemenceau at the conclusion of World War One when he griped, “Mr. Wilson bores me with his Fourteen Points; why, God Almighty has only 10!”
And please don't mistake me for a pacifist. I proudly served this country in the navy and would gladly do so again, and my ire is not directed toward our service members, civilian support, contractors, and native linguists who faithfully executed their duty. My ire is directed toward the misguided (and euphemistic) concept that invasions, hegemony, imperialism, and "nation building" are somehow "defense."
Our founders understood this dilemma well, which is why they eschewed the idea of having a standing army. As Elbridge Gerry once quipped: [TRIGGER ALERT] "A standing army is like a standing member. It's an excellent assurance of domestic tranquility, but a dangerous temptation to foreign adventure." And in nearly two and a half centuries, his observation has borne fruit, especially since the end of the Second World War. Likewise President Eisenhower's warning about a "military/industrial complex" which has yielded a bumper crop of prescience as well.
As a classic Jeffersonian liberal, these "foreign adventures" concern me greatly. Not only because they are expensive and inhumane, but more so because they are ultimately futile as our most recent escapade in Afghanistan underscores. Have any doubts? Let's take an inventory: Cuba: not so good; Haiti: not so good; Venezuela: not so good, Vietnam: not so good, Korea: not so good (split decision), all of Central America save Panama and Costa Rica: not so good. In fact, much as I dislike our current Vice President, her assessment of our problems on the Mexican border is not entirely incorrect. Our willy-nilly shell game in that region has left it far worse-off then when the Spanish left, and that says an awful lot.
And we can carry this inventory onward into the Middle East... Iran: not so good, Iraq: not so good, Saudi Arabia: not so good. See the pattern?
In fact, considering the amount of money the American people have spent on foreign aid and foreign war, the world should be a far happier place. Right? I mean ever since Woodrow Wilson we've been, "making the world safe for democracy." But somehow the world is not much more "democratic" than it was 100 years ago, and you would be hard pressed to convince me that it's any "safer." Oh yes. we have a lot of countries that call themselves "democracies" or "republics" but are they really? I have more respect for the Caliphate of Afghanistan, at least they're not disguising what they are (a tribal theocratic oligarchy) by calling themselves a "democracy" or a "republic."
It's tempting to blame this current debacle on the present administration (and in some specific particulars it is certainly blameable in the extreme) but where does the core blame belong? Who is ultimately responsible for the way we have behaved and justified our behavior? In a republic that would be us. It's tempting to shift blame to nebulous politicians and shadowy conspiracies, but the simple fact of the matter is this; not only are we responsible for these atrocities, we have actively encouraged them.
In a few days we will be reflecting upon the attacks of September 11, 2001. When that travesty occurred (and it was a dire travesty on so many levels) our first reaction as a country was revenge. This is natural of course; we were snookered and innocent civilians died. But had it not been us and had that not been the case, the comedic opera quality of the whole tragedy would have been worthy of Gilbert and Sullivan. A civil engineer working out of a cave half a planet away, brings down two skyscrapers in the largest, most powerful city in the world's most powerful nation; this despite thousands at work at the NSA, thousands at work at the CIA, thousands at work at the FBI, and thousands at work in the intelligence agencies of our client states, all of whom get huge chunks of foreign aid. Our air force flew in the wrong direction; we had no idea where to put the president; the Vice President was effectively running the country, and the only success of the day was when private citizens on a plane ignored thirty years of federal guidelines to "not interfere with hijackers" to interfere with their hijackers and most likely saving the U.S. Capitol building in the process.
We as American's have to ask ourselves whether "security" of this caliber is really worth the price we pay for it. According to Macrotrends the defense budget in 2001 was $331,810,000,000.00 and in 2019 it was $731,750,000,000.00. In 2001 we lost two and 1/3 buildings and in 2021 we have lost a war that cost us $300,000,000.00 per day to execute as estimated by Forbes Magazine, with more expenses to come. What was our return on this investment? It seems nothing, sadly.
