The Trustbuster

by Joel Woodman

*The following text was adapted from my upcoming book, The Paradox of Grace.
* All the images below were taken at the AUSA Defense Expo 2007.

In the United States today, the residual impact of the Cold War has created several notable manifestations, most significant among them has been the formation and the perpetuation of what Dwight D. Eisenhower called the “Military Industrial Complex”. In his farewell address in 1961, President Eisenhower contended, with an amazing sense of prophetic wisdom, “That our military organization today bears little relation to that known by any of my predecessors in peacetime, or indeed by the fighting men of World War II or Korea.” Eisenhower extended his argument by saying,”

“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 now 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 more than the net income of all United States corporations. This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience… We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications.

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.”(1)

Above all, Eisenhower proposed a balance between liberty and security, between practical military necessity and the establishment of global garrisons and the formation of a massive armaments industry to support that structure. But by the start of the twenty-first century, Eisenhower’s strident warning has been largely ignored, and the US is now spending more on defense than the next fifty countries combined, and adjusted for inflation, the Pentagon’s budget is “12 percent larger than the average defense budget of the Cold War era.”(2) U.S. military bases can be found on every continent, with 969 domestic installations and more than 725 foreign bases in 38 countries.3 In 2005, U.S. military personnel both domestically and worldwide totaled 1,840,062, plus an additional 473,306 Defense Department civil service employees and 203,328 local hires. According to the Pentagon, U.S. overseas bases encompassed more than 687,347 acres and 29,819,492 acres worldwide.(4)

Since the end of WWII, the United States has evolved into a highly militaristic nation, ultimately spawning and accepting the presence of a perpetual “national security state”. During his farewell address, Eisenhower charged the task to, “statesmanship to mold, to balance, and to integrate these and other forces, new and old, within the principles of our democratic system – ever aiming toward the supreme goals of our free society.” But over time the external threat of communism and the internal preservation of the defense apparatus became incredibly immense and influential, and as author William Greider has pointed out, “At every level of society, institutions of every kind accepted and adapted to the imperatives of the Cold War struggle.”(5) That struggle and the extreme level of complicity, has over time created what has been dubbed the “Iron Triangle”, a deep- rooted relationship between the US congress, the defense industry and the military leadership, which make up the “three power centers that interact to reinforce their mutual interests: jobs, contracts, and new weaponry.”(6)

In recent years, the so-called Iron Triangle has evolved into a “revolving door” of politicians and military personnel coming and going through various facets of the defense industry. The most apt example of this perfectly legal collusion can be illustrated by the career of the Vice President of the United States, Dick Cheney. Following Cheney’s departure as Secretary of Defense in 1993, he quickly moved into the private sector and became the CEO of Halliburton. By the end of Cheney’s five-year tenure at Halliburton, the company advanced from seventy-third to eighteenth on the Pentagon’s top list of government contractors. Halliburton’s subsidiary Kellogg Brown & Root (KBR) doubled its government contracts from $1.2 Billion to 2.3 Billion.(7) Cheney increased his personal net worth to over $50 million, and then strolled back into government as a public servant, assuming the role of Vice President.(8)

During the Cold War, the role of the defense contractor was primarily one of developing an abundance of hi-tech weaponry to counter the threat of the Soviet arsenal. Although the development of new and expensive weapons still exists, the role of the defense contractor today simply does not resemble that of the past. Since the end of the first Gulf War, the US government has begun to support the presence of “defense services” suppliers, and private “for hire” mercenary and “diplomatic security” groups. As of 2007, there were “more than 630 war contracting companies working in Iraq for the United States”. During the 1991 Gulf War, the ratio of troops to private contractors was about 60 to 1. By 2007, the troop level of coalition forces in Iraq was outnumbered by the almost 200,000 private “contractors” working in the country.(9)

The contemporary methods of waging war in the United States are not what they once were, and the thought that wars are fought to “ostensibly improve the lives of citizens”, and the concept that during a war the “government should be the sole dispenser of funds, and the military should remain the sole recipient”, is simply not the case.(10) Much like the transformation of the American citizen-soldier, the influence of private security and military service companies drastically redefines the militaristic image traditionally espoused by the United States. It illustrates the sea change in military policy and highlights the inherent contradiction between the benign use of “free market dynamics”, and the more repugnant act of “war profiteering”.(11)

After the fall of the Soviet Union, the United States could have drastically reduced its military budget, vacated the American bases in places like Korea and Italy, and cajoled the influence of the “Iron Triangle” and its “revolving door”. Instead the United States, “is doing everything in its considerable powers to perpetuate Cold War structures, even without the Cold War’s justification… They have become striking evidence, for those who care to look, of an imperial project that the Cold War obscured.”(12) In this respect, the United States’ invasion of Iraq in 2003 was merely the logical outgrowth of previous foreign policy decisions, which in turn acted as the necessary catalyst to reinvigorate and revitalize the defense apparatus for the next century.

For most Americans, the relationship with the “Military Industrial Complex appears distant, or in most cases completely unacknowledged as a central component of the American way of life. Most of us are completely ignorant to the inner workings of this elite and salient facet of American society, and most often we participate as bystanders casually observing the chaos that the business of war mandates all over the globe. The immense scope and nature of its ilk makes the task of viewing the “Military Industrial Complex” in action very difficult to say the least; but through the course of researching my upcoming book, The Paradox of Grace, I was able to attend one of the largest defense industry conventions accessible to the public.

The Association of the United States Army (AUSA), hosts an annual meeting & exposition to showcase above all, “The Strength of the Nation”. With an array of lectures, demonstrations and more than 420 exhibitors encompassing all three halls of the Washington Convention Center, a space roughly the width of 8 football fields, the AUSA expo is the world’s largest land power forum. The overwhelming size of the event only serves to reinforce its focus of “The Strength of the Nation”, which is branded throughout the space, along the walls, hanging from the ceiling, and acting as the screen saver at the multiple email kiosks throughout the hall. The floor of the convention center is much like that of a casino, with tantalizing bells and whistles demanding your immediate attention. Your senses are overloaded by the abundance of LCD screens, constant chatter, and the assortment of technological advancements in weaponry. It becomes clear almost immediately how the United States can spend more on defense, than most of the world combined.

From this perspective, the defense industry appears to be like any other, in the sense that it is merely working to preserve its existence and to turn a profit. The general nature of the convention can be characterized by the same criteria as a car show, the principle difference being that this particular industry thrives on the destruction of others. Men and women bear nametags and smiles, extending hands and exuding confidence in hopes of the next connection. But the pleasantry and familiarity present at the convention is perhaps its most disturbing characteristic, and you get the impression that what everyone is selling is perhaps the last thing on their mind. There are of course very few images of actual war and the destruction that the enormous collection of new technology and arms could ultimately illicit. The general presentation at the convention is pristine, unsoiled, and lacks what can be best described as the human element.

In the end, the business of war making is not so dissimilar from that of any other business enterprise. On its face, the defense industry suffers from greed, vanity, and an expected arrogance that comes with any industry in demand. In 2006, The Institute for Policy Studies calculated that the top 34 CEOs in the defense industry have earned a combined billion dollars since 9/11(13), and the so- called “War on Terror” and the subsequent occupation of Iraq, is expected to cost over $3 Trillion (14). So as I ascended up the escalator on the last day of the convention, I was not surprised to hear in the background, the sound of a vocal group dressed in desert fatigues, overcome with glee and chanting, “there’s no time for losers… because we are the champions…of the world”.

Citations:

1. Eisenhower Fair Well Address. January 17, 1961. Entire address can be heard at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5pWAGgLSCSQ&feature=related
2. Andrew Bacevich. The New American Militarism. p.17
3, 12. Chalmers Johnson. The Sorrows of Empire. p. 154, p.5
4. Chalmers Johnson. 737 U.S. Military Bases = Global Empire. Excerpt from “Nemesis: The Last Days of the American Republic. Taken from Alternet.com. http://www.alternet.org/story/47998/
5, 6. William Greider. Fortress America. Intro- p. 56
7, 10, 11. Dan Briody. The Halliburton Agenda. p.211, 183- 184
8. Forbes.com staff. History’s Highest-Priced Ticket. Forbes Magazine. 07.06.04. http://www.forbes.com/compensation/2004/07/06/cx_0706presidents.html)
9. Jeremy Scahill .The Mercenary Revolution. August 15, 2007. http://www.zmag.org/znet/viewArticle/14711
13. Robert Scheer. Cashing In on Terror. Oct 30, 2007.. http://www.thenation.com/doc/20071112/truthdig
14. Joseph Stiglitz and Linda Bilmes. The Three Trillion Dollar War. The Times. February 23,2008. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article3419840.ece.