If the shear financial loss involved in this war were not enough to give us pause, the comedic opera sequel that transpired with our withdraw from it certainly should. Spending more than twice on defense than we spent in 2001, with even more intelligence, better technology, and scores of staff; we had no plan for refugees, no plan to extract billions of dollars worth of equipment, no plan to extract civilians, no plan to secure an airfield, and were utterly "perplexed" that the "terrorists" we were protecting Afghanistan from for nearly two decades, retook the entire country in a matter of days.
It's hard to say which base emotion has been more of our undoing in all this: raw vengeance or blind arrogance. We have always had a certain measure of arrogant swagger and with good reason. Americans accomplished more in a century than some empires have in four. We conquered a continent, prosecuted and survived a civil war, established strong banking and industry alongside our formidable agricultural and mineral resources, and somehow managed to assimilate various diverse immigrant groups without having them kill themselves or others. We built hundreds of cities where none existed, established respectable arts, music and letters, and became a pop culture icon for the world.
The raw vengeance issue however, is something new and ugly, and it permeates every level of our collective psyche. We are no longer a people who value liberty and tolerance. We apply relativism to both as each individual sees fit, and frame this tyranny as liberty. Because when liberal values become relative, tyranny is quick to rush in. Our founders (especially the Jeffersonian ones) thoroughly understood this as well. That is why they put together a republic with a highly checked central government that in the same 100 years since we've been making the world "safe for democracy" we have also been systematically unraveling with an ever expanding central government.
This is in no way coincidental in my opinion. Big governments need big problems to justify their actions (and their perpetuation), and vengeance is an easy emotion to tap to support both. In some cases (World War Two is an excellent example) this is necessary and even desirable. Fascism was an existential threat to us and our allies, and the vengeance unearthed and channeled after Pearl Harbor was the boost Roosevelt needed to un-stick the car of state from isolationist mud and help save the world.
But the problem with vengeance is it's addictive and hard to contain once you uncork it. Once you inure a population to hate, suspicion and outrage, you have to ever increase the dose to get an equal or better result. And that's where we are now. Think for a moment how the thread of vengeance runs through every part of our lives from sports team rivalries to politics. We are so inured to it, that our neighbors, our kid's teachers, random celebrities, family members, and bosses are all caught up in a series of vengeful (and reciprocally cross-vengeful) webs of acrimony. As a representative republic it's only logical that our elected leaders (and their political parties) follow our lead. If we demand vengeance they will gleefully provide it in return for our votes, no matter how expensive, futile or ill-advised that vengeance may be.
As a country who has spent a lot of time and treasure on vengeance with nothing to show for it, it's probably time we take a step back and look at ourselves objectively and critically. What made America exceptional in the first place? For me there are several things, none of which are vengeance. My America believes in capitalism and for me capitalism is in the vein of Jefferson and Franklin not Alexander Hamilton. My America is a land of entrepreneurs and homeowners where there is a very tiny proletariat (if at all) and a liberally-educated population; not a proletariat nation of salaried wage earners who are collectivist-educated for a particular skill to be cogs in a multinational or multi-governmental machine. And these differences matter.
A liberally educated population is harder to control and whip into sacrificing their property for random acts of violence, and one that owns its land and businesses even more so. A proletariat however, dependent on wages and/or government largess, has a very deep and vested interest in random violence. War and crisis are more than just vengeance and "defense,"they are bread and butter. Likewise, a technically rather than liberally educated person, also has a strong interest in industries related to their function. If those industries and functions are tied to perpetual warfare, hegemony for foreign markets or resources, or just projection of strength, you can see the challenge that unfolds in ending warfare.
But we cannot turn back to my America until we abandon the one we are in now. We can't rediscover our exceptionalism by sending robotic bombs to kill women and children who have no idea what's going on, or any say whatsoever in the governance of their country. We can't return to my America if we seek to impeach every president of an opposing political party for the sake of impeachment. We can't return to my America if we spend millions on Congressional hearings that uncover nothing but sound bytes, and meanwhile distract Congress from reading bills drafted to borrow and spend trillions of dollars. If we want to "build nations" let us do so like Jefferson envisioned, by encouraging a "free association of republics" from one end of this hemisphere to the other; or as Ronald Reagan envisioned, by being "the shinning city on the hill." These are noble aims worthy of a great republic. These are causes worth fighting for.
Comments