by Joel Woodman

For months Barack Obama has insisted that, “Change is coming to America.” Obama’s opponents have suggested that the use of this term resembles nothing more than a shallow political platitude, and they emphasize the fact that this verbal abstraction has been previously employed by a number of Republican and Democratic candidates alike. There is a bit of truth to these claims, but I do believe Barack Obama has the capability to initiate a shift in this country away from the willful illusions that have plagued this nation for more than 30 years. So much has been made of his call for change, that the discussion of his strongest quality has taken a back seat in the political debate. His visions for change are certainly worth our attention, but in my humble opinion, the United States needs to first change the perception of itself, if it has any chance to change its course. I believe Barack Obama has an innate quality that all the other political candidates running for President do not have. That difference is simply in his image.

It must be noted that Hillary Clinton also represents an obvious shift in the American image, but this I feel is overshadowed by her political legacy as a Clinton. Consider for a moment that if Hillary Clinton is elected President, a member of the Bush or Clinton family will have continually occupied the White House for almost 3 decades. New York Times columnist, Nicholas Kristof has made note of this, and points out that if Hillary Clinton were to be elected, “about 40 percent of Americans will have lived their entire lives under a president from one of these two families.” In light of this, the United States has certainly had a history of political dynasties (Adams, Roosevelts, Kennedys), but as U.S. News columnist Michael Barone has noted, “John Quincy Adams was elected president 24 years after his father had been defeated and as a candidate from a different party”, and Franklin D. Roosevelt was elected 14 years after the death of his distant cousin Teddy. Hillary Clinton’s image is more than just the latest example of political dynasticism, it appears that she and her husband are operating under the assumption that Hillary has somehow earned the position of Commander in Chief, and that it’s simply the Clinton’s turn back in the White House to finish what they started.

The importance of image in politics is not an original concept, but in the case of Barack Obama, I believe it deserves some added attention. Atlantic Monthly writer Andrew Sullivan points out that what Obama offers, “first and foremost- is his face. Think of it as the most effective potential re-branding of the United States since Reagan.” To understand why image was so “central” to Ronald Reagan, we need to travel back to the late 70’s, and illustrate the story of a country still reeling from the loss of Vietnam, in the midst of a recession, and crippled by an uncertain future. In 1979, President Jimmy Carter, in his now infamous “Crisis of Confidence” speech insisted that,

“What you see too often in Washington and elsewhere around the country is a system of government that seems incapable of action. You see a Congress twisted and pulled in every direction by hundreds of well-financed and powerful special interests. You see every extreme position defended to the last vote, almost to the last breath, by one unyielding group or another. You often see a balanced and a fair approach that demands sacrifice, a little sacrifice from everyone, abandoned like an orphan without support and without friends.”

He concluded that:

“First of all, we must face the truth, and then we can change our course. We simply must have faith in each other, faith in our ability to govern ourselves, and faith in the future of this Nation. Restoring that faith and that confidence to America is now the most important task we face. It is a true challenge of this generation of Americans.”

Carter’s speech highlights the fact that the United States has perpetually suffered from the same afflictions for many years; we are simply very good at prolonging the malady. Carter realized that the foreign policy of United States created a militaristic disaster in Vietnam, a host of geopolitical liabilities around the globe, and in turn those mistakes had spawned substantial domestic instability. He believed that if the country would be able to rebound from this unfortunate reality, it would require a new look at ourselves. This shift would ultimately facilitate a move away from the conventional wisdom and demand an element of personal sacrifice on the domestic front. But to his presidential challenger Ronald Reagan, the United States was simply in the midst of what he called, the “Vietnam Syndrome”, an era defined by extraneous feelings of remorse and uncertainty about the American image. In his book, The New American Militarism, Andrew Bacevich has noted that, “Carter came to view that funk as an expression of a new reality, to which Americans had little choice but to adapt themselves. To others the sour mood enveloping the country suggested opportunity… All that was required was a figure astute enough to recognize that opportunity…Ronald Reagan was such a figure.”

Today it is not uncommon for the image of Ronald Reagan to be viewed as one of national idolatry, and for many conservatives he represents the embodiment of American idealism and a reminder of nobility that defined the post WWII period and the formative years of the “baby boom” generation. It was believed that behind his potent, ebony- colored eyes laid a sanguine vision and a distant wisdom that seemed to pierce through the morose period of the post Vietnam era. Above all, Ronald Reagan was a consummate Cold Warrior and feared that the post Vietnam era might be defined by a lack of interest in the US policing of the world from Communist aggression, thus creating widespread opposition to future US military intervention abroad. With this in mind, Reagan facilitated a reformation of the American War in Vietnam narrative, in hopes of redefining it as not a “tragedy”, but “in truth, a noble cause”. Following Reagan’s victory over President Carter, Reagan proclaimed, “The era of self-doubt is over… Let friend and foe alike be made aware of the spirit that is sweeping across our land, because it means we will meet our responsibility to the free world.”

As a career actor, Reagan played the role of American spokesperson quite well and successfully reestablished the image of the noble superpower back into the national psyche. By reframing the post Vietnam era he disabled future generations from understanding that the United States left Vietnam to find itself politically, morally and economically bankrupt at home. The inability to recall that history allowed the US to continue its global hegemonic desires for the next 30 years, ultimately fueling the kind of thinking that propelled the United States into its most current conflict in Iraq. It has taken over 3 decades for the country to be reacquainted with a moment that exposes this reality, the only question now is: Will this nation choose to embrace the truth, or will it continue in its willful self-delusion?

Flashing forward to January 3rd of this year, Presidential hopeful John McCain, when asked about President Bush’s insistence on the presence of US troops in Iraq for “another 50 years”, McCain responded by saying, “why not make it a hundred?” He went on to remind the crowd that the US has maintained military bases in Korea since WWII. McCain asserted that, “it would be fine with me” to maintain bases in Iraq as long as American troops were not being harmed. McCain represents what journalist Matt Taibbi has called, “the last great illusion the Republican party has left to sell in this country.” McCain’s message of “Onward to Victory” represents an idea born out of the Cold War- that our intentions abroad are still defined by an inherent sense of nobility and righteousness. Taibbi points out that John McCain’s candidacy is a “referendum on America’s fantastic self-image when it comes to our use of force. He is offering voters the chance to re-litigate these failures (both militarily and morally) in Vietnam and Iraq.”

It must be said that I have quite a bit of respect for John McCain. I have personally visited the prison in which he was confined and tortured for over 5 years in Vietnam, and any man that could endure such hell deserves respect from us all. But with all due respect, John McCain represents the wrong image of America. That image only serves as a catalyst for anti-Americanism abroad; it implies that the preservation of our national security state is still warranted; and most importantly, it justifies the notion that American militarism must remain at the core of our national ethos.

Like Reagan, Obama has the potential to “re-brand” the current geo-political situation for the United States and for the rest of the world. Only this time the message will not be uttered from the mouth of a political thespian and its outcome will not be one of military escalation and the continuation of an historical fantasy. His name is Barack Hussein Obama, and he is the son of an African Muslim. Obama’s face is, above all, black; and as Andrew Sullivan has noted, “If you wanted the crudest but most effective weapon against the demonization of America that fuels Islamist ideology, Obama’s face gets close. It proves them wrong about what America is in ways no words can.” If given the opportunity, Barack Obama has the greatest potential of any candidate to change the tide in a sea of anti-Americanism abroad. His face alone makes him accessible to parts of the world that have largely gone uncharted by past American presidents. With this access he could actually influence the moderate voices in the Islamic world; who until this point have remained in opposition to US foreign policy for obvious reasons associated with the current administration. He represents the hope that a generation from now, young Muslims will no longer deem it necessary to sow the seeds of hatred against the “Great Satan” or rally against the destructive influence of American hegemony.

Domestically speaking Barack Obama has the message and sincerity of Jimmy Carter, but possesses the strength of image reminiscent of Ronald Reagan. With this ability, perhaps Obama can inspire a generation of Americans to create what Martin Luther King called a “decent America”: nation that embraces hope instead of fear. A nation that acknowledges the ruinous momentum of its foreign policy. A nation that understands the degree to which our institutions of economics and government have been undermined. A nation that recognizes that the prosperity of its people can also be measured by the strength of its education and the health of its citizens. A nation that embraces its empathetic ethos and not the selfish nature of its character. And lastly, a nation that will one day afford its children an opportunity to view the succession of American Presidential faces with a sense of gratitude, and that they will be able to clearly recognize when the American shift began toward a better future.

Will this country allow Barack Obama the opportunity to change the image of the United States? Is he the kind of person that can unite this country around his image and initiate something different, something that can break through the divisive walls that reinforce our current national self-concept? Are we at a point in our society where we can hear a bit of truth and not respond with willful disdain? Or is it inevitable that all great powers eventually fall from grace while the people continue to delude themselves as to the causes of their national hardships, and scoff at those who insist on amending the course? The answer is of course unknown at this point, but one has to hope. That is after all why people bother to vote, go door to door, and give what little they have in support of someone they will never meet. It is hope that sustains me today in this dismal time in America. A vote for Obama is above all, a vote for hope.

by Joel Woodman

“And so when thirty years from now our brothers go down the street without a leg, without an arm, or a face, and small boys ask why, we will be able to say “Vietnam” and not mean a desert, not a filthy obscene memory, but mean instead where America finally turned and where soldiers like us helped it in the turning.”
(John Kerry- Senate Foreign Relations Committee Hearing, 1971.)

“This is a fact: The final lesson of Vietnam is that no great nation can long afford to be sundered by a memory.”
(George H.W. Bush- Inaugural Address, 1989.)

The 41st President of the United States, George HW Bush became the first US president to refer to the war in Vietnam during his Inaugural Address. The message was clear that day: the American War in Vietnam was a distant memory too disparaging and divisive to acknowledge any longer. Almost 17 years later, Bush’s announcement has largely come true.

So this past Veteran’s Day, as our nation organized its efforts in favor our most current conflict, it was no surprise to read in the Boston Globe that several members of the Vietnam Veterans Against the War (VVAW) had been removed from the parade following their protest. A week later I picked up a copy of the Santa Barbara Independent to find an article written by Steve Crandall, President, Central Coast Chapter of VVAW. He described how, groups like the Vietnam Veterans Against the War and the Veterans for Peace were asked to provide military or veteran identification should they want to join in the parade. They were not, however, permitted to display “politics,” symbols, banners, or other clothing identifying pacifist groups.” He went on to describe the parade further by saying, “So who were the people marching in the Veteran’s Day Parades throughout the country? They were the groups that believe they are the only ones who hold patriotism at the highest level. They do not question the atrocities of war and they do not insist on oversight of veteran’s rights. They march to the beat of the Commander in Chief because to do anything else would be unpatriotic.”

Our relationship to the American War in Vietnam now appears distant behind the government purview, through the lenses of Hollywood reenactments, at backyard barbecues with family members who were “in the war but don’t like to talk about it”, and by a homeless man outside the drug store with a sign that reads, “Vietnam Vet . . . Served my country for you, now help me.” Vietnam veterans, “stand as isolated from history today as they were from their contemporaries back home when they were in Vietnam . . .their absence from the historical stage made room for a stunning rewriting of history. The very real image of angry vets marching together to oppose the war in which they fought was replaced by a make-believe image of the solitary, forgotten vet being spat on by peace activists.“[1]

Few people realize the scope and nature of the protest that went on inside the military during the American War in Vietnam. In fact a 1975 survey showed that, “75 % of Vietnam vets opposed the war.”[2] Some men returned home wanting to go back, others sought to restore some semblance of a previous life, but for many, their experience in Vietnam had changed them in a profound way. As the “search and destroy” missions increased and “body counts” continued to drive military policy, a real sense of disillusioment within the military began to swell.

In 1971 the government reported that, “15,000 young men refused induction, 100,000 failed to appear for physicals, and local draft officers had sustained 190 attacks. For every 100 GI’s, 17 had gone AWOL and 7 had deserted: one- quarter of the military had walked off the job, the highest rate ever.”[3]

While Pentagon insider Daniel Ellsberg and partner Anthony Russo began leaking information to the public about the true nature of the war, soldiers still on the ground understood all too well the policies set forth by Washington. Entire platoons refused orders and in drastic cases threw fragment grenades, better known as “fragging”, into the tents of their commanding officers. “Since the army did not start collecting data on fragging until 1967, and an unknown number occurred in battle, it is difficult to estimate how widespread such attempts were. By war’s end, however, between 800 and 1,000 fragging attempts were made using explosive devices alone…And the Defense Department speculated that more officers were killed by their troops’ rifle fire than grenades.”[4]

While the mainstream press fixated on the policy of the war-makers in Washington, GI’s returning home established their own underground press service focusing instead on the “life of the grunt”. Hundreds of these publications were circulated stateside on military bases and GI coffee houses. Still other publications such as Vietnam GI, sought a larger influence, and began sending copies overseas shipped in inconspicuous brown paper bags. Articles were often adapted from diary entries and cartoons spoke volumes about the inner contention between the “grunt” and the “brass”.[5]

The tone throughout the press movement was filled with complex emotions, often pragmatic and grappling with issues of race and class that seemed to follow them overseas from the farms, steel mills and the inner city. Reading through these pages you understand that a multitude of these men suffered from a deep sense of betrayal. The reality of witnessing or taking part in acts of rape, torture and murder of Vietnamese civilians as a part of military policy, caused scores of GI’s to not only dispute their role in the military, but challenge the very system they sought to protect. A pure and sacred part of them was removed by their experience in Vietnam. They were raised with a sense of moral righteousness and love for one’s country only to leave that identity behind in the ravaged countryside.

As one tours our nation’s memorials in Washington D.C., it becomes obvious how the United States would like to remember the American War in Vietnam. Its memorial takes on the most somber of tones, appearing close to the ground, echoing the silent loss of life. It acts as the antithesis to the recently constructed salute to the “good war” just down the reflecting pool. As you read through the 58,195 names on the black marble wall, the letters begin to muddle and a clear reflection peers back at you. The site of oneself in that context can be too much to bear and for many Americans who lived through the experience, perhaps the memorial represents a time they would just as soon forget.

Is this why we forget Vietnam? Is it the sense of loss that holds our memory in a historical asylum? I would like to think it’s that simple and for some people maybe it is. But this is not why Presidents have since shunned the word Vietnam. The pain is not why 1 in 4 homeless is a Veteran[6], why Vietnamese babies are still born without arms or legs or why more bombs were dropped on Vietnam than on Axis targets in all of WWII.

Perhaps it is what many GI’s coming home then knew all too well. I believe the root cause of our abandonment of the Vietnam legacy is the overwhelming sense of betrayal left by that war. The American War in Vietnam represented a violation of trust so great that the very essence of what the country represented was called into question. If we were to truly grapple with this idea, it would pressure us to frame it within a contemporary context. A concession on this matter would then highlight the fact that we did not learn much from our experience in Southeast Asia- that a foul torrent still flows through the White House and that our national virtuosity and grace can still be overshadowed by hubris, fear and aggression.

* This essay is adapted from my upcoming book, The Paradox of Grace. Several more adaptations from the book will appear on this blog highlighting past conflicts carried out by the United States and how those events have shaped the contemporary view of ourselves, and the role of the U.S. in the world.
______________________________________________________

1,3,5. Ostertag-Peoples Press, p.158-59
2. Lembcke, Spitting Image, p. 106.
4. Moser, The New Winter Soldiers, p. 48
6. USA Today- Veterans make up 1 in 4 homeless. 11/07/07